Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
BIG Fisheries News! Evidently this coming Thursday April 5 the Legislative Research Commission's Committee on Marine Fisheries will be taking a vote on whether or not to proceed forward with abolishing the Division of Marine Fisheries and the Marine Fisheries Commission and leaving coastal management solely in the hands of the inland Wildlife Resources Commission.
Saltwater Catch has posted two documents prepared for the legislators & their upcoming Thursday meeting.
Read the Study and the Bill at Saltwater Catch
Is it a completely redundant department? Or does the DMF have duties outside of it? I'm all for smaller government, but curious to the outcome on all sides.
The Wildlife Resources Commission had credibility, a track record for success, and represents the whole state routinely. Its what they do. And they do it well. Deer, turkey, bear, and about everything except quail have flourished under their management, even as habitat and environment have been wrecked.
Plus, my experience has been that they listen to the substance of the input, not the volume with which it is delivered.
The study and amendment are fraught with fallacies. Read the documents before posting arbitrary comments.
In terms of cost savings the amendment states: " Identify a target reduction of five percent (5%) in personnel and budgetary spending to be achieved by the reorganization"
And before you point the fish finger of blame, please realize that the Division of Marine Fisheries isn't the only management of our coastal waters. There are also NOAA, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council to name a few others. Wildlife Resources Commission doesn't have to deal with other agencies like the Division has to.
The Wildlife Resources Commission had credibility, a track record for success, and represents the whole state routinely. Its what they do. And they do it well. Deer, turkey, bear, and about everything except quail have flourished under their management, even as habitat and environment have been wrecked.
Plus, my experience has been that they listen to the substance of the input, not the volume with which it is delivered.
I also think the WRC has done a great job, but I do think that managing a resource that provides livelihood for a lot of people is something very different from what they have done in the past. OTOH, I think the DMF is sometimes a little too sympathetic to the plight of the professional fisherman. Don't get me wrong; the plight is very real and it's hard to tell people that are just trying to get by that they can't all do what their ancestors have done for generations. I don't envy the people who have to regulate the industry down there no matter what it says on their shirts.
Do you agree with the following statements?
WRC's primary job is managing recreational resources.
DMF's primary job is regulating an industry.
Just because WRC has been doing their job well doesn't mean they will do DMF's job better than DMF has been doing.
Last edited by ReachTheBeach; 04-05-2012 at 11:56 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
