Posted by finfan on December 17, 2002 at 16:19:16:
In Reply to: Re: It's a matter of outlook posted by Brad on December 16, 2002 at 18:01:02:
I don't know if I could validily argue with you that the collapse of any fishery is due to pollution and not fishing. My arguement or belief is based more on fishing being maybe the final straw that broke the camels back. The act that trigger the ultimate collapse, but not the only contributor to the collapse.
Remember I believe stronger that it is a combination of things and I just think pollution and sediments created through development started the downfall. We could very well be arguing the question of what comes first the chicken or the egg. I would agree that pollution or sediments washed onto our local reefs have not destroyed the fishing, but I do think they had a hugh impact on the sardine, anchovy, squid and smelt populations along our coasts. Impacts to the forage that most rockfish rely upon. Limited food with poor breeding habitat that has been silted over in my thinking equals reduced fish stocks. Maybe not total fish kill-off, but I know in any controlled environment that if there is no take and the food source is slower reduced, first you see the fish stunted in their growth and eventually only the strongest survive on the dimished food stocks. Add fish take not properly managed and ..... well we both know what it's like now.
I don't think it is coincidental that the halibut and seabass have come back strong with the return of the sardine stocks. I'm sure that the reduced size and take limits had a big role also in that, but still think the increase in bait had a major role.
My view on the fishing industry is this - they may well have seen or realized the impact, but when someone only knows one thing all their life, knows no other skills and has a family to support or feed can you really blame him for harvesting. That's why my anger is so focused towards DFG. I say don't blame the person trying to support a family, blame the agency whose responsibility it is to manage their take through proper regulations. After all could you honestly tell me you would stop harvesting if your family depended on it for their economic survival? I wouldn't, but I would do it within the laws until I just couldn't survive doing it.
Poaching is another thing, take them out back in the ditch and do what ever you would like to them. I'm with you 100% there. I think by channeling so much anger towards the folks that follow the regulations, we only divide oursleves. Knowing how much you are against those that profit from the decimation of our local ocean resources, why not look at the one agency (DFG) that has been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to in essence mis-manage those take limits. We basically through our tax dollars and license fees pay people to continue to be incompetent year in and year out.
Truth be told, seems like both the takers and non-takers have a common b*tch against DFG for not properly managing the take rules. If they had there should be a healthy enough population to sustain both interests.
Perfect example - take the reg's on lobstering. Now I don't think any of us would argue it isn't like it use to be, say some 20 years ago. With the take remaining fairly consistent over the last decade, DFG believes they have the reg's in place to sustain the fishery at its current levels. Why not lower the take rules, say 5 a day instead of 7 and make it 3 1/2 inches instead of 3 1/4. Or even put a slot limit that anything over 5 inches can't be keep. How about just one over 5". I can't tell you the number of trips I've seen to Talcott, Cortes, Nic or even Clemente that a guy has returned with multiple bugs over 5". You've seen NIC, what do you think NIC would be like if those rules had been in effect years ago. Is DFG doing anything - absolutely not - the fishery is stable (at least in their viewpoint). I say the H*ll with stable improve it!
Post a Followup