Bad Fish News

one issue that is often overlooked however is that money is not the only goal.  Power or control is also valuable currency so while the corperations do rotten things for money, I feel it is safe to say that some 'non profits' do rotten things for the currency of power.  Many politicians could make way more money fleecing the masses but the power that comes with the job is what they lust for.

so my skeptism is equal for the right wing religious block who want control and the left wing 'non profit' block who want power as well.  Keep in mind that I commute by bicycle and was attracted to kayak fishing primarily because of the self propelled nature of it.  I am hardly a right winger but over the years I have seen many distorted uses of science and I can say bias doesnt seem to live on one side of the spectrum any more than the other.

I dont know how old you all are but I am 44 and remember in grade school having the daylights scared out of me because by the time I was old (thirties ) we would be all out of oil, out of space for garbage, out of clean air, and unable to go out in the sun.  While the world is far from perfect, the doomsday predictions havent panned out.  So I guess when I see that the fisheries will collapse when my grade school children are 'old' I am skeptical.

for me the saddest part is that with all the crap being hurled around, the average citizen has a hard time sorting fact from fiction thus voting becomes a crap shoot of sorts.

o my skeptism is equal for the right wing religious block who want control and the left wing 'non profit' block who want power as well.  Keep in mind that I commute by bicycle and was attracted to kayak fishing primarily because of the self propelled nature of it.  I am hardly a right winger but over the years I have seen many distorted uses of science and I can say bias doesnt seem to live on one side of the spectrum any more than the other.

Yes, but again, I think it is facile and erroneous to take a broadbrush and claim both side equally distort--that is easy and is a conveneint dodge and an excuse for inaction--but its wrong. Yes, delving onto both sides arguments takes time, time away from other things, but to insist on simple and wrong labeling of both groups as equal dissemblers let's one sit in the middle and do nothing. And the claims that both groups are equally guilty is not borne out but history or the facts.  Taking one extreme group from the environmental left in balance with well-aligned mainstream corporate unscientific, emotional propaganda (jobs, etc.) and pretending that's balance is illogical and ignores the myriad of solid respectable scientific and environmental organizations whcih are not over-zelaous nor radical such as The Union of Concerned Scientists and others. Neither PETA nor Earth First are scientifically-based in their arguments or postions--they are extemists just as abortion clinic bombers and doctor assasinators are extremists among the Christian evangelicals. So painting all environmentalists with that broadbrush is fast and easy, but also wrong so I question the motivation that leads one to that simple illusory argument.

Yes, you can rationalize inaction easily if that is your goal. But you'll regret that choice. I'll bet those who are apathetic now were among those who took that tack ten years ago with global warming. Given all the new evidence and further degradation of the climate, do you still think inaction is the right answer to global warming? Is pacifying the corporations worth the risk?

dont know how old you all are but I am 44 and remember in grade school having the daylights scared out of me because by the time I was old (thirties ) we would be all out of oil, out of space for garbage, out of clean air, and unable to go out in the sun.  While the world is far from perfect, the doomsday predictions havent panned out.  So I guess when I see that the fisheries will collapse when my grade school children are 'old' I am skeptical.

These things occur very slowly and one generation will not always see drastic changes, but that doesn't mean they are happening. The air is very dirty and unhealthful now in most majoe metropolitain areas of the world and medical research is showing it is affecting our health--maybe not exactly as predicted but a lot closer to the prediction than the naysayer side of nothing going wrong was. We are running out of places for garbages--jsut recently, scientists and biologists documented a swirl miles wide plastic garbage sea in the Pacfic. But if you keep you eye shut, you can ignore for another generation perhaps before it forces you to see it.

The signs are there and the calls for attention are strident because, just like cancer, early detection gives teh best chance for a cure. I find it strange that most of you have no problem going after potential terrorists in an offensive strategy BEFORE they do damage or allowing your contitution freedoms to be seriously eroded (imprisonment without trial, torture, closed trials with no jury, unsupervised wire taps)  or taking GW Bush word (turning out to be a lie) about WMD to attack Iraq for no real gain and $400B and 3,000 (soon) US lives , yet would rather wait for climate, environmental, and species decimation before being convinced action is needed.

You need to exampine the motives behind your rationalizations--the facts don't support them and from my perspective they are a convenient and simple excuse for apathy. To give equal footing to corproate profit-based self-serving propaganda and measured, repeatable scientific study and analysis is illogical. Wait another decade like we did for global warming and the decline might be irreversible. But at least you'll have the illusion of your fairness to consider over and over while not fishing because our entire coasts will have turned into MPLAs in a last minute drastic attempt to save the fisheries.

my action is personal and hardly apathetic.  I reduced my commute by 80% by bike, I burn natural gas for my business instead of burning the recycled oil that puts me at a economic disadvantage to my competitors because I care what comes out of my heating boilers.  My children have been taught how to use mass transit for mobility and use it daily.  As a greenhouse operator I understood global warming issues like gas concentrations, greenhouse effect etc early on and have never questioned its validity.

on a side note, I do not agree with Iraq, I am a registered democrat, have been a volunteer on more 'task forces' than I care to remember and spend a large amount of my time keeping up with current events.  In short I am engaged.  For my 'stream team'  experience I read everything I could find on fluvial geomorpholgy and basic hydrology and that is how I saw the shell game going on.  That commitment still continues for the foreseeable future.

