New York Times: "Fish seek cooler waters"

[Joey Dah Fish]

Originally Posted by reason162

The point of the article is that fish migration patterns are corresponding to climate change, and so the "senseless regulations" everyone complains about should take into account new migratory patterns, ie NC shouldn't have their traditional massive BSB allocations bc the biomass of BSB is now off the NJ coast.

Everyone, please, for the love of god, stop viewing every goddamned thing through your partisan lens. This is about incorporating new data ---- incontrovertible, scientific data ---- into current fisheries regulations to improve the overall framework. Denying reality doesn't keep it from affecting your world; it's real whether you believe it or not.

Keep dreaming the the government regulations will ever help anything.

[Joey Dah Fish]

Originally Posted by Blind Squirrel

Governments can and do address man-made global climate change and its results by first acknowledging the clear scientific evidence that it exists, and then by eliminating or reducing what's causing it. "Regulations and oh yeah taxes" have historically worked in matters like national security, transportation, and infrastructure, and along with industry incentives to research & develop sustainable energy, will gradually lessen our dependence on the fossil fuels producing the greenhouse gases responsible for climate change. The other option is to deny irrefutable science and do nothing until it's too late.

You're obviously not a scientist nor have they proved anything. The Glenn be has been changing temps since its existence. Remember the ice age and then the next ice age and so on. Just because you believe doesn't make it fact. That facts are this so called facts are theories and nothing more. I won't argue that there may be warming but after all nature has had that cycle for ions and no man or tax or government is going to stop it. Now that's a fact

[reason162]

Originally Posted by Joey Dah Fish

Keep dreaming the the government regulations will ever help anything.

So you think there shouldn't be ANY regulations on our fisheries?

[Joey Dah Fish]

Originally Posted by reason162

So you think there shouldn't be ANY regulations on our fisheries?

Not by the federal government

[reason162]

Originally Posted by Joey Dah Fish

Not by the federal government

Then by who? State governments? What's the difference?

I mean, fish don't respect borders. If a biomass encompasses several states' waters, then what: how are you going to effectively regulate w/o federal rules?

[NoLimit]

Originally Posted by reason162

Then by who? State governments? What's the difference?

I mean, fish don't respect borders. If a biomass encompasses several states' waters, then what: how are you going to effectively regulate w/o federal rules?

Whats the difference? There are many benefits:

1) You save money and reduce taxes by getting rid of a clueless bureaucrat in DC who is a political appointee and does more damage than good.

2) That person is then free to do something useful in society such as digging ditches or cleaning dumpsters

3) You actually help the fishery by getting people who actually live and breath with that industry and who will make the right decisions to insure its sustainability.

4) Everybody's blood pressure is reduced by not having to put up with this BS.

5) With an improved fishery, tackle shops flourish as do restaurants, boat dealers, motels, and the economy as a whole

Its a no brainer.

[Blind Squirrel]

Originally Posted by Joey Dah Fish

You're obviously not a scientist nor have they proved anything. The Glenn be has been changing temps since its existence. Remember the ice age and then the next ice age and so on. Just because you believe doesn't make it fact. That facts are this so called facts are theories and nothing more. I won't argue that there may be warming but after all nature has had that cycle for ions and no man or tax or government is going to stop it. Now that's a fact

I'm obviously not the topic here either; the NYT article cited in the OP is. Since you apparently didn't bother to read it, you'll probably be uninterested in the fact that it says nothing at all about taxing anyone, quotes a number of people who actually are scientists in relevant fields, and focuses on changes in regulatory protocols to reflect the significant shifts in marine species populations, for which it provides numerous examples backed by empirical data.
Any rational person who "won't argue that there may be warming" should also welcome sensible and effective fisheries regulations that reflect that new reality, whether he thinks "all nature has had that cycle for ions [sic] and no man or tax or government is going to stop it" or not. Nature has not cycled this quickly for eons or even once prior to the Industrial Age, and what man or tax or government can do to stop it was not addressed by the NYT article posted for our discussion.
Here again is the link to the Erica Goode/NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/sc...northeast.html
Becoming familiar with something before expressing an opinion on it is generally a good idea. Now that's a fact...

[bulletbob]

Originally Posted by reason162

So you think there shouldn't be ANY regulations on our fisheries?

There has to be in the modern age.. We are in agreement there.. Just too many people wanting too few fish.. You would have pinhookers pro and casual out there all day every day until there was nothing left and it wouldn't take long.. I read in a few different articles from 6-7 years ago that small live tog bring more than $10 a pound, legal or not... Human nature being what it is, there would be hundreds of guys trying to cash in.. We just can't have that any more.. Its a simple equation.. Too many people+ too few fish..

I don't like the regulations, I think they are unfair to many recs, but no regulations would be a disaster in this day and age.. Too many people have access to the time, knowledge, and equipment to completely decimate local populations of just about any fish that swims today.... bob

[bhackemup]

Originally Posted by fishguy

So, decades of established science means nothing to you guys? What other scientific facts do you disagree with in order to fit your world view?

Decades of established science once said, and was agreed to by most, that the world was flat.

[Blind Squirrel]

Originally Posted by bhackemup

Decades of established science once said, and was agreed to by most, that the world was flat.

How was that established?