You all need to be aware that there are now lobbyists for the commercial fishing industry registering on the fishing websites. Some of them are very persuasive. I feel their logic is flawed and try to debate their manipulation every chance I get. I and some others spent hours yesterday debating with one such lobbyist.
I want you folks to be able to recognize the pattern of some of these arguments in case you run across them. Don't merely wish violence upon comms, don't merely hold on to your anger....but please DO educate yourselves so you know what to say if you get sucked into one of these debates asking for "parity" for the Comm sector.
The pattern of the argument is this:
(Currently this form of argument is being used to get fisheries management to open NJ to Commercial striped bass fishing.)
1. Comm fisherman have been beaten up for too long, and the stringent regulations have been too heavily on their backs.
2. Comms are not killing most of the bass. The Recs are. (to some extent I agree with this, and there are threads on this site that go into more detail why).
But...I am in complete disagreement with any further advancement of this premise.
The lobbyists I mentioned skew the facts and manipulate the truth so their side's apathy for the longevity of a growing biomass is obscured.
3. Because of the Magnusson Stevens Act, many comms are demanding parity with rec anglers and say they have the right to catch striped bass the same as rec anglers do (It's a little more involved than this, folks, I'm just trying for a simple outline here)
4. They are manipulating and grandstanding, saying they represent all those in America who cannot fish but want to eat fish. They claim the fishing rights for those people should be represented by the Comms, and therefore they should be allowed to fish for striped bass everywhere, including the EEZ.
5. They are claiming that their mortality rate is far less than the rec mortality rate, and as such this "unfairness" should be addressed.
(The problem with this argument is that the figures represent when they have an observer on board - the mortality of fish brought in by trawler or bottom dragger is far greater when the observers are not on board, or in many other instances, such as high-grading, keeping prohibited species, etc. )
6. They are also "ashamed" that when they catch other species of fish, that they are "forced" by "idiot gov't regulations" to throw back dead striped bass. The gov't should just allow them to keep "a reasonable amount" of those dead bass discards, they claim, since they are dead anyway.
7. To bring things back to "parity", they argue they should be allowed to fish for striped bass in every state where it is currently prohibited. This is the only fair choice, they argue.
If you ever run across arguments like the above one, please try not to attack the ones who advance them. Instead, try to poke holes in their logic, respectfully and assertively.
Ignoring them won't help.
Engaging them to show others of their flawed logic....will.
This thing about them getting striped bass quota won't go away, folks. Every year at the marine fisheries hearings they bring this subject up and ask for consideration. So, merely getting angry at them solves nothing.
They are as persistent as those in the Pew Trust. Like those in the Pew Trust, we must learn not to ignore them or their agendas. Instead, those who care about the future of the resource should educate themselves and be willing to face them in any debate that arises.
Of course, there are those on those site and others who don't give a crap about this stuff and other fishing issues... they only want to fish and can't be bothered.
That's fine, no one is forcing you to care.
But please remember these words....the Pew Trust and Commercial fishing lobbying groups like the ones I described above....
are counting on your apathy.
Thanks for reading, people.
All comments welcome.