While some commissions are better than others, the fundamental problem with them (as long as your perspective suggests their membership should be changed) is that they are appointed. Croneyism practiced among people who have historically crapped on our fisheries will likely only beget more crap. I tend to think (hope?) the tide of thinking among the younger politicians is turning for the better, but I hope it's not too late by the time they get an opportunity to appoint their own cronies to these positions.

I'm not sure how I missed it the first time this thread came around, but I would like to send out a HUGE +1 to those advocating for terminal commercial fisheries. While I agree that the changes this would require seem prohibitively expensive in the immediate term, I strongly believe this sort of reform will be required if there is to be a long term for our fisheries.

Perhaps I'm naive (wouldn't be the first time), but I can't imagine why commercial outfits wouldn't support a change in that direction. Their jobs would become much safer, they would be much more efficient, and they would not need to do as much sorting (that's got to be a messy job that any of them would gladly give up). The biggest win for them would be financial. Think of how much more profit they could earn if they didn't have to pay to maintain and fuel fleets of fishing boats. Perhaps the potential increase in profit would be incentive for the commercial outfits to invest in the changes required to make terminal harvest a reality. OK... that's a bit of stretch, but I don't think any stretch should be considered out of bounds, given that the status quo (assuming our best scientific guesses are near the mark) will see every last fish in the sea harvested or wasted within 40 years. For my part, if called upon, I would support a license fee increase (I know, get a rope) to help make this happen.