Quote:
Originally Posted by jonboy726
I wouldn't say that. I think that he realizes there may have been a better solution. Not changing the permit system as a whole but definitely researching more to accommodate the local fishermen better while still being successful at preserving the resource. This law was rushed in and lacks input from the local commercial fisherman's standpoint. I believe the idea of this is beneficial but as of right now it is not fair the way it played out.
|
The Oyster Lobby was beneficial in making the bill what it is today so they would be the ones to protest to first IMO. Managing resources for the future does not have to put people out of business. What happened the last 3 years will put people out of business so you locals need to figure out what you want. I am all for limited permits based on the number of trip tickets from those who tonged previously. Those permits would be tied to each fisherman but able to be stripped if violations occur. Right now, the oystermen have no skin in the game. Without skin in the game the problem will never be fixed because you have no reason to fix it. 40 years ago deer hunters had no skin in the game because timber companies allowed free range on their properties. There were also very few deer because of the free for all mentality of the general hunting public. Once the timber companies started leasing, the clubs actually had skin in the game and wanted to manage the resource for the future. It has been a resounding succcess all over the united states. The answer to the problem is really not that difficult.