Posted on 01/15/2012 7:24:06 AM PST by bksanders
… Commercial fisherman Jonathan Robinson took issue with that. “Those resources belong to the public,” he said. “They’re not just exclusively for the rich, who can afford boats and trips to the coast. Commercial fishing is a channel that provides access to these resources for all the citizens — for the blacks in the cities and the poor working people in farm towns in North Carolina.”Commercial fisherman Chris McCaffity of Morehead City echoed his sentiment. “I recently had a disabled veteran thank me for defending his freedom to eat the fish he once caught himself,” McCaffity said.
Over the course of its next three meetings, the Marine Fisheries Committee also will be studying the impact of eliminating trawl boat fishing in North Carolina.
Foster said that would mean the end of shrimping in North Carolina, which he estimates makes up almost a quarter of the state’s commercial fishing industry. It also would eliminate much of the state’s flounder fishing. “It would wipe out all of the fishing communities on the west side of Pamilico Sound,” he said.
McCaffity is scheduled to speak at the next meeting of the Marine Fisheries Committee at 1 p.m. Feb. 2 on the third floor of the state legislative building. There was no public comment period at the first meeting.
(Excerpt) Read more at carolinajournal.com ...
He shipped 10,000 shad to the sacramento river and numerous other species into the nations rivers.
His fish farm in Caledonia still exists.
Releasing fingerlings inot our natural waterways is the way to go.
That argument strikes me as being not too far removed from the arguments of the New London case. The state can take your land if it will get them more revenue giving it to someone else, and they can do the same with your livlihood.
That’s an interesting point - farming the fingerlings and releasing them into the water ways. That could increase populations. Another thing that could help is an increase of structure off shore. Those created habitats can actually increase the food pyramid at all levels.
We need to increase the fish populations for the benefit of all types of fishing.
You are not trying very hard. Two huge gaping holes in your theory: FIRST In New London, they TOOK A GUYS PROPERTY. The ocean is NO ONE"S PROPERTY. What part of this is beyond your comprehension?
SECOND: It's not about government revenue: it's about increasing the opportunity for many more people in the private economy.
When the smelt ran at the Genesee outlet, my dad would be there and he sure knew how to cook them.
But the best will always be Walleye...from Canadian waters near Montreal.
It was indeed the good old days.
My hubby never ate fish until we went to Canada with my folks. Hell, he wanted them for beakfast after a while and loved every bite!!
The part where the ocean and the fish in it are "no one's property", yet they assume the authority to control it as if it was their property.
SECOND: It's not about government revenue: it's about increasing the opportunity for many more people in the private economy.
As long as the economy is taxed, more economic activity will result in more tax revenue. Unless you know what they were thinking when they wrote the regulations, whether it's about the economic activity or the taxes is speculation.
And these watermen have to give up their livelihood because some penthouse “sportsman” want’s to catch and release? I think not. I am a recreational fisherman, so I don’t depend on the catch to pay my mortgage.
You also have the left and right of it backwards.
You are obviously have a pro commercial fisherman agenda here and therefore are being too obtuse to follow logical conversation.
I do logic. I don’t do obtuse. I don’t do agenda.
Your class envy statement proves I have the left and right absolutely correct. “Penthouse sportsmen?” Really?
You don’t understand economies at all. The “penthouse” fishermen and their related activities pay a helluva lot more “mortgages” than you apparently realize, so blinded by your class envy you are.....
Gee what could go wrong
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/15/BAD11MJGGD.DTL
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/01/14/state/n132311S39.DTL
Beyond that, I do like some kinds of fish and appreciate that I can buy them at the store. If the only way to get those fish to eat is to go there and catch them yourself, then they appear to have effectively acted in restaint of interstate commerce in those fish. If every other state followed suit with all of their natural resources we'd soon be in a horrible shape.
Ok - then you totally misunderstand the issue. Being landlocked in Missouri, that is understandable. You probably have no idea how the interests of the commercial fishermen conflict with the issue of almost every other “family business” that would also like to simply “carry on making their living so that they can have going concerns for generations.”
What makes the interests of a few commercial fishermen superior to the interests of all the many many thousands of family businesses who will suffer if the sport fishing industry is dead? That’s the part of the equation that you don’t understand about coastal economies - again, understandable since Missouri doesn’t have a coastal economy.
That’s my point. The commercial fishery is dying due to over fishing, and taking the entire sport fishing industry down with it. Something must be done to save all of it. I do not know if this piece of legislation is right or not, but I do know this: this is not anything like a simple enviro left versus business right argument. This is nothing like a property rights versus bureaucrat issue. It just is not that simple.
Well, that's kind of a different kettle of fish (no pun intended) than how it was presented. The objective seemed to be simply to keep the economic activity associated with harvesting those fish entirely within the state as much as possible, and to make it as expensive as possible and require as many people as possible to be involved in the effort of harvesting those fish just to create that economic activity.
Sorry, no class envy here. I’ve just been around watermen most of my life, and have seen them screwed time and again by these bureaucrats.
The recreational industry simply has more money and political clout, and they use it.
Sorry, nice try. No one could possibly come up with ‘penthouse fisherman” without the class envy coursing through their veins.
Its in you and you don’t even realize it.
Whether it's accurate to describe the people who can afford that as "penthouse fishermen" or not may be debatable, but I can tell you that however you describe them, I won't be among them, so I simply won't be having any of your fish any more.
Thank you Ed, coming from you that would rate complimentary.
What’s really interesting to me is that commercial aquaculture has not taken off in a big way in the US which is somewhat surprising. The US helped pioneer industrial agriculture and food production and productivity has exploded, lowering food prices and increasing both the quantity, quality, and availability of nutritious food to everyone. Yet fishing remains the same today as it has for the last several thousand years of human history. Certainly people have better boats now and GPS guidance systems and sonar to help find fish, but the fundamentals are the same, men in a boat with a net.
Modern poultry, pork, and beef production differ vastly from pre-industrial practices and it’s well past time for fish production to catch up. Wild fish stocks are rapidly depleting and eventually everyone will be eating farm raised fish anyway so now is as good of a time as any to make the switch.
Whatever,Skippy
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.