Mr. Stinson’s opinion piece in Wednesday’s Mirror pointed out a major contradiction to one of the rationalization proponents’ main arguments.

In a previous opinion piece, Mr. Stinson wrote about pulse fisheries (nice catchphrase) when the canneries are swamped with fish, hurting the quality and price of product. Proponents argue that rationalization would slow the pace and the canneries would be processing cod year-round. Well, as Mr. Stinson correctly stated on Wednesday, contrary to his previous argument, “Virtually every fisherman, no matter what gear type, would love to go back to the way things were and fish the entire quota starting in January. From a fishermen’s point of view it makes good sense to fish when catch rates are high and bycatch is low.”

Well put Mr. Stinson. Straight from the horse’s mouth. Thank you for debunking the ratz argument. Fishermen aren’t going to fish year-round for cod. They’ll fish when the cod are schooled and the roe and milt content are high.

Mr. Stinson also wrote about the bycatch issue. He purports that rationalization will reduce bycatch. Well, please correct me if I’m wrong. From what I understand of rationalization, the planned bycatch quotas are transferable, meaning bycatch can be transferred from a low-bycatch fishery into a high-bycatch fishery, thereby actually increasing the amount of bycatch that is normally taken each year.

As he states, ratz is a tool. A tool they’ll use to keep fishing when bycatch limits would have normally shut them down.