Discussion specific to the Pacific Northwest. News, events, general topics.
Simple rules:
That seems counter productive of them. Maybe their fishing area will be reduced, but wouldn't that give the fish stock more protected area to grow and reproduce, thereby making the fishery more sustainable?
Well, think of it from this perspective.
If the fishing industry is saying it is a Very Bad Idea and making lots of noise about it than there is a high statistical chance the idea is probably a crucial step towards keeping global fish stocks from catastrophically collapsing.
I mean, just check the numbers right? The fishing industry has always said there are enough fish to keep fishing right up until there aren’t any fish to keep fishing, after which point it is kind of irrelevant to admit that there aren’t actually any fish left.
I remember talking to a bottom dragger fisherman (imagine hunting for deer by leveling square kilometers of forest at a time, harvesting the deer and then leaving a wasteland) who claimed there were less fish because we had let cormorant and seal populations “get out of control”. This is somebody who spent their whole lives catching fish, watching fish, learning about fish, learning where to find them at different times… and yet they had convinced themselves a handful of seals and cormorants were the problem not him.
My brother likes to hunt and constantly complains about how evil Jay Inslee is because wolves, coyotes, and bears are apparently bad things. It seems that letting nature go back to being natural is a bad thing.
So, this tells me that wind farms are a good thing. When an industry group engages in protectionism, I will, by default, take the other side's position.