Randy Simms responds to Sue's Blog Fishery Post and Comments

 Randy Simms responds below to Sue's Blog posts "Dr. Earle responds to Sue's Blog" and "Ask What We Can do for our Fishery Dr. Earle says"

I find it interesting that you hold such a negative view of my alleged position regarding fisheries. I think I should clarify.
(1) I totally agree that we have not done enough fisheries science to determine what really happened to the cod. Overfishing is certainly one of the major causes but after 18 years of our not fishing the stocks in any true commercial way and no real recovery being documented means something else must be at work.
(2) There has been no real effort at trying to help stocks recover and that includes allowing foreign fishing to continue off the nose and tail of the grand banks. I think both of the men you mention in your e/mail, Gus Etchegary and Dr. Phil Earle would agree with that. This kind of fishing should be stopped.
(3) There is no denying the truth contained in the statement, "Where there is no fish, there is no fishery". I don't know how anyone could challenge it. Sadly that means people will have to look for alternate employment in other areas and in other industries. This is not a matter of opinion but one of fact. No one has to be happy about that and I am not, though your comments imply that I am taking some kind of pleasure from it.
(4) Whether we like it or not, in order for the industry to be successful it must match up with the resources available and the demand within the market place. The current MOU exercise is supposed to outline a path to achieving that. I have no idea what it contains and the delays in releasing it are disconcerting, but one assumes it will mean taking people out of the industry. If anything is implemented it has to include some form of pension (compensation) for older workers forced to retire because of the current reality. I have proposed that if Ottawa is not willing to help we should do it ourselves while we have the money to make it happen.
(5) My view then is of a smaller industry today, which is viable for all of those working in it, with the development of a concrete plan to grow stocks and with it grow the industry of tomorrow. This would make the industry more attractive to our youth, none of whom relish a life of constant dependence on government cheques, which may or may not appear from year to year. I have never said there is no place for young people in the industry, but I have observed that young people are not attracted to it. The average age of plant workers seems to bear that out.
(6) If the estimates are right we have about 30 years of oil wealth to depend on. We should use it to develop an equally profitable fishing industry. By the way, I feel the same way about other renewable resources as well. Energy and agriculture being two of the areas in need of additional investment.
If my view is myopic I take comfort from knowing I am not alone and many of the people who work inside the industry today would and do agree with the approaches I have articulated.
Thanks for your thoughts and yes I am learning a lot about the fishery.
Randy