New York Times: "Fish seek cooler waters"

[reason162]

Originally Posted by bulletbob

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

Everyone agrees that there ought to be regulations, so the question is HOW those regulations are set. IMO, it should be based on disinterested science and data: not subject to pressure from comm or rec industries, and not PETA supporters either.

The problem is the lack of basic scientific literacy in this country today, in fact the anti-science attitude that somehow became legitimized and heralded as a form of political expression. This is insanity, and it's not limited to the right; the anti-vax nutjobs are almost exclusively west-coast libs...

Anyway, if people can't agree on basic principles of ecology, biology, and statistics, our fisheries are doomed.

[reason162]

Originally Posted by bhackemup

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

You mean to say that before the scientific method was invented, people assumed the world was flat.

[acabtp]

ok ok we get it, climate change tastes great AND is less filling.

let's just ban the commercial sale of fish and then distribute their quota to recreational. if you want to eat a fish, go catch it. i don't ever shop at a fish market, so from my perspective, problems solved.
i'm just kidding
or am i?

[Gerry Zagorski]

If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail....

The meaning here is you can find data to support whatever it is you are looking for... If investigating global warming or managing fisheries....

If you are being paid to manage a fishery then you'll get data to support the fact that it needs to be managed.

If you are a scientist being paid to assess global warming or a company that profits from it you'll find data to support it.

It's human nature.

I'm not saying that fisheries don't need to be managed or global warming is not taking place. What I'm saying is there is evidence on both sides but the evidence that supports anything counter to a particular groups agenda is not being taken into account.

[Blind Squirrel]

Originally Posted by reason162

Everyone agrees that there ought to be regulations, so the question is HOW those regulations are set. IMO, it should be based on disinterested science and data: not subject to pressure from comm or rec industries, and not PETA supporters either.

The problem is the lack of basic scientific literacy in this country today, in fact the anti-science attitude that somehow became legitimized and heralded as a form of political expression. This is insanity, and it's not limited to the right; the anti-vax nutjobs are almost exclusively west-coast libs...

Anyway, if people can't agree on basic principles of ecology, biology, and statistics, our fisheries are doomed.

Not a West-Coast lib, and definitely lacking basic scientific literacy:
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
If I were President I would push for proper vaccinations but would not allow one time massive shots that a small child cannot take - AUTISM.
7:44 PM - 27 Mar 2014
1,348 1,348 Retweets 1,244 1,244 likes

Donald J. Trump Verified account
‏@realDonaldTrump
The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

Fishing regulations should be based on input from comm & rec industries, and PETA supporters, none of which is exclusive of the others.

[reason162]

Originally Posted by Blind Squirrel

Fishing regulations should be based on input from comm & rec industries, and PETA supporters, none of which is exclusive of the others.

Comm/rec industries are not "disinterested parties," and I suppose neither is PETA. I fail to see how their input should be taken into account IF the data is reliable. IMO it's pushing the science (including funding) that is in everyone's interest when it comes to conservation.

[reason162]

Originally Posted by Gerry Zagorski

I'm not saying that fisheries don't need to be managed or global warming is not taking place. What I'm saying is there is evidence on both sides but the evidence that supports anything counter to a particular groups agenda is not being taken into account.

Young-Earth Creationists use the "both-sides" argument when it comes to evolution too. They say "teach the controversy!" as if there is one (there's not).

What's really amazing to me is how successful the disinformation campaign has been on the part of climate change deniers. To muddy the waters to such an extent, in effect to align "regular folks" who will now bear the burden and pain of a ruined ecosystem, with the interests of Koch Industries and Exxon/Mobile...their success has been nothing short of astonishing.

[Blind Squirrel]

Originally Posted by reason162

Comm/rec industries are not "disinterested parties," and I suppose neither is PETA. I fail to see how their input should be taken into account IF the data is reliable. IMO it's pushing the science (including funding) that is in everyone's interest when it comes to conservation.

Sensible fishing and other regulations don't just exist in a vacuum; they're neither meaningful nor effective if they're not based on reliable data as well as input from interested parties.

[reason162]

Originally Posted by Blind Squirrel

Sensible fishing and other regulations don't just exist in a vacuum; they're neither meaningful nor effective if they're not based on reliable data as well as input from interested parties.

Agreed, but what I see is an emotional outcry from interested parties who reject the science, along with paid lobbyists who harness this energy to pressure the rule-makers.

Surely the science has to take priority?

[Blind Squirrel]

Originally Posted by reason162

Agreed, but what I see is an emotional outcry from interested parties who reject the science, along with paid lobbyists who harness this energy to pressure the rule-makers.

Surely the science has to take priority?

Finding and delegating truly disinterested parties to any policy-making decision affecting everyone is essentially impossible, and all voices have to be heard in a democratic system. Real science wins out in the end, one way or the other...