Nils Stolpe writes some of the best fishery opinion and articles about the industry, regulators, and ENGO interloper's, fueled on by some of the wealthiest foundations created by some of the wealthiest 1%ers in the country.
Generally speaking and with few exceptions, most citizens have a very limited knowledge base about the fishing industry, who works in the industry, or even what the industry consists of.
Most people, when the paint the visual picture in their brain, see visions of huge mega trawlers, and the the ENGO alarmist storeys of factory trawlers vacuuming the ocean, and clear cutting sponges from magnificent underwater world that they see in NatGeo articles of coral reefs with clown fish and anemones interacting as one.
I know this to be untrue in the Northeast fisheries of United States.
Pew, Oceana, Greenpeace, and others would and do tell a different story. They are wrong. One size fits all is a myth.
Nils has been busy in the past few weeks, and I've been holding back, trying to figure out how to present it, because I can't seed the stuff unless it's in article form, and he sends it PDF.
To be removed from the FishNet-USA distribution list, please reply to this email with "remove" in the subject line.
Not a chance, Stolpe!
FishNet USA/June 27, 2012
Nils E. Stolpe
how are they doing?
Since passage of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act in 1976, the federal government, through NOAA/NMFS, has been in charge of managing most of the fisheries in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (that area from 3 to 200 miles offshore of our coastline). Particularly in light of the recent spate of self-congratulations from NOAA/NMFS leadership over the “great strides” they’ve made in transforming our fisheries from inadequately managed or unmanaged free-for-alls to a level of “sustainability” that the whole world should applaud and emulate, I thought it might be interesting to examine how well the feds have done from the domestic seafood harvesting perspective.
While anyone reading this is likely to have been exposed to the self-congratulatory press releases and the media attention they have generated, I doubt that most people have been able to put it into any kind of significant, real world perspective. What, after all, does the term “not overfished” actually mean to anyone standing on the shore?
Domestic fisheries landings dating back to 1950 are available through the NMFS Annual Commercial Landing Statistics website at http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html. The database contains across-the-dock landings data at the species level accessible by state, region and nationally, in weight (pounds and metric tons) and in landed value.
Dealing with the landings of hundreds of species of fish and shellfish, products with prices that range from a few cents to $10+ dollars a pound, I thought that the best way to demonstrate what’s actually going on regarding the well-being of our fisheries – and their annual contributions to the regional and national economies – is by tracking the value of annual landings. Dealing with inflation that has devalued the dollar by almost an order of magnitude from 1950 to 2010 ($1 in 1950 was the equivalent of $9.50 in 2010), I converted the reported value of landings to 2010 dollars using the inflation rates from the U.S. Inflation Calculator (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/).
It’s glaringly obvious that many of the people who are involved in fisheries management today from both inside and outside the government have either lost sight of the fact that commercial fishing is a business or have never cared a bit whether such businesses were successful or not. But fisheries management, at least as I understand it, being there to maximize the sustainable production of seafood, the level of performance of our federal fisheries managers and our federal fisheries management system should therefore be evaluated at that level first.
Value of Total U.S. landings,,,,,,,,, continue reading, and reviewing the charts of each US region.
Our collective fisheries were never as badly off as grandstanding ENGOs convinced the public and our lawmakers that they were. Regardless of that, they are unquestionably in great shape now. Are the fishermen - the only people who have paid a price for that recovery - going to profit from it? At this point there aren't a lot of indications that they are going to. Ill-conceived amendments to the Magnuson Act, the ongoing foundation-funded campaign to marginalize fishermen and to hold them victims of inadequate science, and a management regime that is focused solely on the health of the fish stocks and is indifferent to the plight of the fishermen effectively prevent that.