The fact that you seem to have decided I am a Bush/Cheney, Limbaugh dittoing, nuke Iraq guy because I question the validity of some studies seems to actually prove a point.  Agree with us or you are wrong.  Question us and you are intellectually deficit.  You are either with us or against us.  That is equally dangerous and wrong whether it comes from the Bush Adminstration or the Sierra Club.

Gut feeling?  Fisheries are in trouble.  Result of divisive tactics?  Some lame political solution that band aids the problem and results in a feel good solution for the time being.  My hope is that at some point moderation not extremes can define the debate.

You have to remember that the report that fish stocks will be decimated by mid century is a "Newpaper" report of a scientific finding. You will note that the ariticle lacks specifics on areas where the  damage will be done, what species they are talking about and other important information. That, doesn't mean I entirely discount the article and information, it just means that it most likely doesn't have a bearing on fish stocks in our area.

While I  believe we need to do more to protect our fishing off the Pacific Coast, I don't think things are that dire here. Fishing is heavily regulated in our area and there are a good number of reserves around.
I do believe we need to do more to protect rockfish since in some areas I never catch one big enough that I consider it a keeper. I think we should have the rock reefs sectored off in huge sections and have a five or ten year rotation to let the sites rest.

When I fish out of Goldengate, it's not even worth the effort for rockfish, they are all extremely small. When I fish out of Bodega I end up with fish I consider marginal in size. When, I fish up north on Robensons Reef, I catch beautiful big fish 5lbs or bigger (blues, vermillion and lings). When you think about it the charters really decimate an area. Imagine a boat with 50 people on it going out everyday it's fishable and averaging 75% of there limits everytime. That's 375 fish a day! I know of one boat that does that.

The first time I went out of Bodega this year with the new increased depths I caught fairly nice fish around 3 to 5 lbs in the deeper water. That lasted a month and it was little fish city again. I'd also like to see the limits reduced, I've got no use for a limit of fish. Three to five fish gets me by for a few weeks, by then I've  been out and caught some more. I don't feel like I should be feeding the neighborhood either, if you know what I mean.

Okay, there's not one boat on the entire North Coast that takes out 50 people on a daily basis.  Realistically its 35 on the weekend days and limited loads on limited weekdays, dictated by weather and whether or not the fish are biting.  What you're saying about limits is also irrational.  3-5 fish may last you weeks but its not the same for everyone.  We don't all have the luxury of paddling out to pull a couple more for the coming weeks.  Simply because you don't have use for ten fish does not mean nobody else does. Many do not eat fish at all, gonna let them dictate how many you take? 

I'm for a sustainable fishery, if real data shows that the fishery cannot support a 10 fish limit then I'm all for it.  Until then I'd like to keep it the same. For the record, I tend to keep only what I can use on the short term, it justifies going out again!

In my opinion, business and government are equally to blame for the situation getting to a crisis stage. I predict them going to drastic fishing restrictions/bans within a year or two, especially now that Dems are in control of Congress.
The Nimbus hatchery just posted their fall run counts here that show the Salmon count trend going downward too:
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hatcheries/nimbus/fish-counts/
The steelhead count went up though this year, but is still half the historical trend.
They'll wait for the economy and outdoors industry to phase over to some other product that people will buy, like video fishing games.
Craig

Dan Bacher did an article about 2 years ago or so that talked about the seldom reported fish kills on the American in 2001-2003. Since the American tends to have 3 year old fish in it's runs, it will be interesting to see if 2007 numbers are higher than the last couple years.

Heck, here's the article:

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug04/Bacher0814.htm

I read this recently, as I was looking at 2006 salmon return numbers to see if the hatcheries were showing as crummy a year as the recreational fishery had. Apparently the hatcheries are showing it to be pretty "normal".

Regards,
Scott

In my Inbox today:

To those of you who are deeply concerned about the direction of the
Marine Life Protection Act MLPA process:

Mike Chrisman, Secretary of Resources, is scheduled to make an
announcement this afternoon that the next MLPA study region will be
the north central extending from Pigeon Point to above the Faralon
Islands.  UASC is committed to help Coastside Fishing Club in their
efforts to achieve the widest access for recreational anglers in this
area.

The support of southern California anglers will be essential in
securing a balanced approach that recognizes sportfishing's high
conservation value and light footprint.  Working together we will
insure the best interest of sportfishing both now and when the
process comes to southern California.  We need your continued
support.  While this may seem to be a Christmas present for southern
California anglers, our partnership with our brothers and sisters in
the north is essential.


Tight lines and Merry Christmas.

Tom Raftican
United Anglers of America