Can you paint a picture?

If you read yesterday's Standard Times, hopefully you caught the article on the fishing limits to be set for 2013.  Want to know what is going to stall the economic engine in this area, just read that story. If memory serves me, the industry is looking at 51% to over 70% in cuts to quotas of catches.

You don't need a calculator or the actual $$$ to realize what that kind of cut will mean.

I am not going to argue about the science, because I don't know enough about it.  But I can argue about a process that supposedly is in place to monitor the stock, has been in place a number of years and than comes up with these kind of numbers.

I overheard some people discussing the article and the fishing industry as a whole.  I managed to keep my two cents in my pocket, because sometimes you realize real quick there ain't no point in countering some statements.  No small feat for me either.

Anyway, for those out there who don't think the fishing industry doesn't have a big impact on this area, think again.  Think long and hard.  From my perspective, we are looking at two entirely different pictures if you do.

Does the stock have to be protected?  Yes it does.  I don't hear anyone, including fishermen, arguing to go back to the old days.

But there seems to be a need for more balance.  When you here of the stories of what has to get thrown back because it isn't part of an allowed catch, only to see it float dead on the water.  When you listen and read about the disparity in the "scientific" numbers, the methodology, the rationales, it does become clear that something might just be a tad off.  

This area needs to pay great attention to the 2013 goals, or it is going to find itself shutout once again.

Heading back to land ...

It is probably a very good thing I didn't get to see the article in The Advocate prior to yesterday's piece on The Tourism Dept., Historical Commission and the historical society.

I am going to take one part of that article and comment below.  For the rest of it, which you should read, see the link above.

Commenting on the problems that persist between Mr. Richard and the society, she said they stem from a lack of communication. "All those things would have been possible if somebody had wanted to work with people," she said.

I was either at or saw the Selectmen's meetings when discussions on this matter were addressed.  I kept hearing from the Director and Commission members a willingness to work with people.  I at no time heard that from the society.  Indeed, at the last meeting at which the vote to move took place, there was nothing but continued and complete resistance to the move.

And if there is a perception of an "unwillingness" to work with you now, just why do you think that might be?  

Even Salvador Dali would have a hard time painting a picture to represent this one.