Re: Bad News for Atlantic Shark Fisheries -- Archive

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

Subject: Re: Bad News for Atlantic Shark Fisheries

Author:
Jim Morris

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 931241412PDT

Forwarded(from Russell Hudson):

I was asked to forward this posting.

Rusty

From: FHester52@aol.com
To: RHudson106@aol.com
CC: rhueter@mote.org
Subject: Re: Bad news for Atlantic shark fisheries management
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 16:32:11 EDT

Rusty:

Here is an open letter to Bob. I think he has missed the point in this. As
I am not subscribing to Elasmo at this time you can forward this if you wish.

All the best,

Frank

PS As the late Franklin Alverson used to say - the nice thing about science
is that in the long run it usually gets to some sort of agreed truth. I
don't think we are there yet. It will take a peer review to do that, but at
least some progress is being made in sharks and other species management.

In a message dated 7/1/99 12:56:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time rhueter@mote.org
(Robert Hueter)writes:

<<
Now my words: This court action threatens to destroy the shark rebuilding
program that has taken NMFS, independent scientists, the HMS Advisory
Panel, and many others over a year to develop and put into place. Lest
anyone think that Judge Merryday's opinion is based on a lack of
confidence in the stock rebuilding plan, this action strictly revolves
around economic issues in the commercial fishery. Otherwise, the
recreational measures would have been thrown out as well.

If this were a political action, I might have some recommendations for
Elasmo-L subscribers on where to voice their opinions about this. But
since this is a legal decision, I guess all we can do is wait for the
legal process to grind. Hopefully NMFS can pursue an appeal and overturn
this soon. Any input from NMFS staff or anyone else on this disturbing
development would be appreciated. [Please note: I will be out of the
office now until next Tuesday so will not be able to comment further until
that time.] >>

Bob:

I hope when you have had time to think this through, you will come to realize
that this court decision is far from being bad news for Atlantic shark
fisheries management. Rather it may be just the opposite if NMFS chooses it
to be.

Managing resources fails without willing cooperation of the users. And that
cannot exist if the users have no confidence in the managers. In this
country over the past two decades I have witnessed a steady decline in the
willingness for fishermen to cooperate with state and federal fishery
managers for this one main reason: Lack of confidence in these agencies. In
the case at hand, the commercial side is very aware that NMFS has allowed an
absolute garbage assessment to be used to serve a political agenda. You were
there at SEW 98 so you also know this is the case.

The agency acted in an irresponsible and arrogant manner in this matter and
has gotten itself caught out by the court for doing so. The real tragedy in
this is that NMFS has acted in the same irresponsible and arrogant manner in
the management of so many other fisheries that it has lost the confidence of
the fishermen. The fishermen�s only choice, since the agency chooses to
follow its own agenda is to resort to the courts, which is in my view a very
poor way to do fishery management.

Also in my view, the only way out of this mess and the was for NMFS to
reestablish a workable relation with the fishermen is for an Magnuson/Stevens
to require an outside peer review process to be part of any assessment
procedure for FMP�s. I furthermore submit there is a need for a clean sweep
of NMFS from just below the AA down through the GS 14 level in Washington,
the northeast and southeast. The new AA, despite the way she was appointed,
deserves a chance to show her stuff.

I know some of these people feel that US (and world) fisheries are in dismal
shape and only Draconian measures will save them. These people honestly
believe these measures have to be put in place, so they are willing to allow
their beliefs to override any concerns they may have for an objective
assessment process. I know also there are some other of these people who
have an agenda that addresses allocation issues rather than management
issues. Both types willingly subvert the scientific assessment process to
forward their agendas. And both should be removed from the process so that
some sort of mutual respect and confidence can be restored in US fisheries
management.

Maybe some heads will role as a result of this court decision and perhaps
some other pending decisions. I hope so, and that is why I say this is not
bad news for shark fisheries management. This is where your �If this were a
political action, I might have some recommendations for Elasmo-L subscribers
on where to voice their opinions about this.� could come in. Why not write
NMFS and demand some changes? If the Elasmos are squeamish about calling for
beheading, they might at least demand that science be brought back into
management.

As for your �...this action strictly revolves around economic issues in the
commercial fishery. Otherwise, the recreational measures would have been
thrown out as well.� I recall that one new bit of analysis presented at the
98 SEW showed the recreational cut did not achieve the intended reduction.
Thus, by rolling commercial cut back to the previous level and keeping the
new recreational regulations in place levels the playing field at the 1997
level. The courts in these matters are interested primarily in matters of
law, an tend to let NMFS get away with a lot of bad science. In this
particular case however, the results seem to have turned out fairly well.

Frank

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]