I’m glad many organizations and individuals are involved in the evolving process of the Magnuson/Stevens Reauthorization Act. I agree with 5 of the 6 key areas referenced in this article. But the third one listed, “Allocation of marine fisheries for the greatest benefit to the nation” I think it has a few flaws (in my opinion). I’m not trying to bash anyone or any organization, but as we weed through the Reauthorization process it’s best to have an open mind.
Please click on the link below, which is the basis for the data used in the article. It is a one page link, with easy to read language and graphs. No mumbo jumbo.
https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/economics/publications/feus/fisheries_economics_2011
I read “Allocation of marine fisheries for the greatest benefit to the nation” as moving large amounts of quota from the commercial sector to the recreational sector.
This could possibly mean saying good-bye to your local fish house, and hello to the grocery store down the street where you can purchase imported and farm raised fish.
It could possibly mean that many restaurants in Charleston would struggle or perhaps close, as many of them have a large focus on locally caught seafood.
If extrapolated to the state level, it could mean closing of commercial shellfish harvesting. I realize this probably wouldn’t happen, but if you apply the same logic they have used in this study then this is the conclusion that is reached. Just saying…
This article has also cherry picked specific data, and very obviously left out data, that supports their point-of-view.
For example, the NOAA study leaves out the number of commercial fishing jobs in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Oregon, Mississippi, and several other small New England states that I am too embaressed to name(yeah, I flunked that part of my schooling).
Another example is the “value added” part of the equation. On page 5 of this article, the table lists the “economic impact” of all the states that have a recreat