Fishermen sound off on plan for commercial fishing permit system

My quote was, "...fishermen, sitting on the committees that formulate the regulations so any blaring errors can be discussed BEFORE they're in the Federal Register." I wasn't referring to the Council or Commission meetings; I guess it's easy to confuse all those "C" words...

Regrettably, as far as I can ascertain from attending the Council and Commission meetings over the internet, the PDT and Statistical Committees, etc., have few, if any stakeholders on them. As I'll continue to state, having primary stakeholders represented on the committees and teams that formulate and draft proposals for the Federal Register is far more efficient than pointing them out after the fact. Yes the Councils and Commissions approve the drafts before publication, but I'll stand behind my opinion that the earlier in the process that stakeholders are involved, the more efficient the process.

Most anglers, don't have a clue as how things actually work

Yes, because the decisions made by the so called educated marine biologists, don't have any foundation in logic and rational thought. Been to the meetings, understand the process, and its horse pucky.

My quote was, "...fishermen, sitting on the committees that formulate the regulations so any blaring errors can be discussed BEFORE they're in the Federal Register." I wasn't referring to the Council or Commission meetings; I guess it's easy to confuse all those "C" words...

Regrettably, as far as I can ascertain from attending the Council and Commission meetings over the internet, the PDT and Statistical Committees, etc., have few, if any stakeholders on them. As I'll continue to state, having primary stakeholders represented on the committees and teams that formulate and draft proposals for the Federal Register is far more efficient than pointing them out after the fact. Yes the Councils and Commissions approve the drafts before publication, but I'll stand behind my opinion that the earlier in the process that stakeholders are involved, the more efficient the process.

Keep digging yourself in deeper. None of those the PDT, Tech committee, etc, actually write any regulations. At worst they may make recommendations to the council or commission. The people who actually propose the regulations and vote on them are the councillors or commissioners who are in most cases fishermen. If you have actually listened to the meetings and paid attention you would have heard numerous fishermen, both members of the body and others from the public at large pointing out problems with the various proposals.

Yes, because the decisions made by the so called educated marine biologists, don't have any foundation in logic and rational thought. Been to the meetings, understand the process, and its horse pucky.

The only "decisions" made by the "educated marine biologists" are the setting of the OFL, ACL, etc. i.e. the amount of fish that can be caught. And that's because the law, e.g. the Magnesson-Stevens Act requires it.

Oh I do listen and hear things like "The PDT/Statistical Committee will tell us how to best do this" all the time. Yes the Council/Commission formulate/approve the proposed regulations for publication in the Federal Register, BUT they do that using the info/proposals from the various committees. Once again, why not put some stakeholders on the committees, instead of having them populated with folks who probably couldn't distinguish a mako from a porbeagle, or worse yet a striper from a white perch???

And if you give the answer, "Because that's the way it is", it will be a testament to the continuing abject failure of management of some species like striped bass over the years post the moratorium, right up there with the 50% probability rule. How many times has 50% worked? I bet it's a lot less than 50%. But a judge says that's the minimum acceptable probability so that's what the Councils should target?? Guess it's more of the "good enough for Government work" ethos and mentality. Would you bet your 401(k) on a 50/50 shot? I sure wouldn't. Past history suggests that it takes a fishery near to a total collapse to get the "Fishcrats" (Long Live Cap'n Perc Sane) to stop bickering, ignore their petty state agendas and look after the fishery.

Sometimes things have to be shaken up and heed paid to Einstein's observation, The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

The only "decisions" made by the "educated marine biologists" are the setting of the OFL, ACL, etc. i.e. the amount of fish that can be caught. And that's because the law, e.g. the Magnesson-Stevens Act requires it.

I understand that ....... along with this beauty which I was told more than once:

"we know its [SIZE=5]not the right thing to do, [/SIZE][SIZE=4]but we have no choice. We have to go by the best available data. "

What a load a crap.! They know the best available data is flawed, and they are "compelled" to use it anyway to make decisions that affect peoples lives. Like I said no foundation in logic and rational thought. [/SIZE]

I understand that ....... along with this beauty which I was told more than once:

"we know its [SIZE=5]not the right thing to do, [/SIZE][SIZE=4]but we have no choice. We have to go by the best available data. "

What a load a crap.! They know the best available data is flawed, and they are "compelled" to use it anyway to make decisions that affect peoples lives. Like I said no foundation in logic and rational thought. [/SIZE]

They're own numbers show its 50/50.

I understand that ....... along with this beauty which I was told more than once:

"we know its [SIZE=5]not the right thing to do, [/SIZE][SIZE=4]but we have no choice. We have to go by the best available data. "

What a load a crap.! They know the best available data is flawed, and they are "compelled" to use it anyway to make decisions that affect peoples lives. Like I said no foundation in logic and rational thought. [/SIZE]

That is what they are required to do by law. The Magnesson-Stevens act requires the NOAA/NMFS to make all of their decisions using "the best available science." If you don't like that ask your congressman and senators to change the law, but I suspect you won't get much support from anyone.

They're own numbers show its 50/50.

You're confusing two different management bodies George. The ASMFC, which manages striped bass, is using a 50% criteria, but they are not required to adhere to the Magnusson-Stevens act. If it was the feds the criteria would have to be, by law, different.

Oh I DO listen and hear things like "The PDT/Statistical Committee will tell us how to best do this" all the time. Yes the Council/Commission formulate/approve the proposed regulations for publication in the Federal Register, BUT they do that using the info/proposals from the various committees. Once again, why not put some stakeholders on the committees, instead of having them populated with folks who probably couldn't distinguish a mako from a porbeagle, or worse yet a striper from a white perch???

And if you give the answer, "Because that's the way it is", it will be a testament to the continuing abject failure of management of some species like striped bass over the years post the moratorium, right up there with the 50% probability rule. How many times has 50% worked? I bet it's a lot less than 50%. But a judge says that's the minimum acceptable probability so that's what the Councils should target?? Guess it's more of the "good enough for Government work" ethos and mentality. Would you bet your 401(k) on a 50/50 shot? I sure wouldn't. Past history suggests that it takes a fishery near to a total collapse to get the "Fishcrats" (Long Live Cap'n Perc Sane) to stop bickering, ignore their petty state agendas and look after the fishery.

Sometimes things have to be shaken up and heed paid to Einstein's observation, The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

You say you listen to the proceedings all the time but you don't even seem to know the difference between the councils and the ASMFC. Who manages striped bass? Hint it's not the councils and the body that does manage the striped bass is not bound by any rulings any federal judge has ever handed down. But don't let the facts get in the way of your ignorant rants.

How do you know whether or not the people on the councils' and commissions' staff are not "stakeholders"? Just because they have marine biology degrees doesn't mean they aren't fishermen. You re obviously woefully unaware of the expertise of these people. Remember we're not talking about some bureaucrat pushing paper in Silver Spring MD. we're talking about the folks who are "on the line" so to speak, actually dealing with the day-to-day data that goes into fishery management. Again a blatant display of your ignorance as to how the whole thing actually works. I know lots of the staff of both the councils' and the commission and almost to a man (or a woman) they are all recreational fishermen.

Seriously, If you really want to learn about how all of this stuff works, I suggest you take a course that is periodically put on by the Gulf of Maine Research Institute entitled "Fishery management for recreational fishermen," or something very similar. It's put on periodically in various locations and is designed to make dolts like you more aware of what is really going on.

This one has drifted far too away from original topic of potential changes to NY's Commercial License so I've nuked all extraneous posts. Let's stick on topic, it's an important topic for the future of all state licensees...