From: "W. Edwards" <drew at u.washington.edu>:

>Georges Bank off of eastern Canada was closed because netting practices
>had cleaned the Bank of the adults and juveniles of commercially
>valuable species. Because of the political clout of commercial netters,
>they have been invariably allowed to overharvest fishery resources past
>the point of no return and then they complain when they finally get
>closed down.

A recent issue of New Scientist discusses the collapse of the cod
fishery on the Georges Bank. Turns out fisheries biologists are learning
a lot about the weakenesses of their models as a result, and that this
has played as large a role as politics in the collapse of the fishery.
True, the commercial fishermen argued that the scientists were wrong
about the scope of the problem, but it turns out the scientists were
wrong too (so in a sense the commecial fishermen were right, but
for the wrong reason). And they succeeded in getting higher catch
quotas approved for about a three year period when the scientists
were becoming aware of just how bad their assumptions were, but
before they had anything to offer but "caution". Note that these
"higher than recommended" catch quotas were still lower than
previous quotas - the fishing interests were lobbying for a
less drastic decrease but it was still a decrease. In 1991, I
believe, it became clear that the scientist's fears were exceeded
by reality and the cod fishery was closed with the cooperation and
approval of the commercial fishermen - according to the article.

This isn't to say that fishermen don't overharvest. It tends to
be worst in unregulated fisheries (i.e. open seas) and in fisheries
where more than one country harvests (the Georges Bank was one
such example, it wasn't until the late 80's I believe that Canada
extended its authority to the 200 mile limit).

But there's a tendency in your note to paint the commercial
fishing interests as being solely interested in "rape-and-run"
fishing. That's true of some fisheries, not true of others.
I know the commercial coho fishermen along the Oregon Coast
have been largely supportive of conservation measures including
greatly reduced quotas. That fishery also suffered due to
poor scientific modeling (actually, not so much the model but
an underestimation of the number of streams screwed up by timber
harvest leading to inflated production figures).

> Why is it that people can get so outraged when they see a
>clearcut and the associated logging practices and yet I don't see a
>similar level of rage when faced with obscene bycatch waste associated
>with commercial netting practices.

I don't get outraged over clearcuts. I get outraged over the cumulative
effect on our forests of years and years of harvest well above sustained
yield with no regard to the long-term health of the forest. There's
a very real difference. It seems clear to me that clearcutting what's
left makes no sense whatsoever, so I get outraged over that. But if
our industry had consisted of one, and only one, modern clearcut why
I doubt very much that I'd be outraged.

>Why is it acceptable that 5, 10 or 50 times the
>biomass be discarded as bycatch.

Is it really 50 times, or is that an exaggeration?

>(the manner of their comments suggests to me that they have
>strong commercial fishing affiliations).

Oh, the "conservation groups have been infiltrated by the commercial
fishing interests" argument again. Prove it.

For the record: I have no affiliation with the commercial fishery
at all.

Nor do I have any affiliation with the sports fishery.

Perhaps part of my problem with this issue is that I'm biased
against BOTH groups. Both of which in Oregon support things
like allowing shooting of marine mammals (mostly sealions).
A bit hypocritical for sportsfisher groups to wail about marine
mammals being drowned in nets while their bretheren in Oregon,
at least, want to pop a few sea lions.

There have been past efforts in Oregon to paint the sports folk
white, the commercial folk black but we seem to have moved beyond
that part of the debate down here. The conservation community
agrees with the two fishing communities on some issues, disagrees
on others, but mostly doesn't take sides in the "who gets to kill the
most fish" debate.

>The real issue is improved management of
>all our fishery resources including all other species along with salmon.

OK, I'll cede "all other species" for the sake of argument.

Now, educate me on how this improves management of salmon? More
importantly, how is it better than simply reducing the quota for
all fishermen, including the sports fishery, which is what's been
done thus far? If the quota is currently too high, how does this
measure do more for salmon than simply lowering it further, or
putting a moratorium on salmon harvest by BOTH groups?

>So what if big timber supports I-640. The fact is that anything that
>improves fishery resources will probably have a positive image impact on
>one of the big villains involved with the decline of our fishery
>resources. However, that would be an irrational reason for being
>against I-640.

When it comes to salmon, letting timber off the hook while doing
NOTHING for salmon conservation would be an irrational reason for
supporting this measure.

Several folks have said they'll vote for it despite the fact it
does nothing for salmon because they think the other issues
involved make it worthwhile. If I were to research this issue
deeper I might reach that decision as well - that the benefits
outweigh the fact that part of it is bad law, IMO (the part
that will favor the sports fishery when it comes down to
allocating the non-treaty catch). Now, that's a rational
approach to supporting it.

I'll admit that part of my problem with this bill is the aura
(aroma, actually) that surrounds some of the proponents, who
publicly declare that those who oppose the bill have somehow
been bought off or "infiltrated" by the commercial fishing
folks, and who are strangely silent about problems with the
sports fishery which will benefit from this law.


- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>