Fishery Reform Pt.2. A Rebuttal.....sort of.

As I mentioned in the original Fishery Reform piece I am not engaged in the fishery and am simply an observer, looking out my window as we head toward the rocks. As such I put forward those thoughts knowing full well that there are a raft of folks who have real experience in the industry and are much more knowledgeable. Some comments of that nature made their way to me. And I'm glad they did.

To review the main points of the Fishery Reform spot were as follows:
1. Fishery is in serious trouble. ( I said in shambles)
2. We waste our time blaming others for the collapse.
3. An inquiry into the industry is not necessary.
4. We need to start focusing on new ideas and a solid vision forward.
5. The MOU would have been a good place to start.
6. The process must be collaborative and include actual fishermen.

The critical comments that came my way were basically along these lines:
1. I said things were in shambles but this was felt to be a little too strong. I stand by my comment here. The industry is still salvageable but I believe that in comparison to what it could be, what it once was, that it is in shambles.

2. I'm glad to say that the finger pointing is slowing and most people seem to accept that we share the blame for the state of the industry.

3. I've actually gotten a couple of comments defending an inquiry into the fishery. Reasons like protecting the remaining stocks, understanding where things went wrong, and recognizing the collection of players that should be involved. I support all those things. My concern is still that inquiries tend to me more show and less substance. There comes a point where you get of hearing "I can't seem to recall." However, I'm open to being convinced. Given the right set of criteria and specific direction it could be worth it. Maybe.

4. Everyone seems to agree that we need to do something. It has to start with a clear and strong vision and be followed up by specific accountable actions.

5. I saw the MOU as a missed opportunity because it appeared to be a collaborative effort and rationalization seemed like a reasonable place to start. I've since been informed that it was not as collaborative as I assumed and that significant players were not consulted, including the general public. So it wasn't an open process. There are also no real commitments in the document, it doesn't involve the Feds and it doesn't address restructuring the industry. I don't disagree with any of those criticisms. As an outsider looking in I saw the MOU as the only thing out there that was proposing any suggestions, and therefore it was better then nothing.

6. There does seem to be agreement that a collaborative approach is the only way to successfully move forward.

When it comes down to it I'm open to hearing new and better ideas as to how we make the industry healthy and strong, and I would love to take part in any process that engages fishermen, processors, community leaders, youth and government. We just need to get moving sooner rather then later! Keep the comments coming.