Natural for one side to question the other, and vice versa all over again, when an allocation is split 50/50. Kinda like looking to see who got the bigger ice cream, then complaining about it.
The issue is Puget Sound historically fed its residents. Now it tries to feed the world. Read: $$
And I don't think recreational crabbers are selling anything. UAG interpretation has changed with time. Historical UAG and Boldt (1970'2) interpretation of UAG is different than it is now, and capitalism is to blame.
Question: If Puget Sound crab stayed here, would there be a shortage?
So what if tribal and commercial record all their catch? Where does it go then? UAG should be consumed locally. It was never meant, nor did it ever, feed anyone out of state. Same with salmon, geoduck, you name it.
In season real-time management: Yes. $500/crab fines: sure. Real time data from co-management that starts on the same date: we'll get better data.
During the proceedings leading up to the current P.S. crab mgmt policy the NT commercials objected to giving up any poundage to the recs saying that to do so would mean a shortage to WA residents. An astute member of the Commission directed the then Shellfish Manager to investigate where commercially caught crab was being marketed. No big surprise that a huge percentage was going out of State and out of country being shipped alive to Asian markets. So, your point is valid; commercially harvested crab is not in short supply IF you want to compete at the retail level with consumers in Chicago, NY or in a variety of Asian countries.
I should add that anyone crabbing on a rec license and selling their catch is an illegal commercial harvester (poacher).
Previous Topic
Index
