This I found on Drudge, as a small side-line. But it piqued my curiosity: what could be going on here?
As usual, do-gooders destroying people's livelihoods in the name of an abstract hope.
Read this first. It's what the NOAA says catch-share should be.
The key quote:
A catch share program differs from traditional fishery management by dividing up the total allowable catch in a fishery into shares. These shares are typically allocated based on historical participation in the fishery. They may be assigned to individuals, cooperatives, communities or other entities, who would be allowed to fish up to their assigned limit. Catch share participants also agree to stop fishing when they have caught as much as they are allowed.
Under traditional management programs, fishermen compete for a total allowable catch. This has lead to fishermen racing each other to catch as many fish as they can before the total catch limit is reached. This results in more boats and gear than necessary, quotas being exceeded, increasingly shorter fishing seasons, unsafe fishing and high levels of bycatch. It also may result in too many fish brought to market at once, reducing their market value to fishermen and coastal communities.So how is it working in the real world?
Read this for one take. And then there's this, and this.
It's killing the industry.
Key quote that got me started here:
Local fishermen said they were told by the federal team not to discuss the new regulations, just their effects.
Ye gods. In other words, they're not interested in having fisherman criticize the regulations. They just want to know what the effects are.
And if you don't think it's killing the industry - 400 years of fishing in New England - then read this.
Even Barney Frank thinks it's a bad idea. Which, in the normal scheme of things, would mean that it would have some merit.
But not in this case.
Unintended consequences? Reducing the fishing fleet in just five months by over 50%? That's not an unintended consequence: that's a deliberate plan. The result, the intended result?
Of the 247 ground-fishing vessels left in New England, 55 boats accounted for 61% of revenue. In other words, the industry is being concentrated in a few well-connected companies. The wealthy ones. not the small fisheries and independent fishermen.
So, who is in charge of doing this?
Among other things, she is an environmental activist (former vice-president of the Environmental Defense Fund: you don't get that job without being an activist).
In fishing for a problem to support the regulatory agendas of the EDF and the Obama administration, Lubchenco netted a policy that has wreaked havoc on the fishing industry, and which will continue to put fishermen out of business until its repeal.
For all those who voted for hope and change, this is what you get. Until this is changed, there is no hope.