Fisheries Disasters Declared on Four Coasts
#1
Hello? What's it going to take to work together to save our very food???
This news is in tandem with the drought...
================

Today the US Commerce Department declared disasters not of fishermen's making in three key fisheries on four US coasts: the North Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico, the Bering Sea, and the Gulf of Alaska in the Pacific Ocean. The declaration opens the door for Congress—if they choose to accept the mission—to appropriate funds to help struggling fishers. The disasters are:

The Northeast, where even though most fishers have adhered to tough quotas on several key groundfish—including cod in the Gulf of Maine and yellowtail flounder in the Georges Bank—stocks are not rebuilding.

Alaska, where low returns of chinook salmon have resulted in commercial fishery disasters in the the Yukon River fishery (ongoing since 2010), the Kuskokwim River (ongoing since 2011), and Cook Inlet fishery (beginning in 2012)

Mississippi, where historically high flooding of the lower Mississippi River in spring 2011 wiped out the oyster fishery and the blue crab fishery from massive freshwater flows. (This disaster might have included the inshore shrimp fishery too, since flooding drove landings down by 41 percent in 2011. But Commerce didn't deem it a commercial failure since revenue losses were "only 19 percent less than the 2006-2009 average.")

The causes run the gamut of natural and anthropogenic. In other words, something of everything, including plenty of unknowns. The disaster declaration for Alaska states:

Exact causes for recent poor Chinook salmon returns are unknown, but may involve a variety of factors outside the control of fishery managers to mitigate, including unfavorable ocean conditions, freshwater environmental factors, disease, or other factors.

The causes in New England are deemed unknown, and severe fishing quotas are pending for 2013, reports Boston.com:

The final numbers aren't in, but officials said preliminary information indicates that catch limits could go down by 72 percent for the cod population in the Gulf of Maine and 70 percent for cod on the Georges Bank fishing grounds east of Cape Cod.

The New England disaster declaration is "a huge win" for fishers, says Democratic Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, via the AP. "Our fishermen are the farmers of the sea and today our fishermen are facing exactly what farmers in the Midwest are facing—a drought. They need our help to get through it."

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2...+Marble%29
Reply
#2
You don't suppose we need to address population control?
Reply
#3
(09-13-2012, 03:15 PM)PonderThis Wrote: You don't suppose we need to address population control?

That should surely be part of the plan.

In the short term, however, it seems that folks should be looking to solve the immediate problems relating to availability, yes?

If there is very little grain and very little seafood, large populations will die off anyway.
Reply
#4
Well, what we have would go a lot farther if we went vegetarian. It will probably happen to poor people first.
Reply
#5
(09-13-2012, 03:23 PM)PonderThis Wrote: Well, what we have would go a lot farther if we went vegetarian. It will probably happen to poor people first.

But, of course, dahlink.
But the peasants have no bread nor fish!
"Let them eat cake."

[Image: 303975_464210056934470_1849286769_n.jpg]
Reply
#6
(09-13-2012, 03:15 PM)PonderThis Wrote: You don't suppose we need to address population control?

WE? you mean the USA? or do you expect us to force the rest of the worlds who's population is really out of control to address the problem ?
HERE in this country we aren't even having enough children to replace our selves.
Reply
#7
[Image: spay_and_nueter_liberals_control_moron_p...bm_400.jpg]
Reply
#8

The far left libs were born neutered.Laughing
Reply
#9
(09-13-2012, 03:29 PM)Clone Wrote:
(09-13-2012, 03:23 PM)PonderThis Wrote: Well, what we have would go a lot farther if we went vegetarian. It will probably happen to poor people first.

But, of course, dahlink.
But the peasants have no bread nor fish!
"Let them eat cake."

[Image: 303975_464210056934470_1849286769_n.jpg]

Let them eat tofu. Smiling
Reply
#10
(09-13-2012, 03:57 PM)PonderThis Wrote: Let them eat tofu. Smiling

Yeah, but soybeans are one of the most heavily genetically modified crops. Sad
Reply
#11
With enough insect gravy, I think we can get used to it. Smiling
Reply
#12
(09-13-2012, 06:03 PM)PonderThis Wrote: With enough insect gravy, I think we can get used to it. Smiling

Ha! Who knows what we will sprout?
A third eye?
A tail?
How about growing monkey butts? Smiling
Reply
#13
You DO understand, Clone, That Ponder WANTS an end to all fishing, even if there were too many fish. It's mean and real men wouldn't do anything so icky.
Reply
#14
(09-13-2012, 06:47 PM)Larry Wrote: You DO understand, Clone, That Ponder WANTS an end to all fishing, even if there were too many fish.

"if there were too many fish" Laughing Laughing Laughing

I wonder what would cause a situation to occur where there would be too many fish. Mad Mad Mad
Reply
#15
(09-13-2012, 06:47 PM)Larry Wrote: You DO understand, Clone, That Ponder WANTS an end to all fishing, even if there were too many fish. It's mean and real men wouldn't do anything so icky.

You're lying to make some kind of meaningless point.
And we obviously don't have to worry about too many fish, eh?
Reply
#16
(09-13-2012, 07:18 PM)Clone Wrote:
(09-13-2012, 06:47 PM)Larry Wrote: You DO understand, Clone, That Ponder WANTS an end to all fishing, even if there were too many fish. It's mean and real men wouldn't do anything so icky.

You're lying to make some kind of meaningless point.
And we obviously don't have to worry about too many fish, eh?

I'm lying??? Laughing PONDER: Are you against fishing on your moral grounds, or not?

(I will be amazed if he answers this)
Reply
#17
(09-13-2012, 07:30 PM)Larry Wrote: I'm lying??? Laughing PONDER: Are you against fishing on your moral grounds, or not?

(I will be amazed if he answers this)

I've often read where he has stated his objection to 'catch and release'.
Not fishing to eat.
Thanks for your interest in the subject of our declining food supplies.
Reply
#18
(09-13-2012, 07:38 PM)Clone Wrote:
(09-13-2012, 07:30 PM)Larry Wrote: I'm lying??? Laughing PONDER: Are you against fishing on your moral grounds, or not?

(I will be amazed if he answers this)

I've often read where he has stated his objection to 'catch and release'.
Not fishing to eat.
Thanks for your interest in the subject of our declining food supplies.

And you never paid any attention to the fact I brought up that it's impossible to sport fish OR commercial fish with out catch and release.
Reply
#19
(09-13-2012, 07:38 PM)Clone Wrote:
(09-13-2012, 07:30 PM)Larry Wrote: I'm lying??? Laughing PONDER: Are you against fishing on your moral grounds, or not?

(I will be amazed if he answers this)

I've often read where he has stated his objection to 'catch and release'.
Not fishing to eat.
Thanks for your interest in the subject of our declining food supplies.

I disagree with your assessment of his words. He has said that it is wrong to fish because it causes them pain, and anyone who engages is such activity is a bloodthirsty neanderthal. I am paraphrasing, of course. But if he would like to correct me, I'm listening.
Reply
#20
(09-13-2012, 07:38 PM)Clone Wrote:
(09-13-2012, 07:30 PM)Larry Wrote: I'm lying??? Laughing PONDER: Are you against fishing on your moral grounds, or not?

(I will be amazed if he answers this)

I've often read where he has stated his objection to 'catch and release'.
Not fishing to eat.
Thanks for your interest in the subject of our declining food supplies.

And for the record, my food supplies are not diminishing. Good year, so far. Wink
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)