Originally Posted By: AuntyM
I don't agree that it falls flat on it's face.

It's a matter of acting like and adult and taking responsibility for YOUR OWN behavior, or, in this case impacts. Crying about the other guy won't change a thing, but I can assure you, if fishing were closed, some of you (not you personally) would get off your butts and actually do something constructive, including holding the other "H's" feet to the fire and it might actually help recovery too!

I see lots of making excuses to avoid taking further responsibility and doing the right thing.


So if you can show:

1) that your impact is minimal and accounts for lower mortality than others H's

2) that you generate more money in versus other H's (harvest for example)

3) That more people are involed in the use of the resource (versus harvest )

4) that you've mitigated your affects without completely wiping out your specific use of the resource

That somehow we should do more? Personally I think it's very adult that we stopped fishing in the PS before the threatened listing was required. Did timber harvest ever get changed? No. Did development and diking stop? No. Personally there's only so much a single sector can do.

At this point even with the complete removal of sport fishing as a possible cause, the affect we currently have is so miniscule it's not like the fish will "suddenly" make a recovery.

So does the analogy fail? Yes. Why? Because we *are* acting like adults and are petitioning the system to help balance out the affect of other H's. Talking, discussing and trying to equitably share the burden is adult. Taking your ball and walking away is more childish.....