Sometimes it isn’t clear what side of the fence you should land. In today’s polarized climate it is hard to trust any information you find. In turn, deciding which side to take becomes increasingly difficult.
I’ve found in these cases you look for folks that don’t have a dog in the fight. Do you stand to make money from the decision? Well, I’m not prone to accept those ideas very easily.
When we look at the situation with Magnuson Stevens, we see two entrenched camps with directly opposing points of view. One side desires more access to the resource and is looking to reauthorize our nation’s most important fishery law to enable one sector to fish more with less accountability. The other side wants to strengthen Magnuson Stevens and enhance the the ability of the law to address. Both have strong arguments involving the economy, conservation, fairness, and the future of fishing.
Recently, 300 scientists from across the nation weighed in on the issue and the message was clear, do not weaken Magnuson Stevens. The scientists come from Miami, Seattle, Mississippi, North Carolina, California, and even the Farrallon Islands. When a group this large and diverse cares enough to write a letter to congress, we should listen. Plus, they don’t have that “dog in the fight” that’s a sure sign of bias. These are university scientists that by and large got their jobs because they love learning about the resource and protecting it for future generations.
I encourage you to click the links and decide for yourself. Should we weaken the law or should we think of future generations.