I apologize in advance if you have already seen this announcement elsewhere. If you haven't then please take 5 minutes out of your day for this all important issue.

----

All,

The Massachusetts Ocean Management Task Force is nearing the completion of its work. Environmentalists serving on the Task Force continue to push for language that seeks to preempt F2F legislation in Massachusetts

The goal of the enviros is clear. We believe they hope to get a "back door" recommendation out of the task force that they can use against our Freedom to Fish Act. Not only that, that they are trying to force the task force into making a recommendation for a law that, similar to law in California, will mandate that the state close up to 25% of all state waters to all fishing - PERMANENTLY.

Public comment is being accepted until February 13th. MSBA, Stellwagen Captains, RFA, and other organizations will submit detailed comments before the deadline.

HOWEVER, the task force continues to meet and revise the draft recommendations. The next task force meeting is Tuesday, February 26th. We believe letters from the fishing public may influence the next revision of the recommendations that the task force is expected to work on during the meeting on the 26th.

TIME IS SHORT! PLEASE EMAIL THE LETTER BELOW AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!

Our goal is to generate as many letters as possible by 3:30pm on Friday the 13th.

PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THIS LETTER TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE!

In addition to sending the letter to the Task Force, send a copy to the Governors office (both addresses are below). We want to let the Governor know how seriously we are taking this issue.

oceanmgtinitiative@state.ma.us

GOffice@state.ma.us

If you have any further questions, then please feel free to contact me at f2f@basspond.com.

The full text of the OMTF recommendations may be found at...

http://www.state.ma.us/czm/oceanmgtinitiative.htm

Sincerely,
Mike Flaherty
Vice President
Massachusetts Striped Bass Association



[SNIP] [SNIP][SNIP] [SNIP][SNIP] [SNIP][SNIP] [SNIP][SNIP] [SNIP][SNIP] [SNIP]

<YOUR NAME>
<YOUR ADDRESS>

<DATE>

Chair Tierney and Members of the Task Force:

I am a Massachusetts fishermen and I am very troubled by some of the statements, and their implications, found in the Ocean Management Task Force’s draft statement of principles, recommendations, and statements of justification for the recommendations.

I find the statement of justification for recommendation # 9 regarding the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) performance regarding data collection and the management of marine resources grossly misleading. This appears to be an attempt by some members of the Task Force such as Priscilla Brooks of the Conservation Law Foundation and Jack Clarke of the Massachusetts Audubon Society to promote a radical political agenda of seeking a law that mandates the state to shut down up to 25% of all marine waters to all fishing - permanently. In order to improve the fisheries and habitat data collection and management, the state simply needs to give DMF the resources necessary to enhance the work it does rather than arbitrarily closing vast areas of the state waters to all fishing, as I believe the organizations mentioned above are attempting to do.

Additionally, existing federal and state law mandates that fish, shellfish, and other forms of marine life be conserved, protected, and restored. Citizens and other interested parties have the ability to seek legal relief when these laws are not enforced. These laws, such as the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 and the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act of 1993 are already leading to significantly improved marine resource restoration and protection with further improvement being projected.

Language in recommendations 1, 2, 4, 9, 10 and 13, and their statements of justification will, if unchanged, lead the Task Force into areas that the Task Force has repeatedly stated it will not get involved in; fisheries management and ocean zoning. Chair Tierney stated at the October 17th meeting that the Task Force would not get involved in these areas. This assertion can also be found in the PowerPoint presentation given at the public hearings. Again, the continued inclusion of language that is directly or indirectly related to fisheries management appears to be nothing more than a concerted effort by Ms. Brooks and Mr. Clarke to promote their own political agenda. Frankly, it concerns me greatly that this fisheries specific verbiage remains included the Task Force's work when the fishing communities, both recreational and commercial, have been assured at least twice that the task force would not get involved in it?

I would not be surprised if Ms. Brooks and Mr. Clarke try to deny that their objective is to get the Task Force involved in fisheries management. They may claim that their interest lies in ‘biodiversity’ (which is on the increase in New England waters according to the Northeast Fisheries Science Center), ‘ecosystem protection’ (for which there is still a lack of agreement on a comprehensive definition), 'habitat protections' (again, at least in terms of fishing-related activity already mandated under existing law), or ‘research’ (which scientific literature finds that it is not feasible to close areas to all existing fishing activity and expect valid results).

You should also be aware that many of the organizations involved in promoting the concept of no-fishing zones are seeking them for reasons that have nothing to do with the biological health of the marine environment. Ocean Conservancy, an organization with close links to Conservation Law Foundation often states in public that their desire for no-fishing zones is related to the biological health of the oceans. Yet, their published position is that they also seek closed areas for their “spiritual and intrinsic value”.

Don’t take the bait being offered by these environmental organizations. The concept of permanent no-fishing zones is already being debated in the Massachusetts Statehouse and Congress. Conservation Law Foundation is part of a documented consortium of national environmental organizations attempting to force vast, permanent area closures on the nation’s 17 million fishermen. Do not allow these organizations and their employees who serve on the Task Force to manipulate the Task Force in to making "back door" recommendations that are contrary to its stated objectives. To do so only involves in a contentious issue that the Task Force has spent essentially no time investigating or contemplating. I urge you to reject all language that will make recommendations specifically intended to impact fisheries management. Instead, I hope that the Task Force will focus its efforts on real issues facing the Commonwealth that do need to be addressed such as the impact of the placement of permanent structures in marine waters, pollution, and public access.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Oh, go club a seal.

bleedem? why are you on a fishing website if you don't care about your "freedom to fish"????????
club a seal???????

all i want is to be able to take my boat anywhere "i" chose to fish.


keep up the attitude, and pretty soon you'll be on this board talking about how the fishing used to be!!
and when we could go to that spot!!

mike flarity-- has done more to fight for the rights of "recreational fishermen" than anyone before him in mass.! ever!!!!

to fight the "groups"{call them the p.e.t.a. freaks if you want}
but take 5 minutes out of your busy day of surfing the internet for "new posts" on your favorite fishing web-sites .
and copy and paste the g-damn letter!!
and send it in!!!

simple!!!!

all i want is to be able to take my boat anywhere "i" chose to fish.

That would be the problem in a nutshell, wouldn't it?

This just adds to the perception of the MSBA as a bunch of knuckle-walking mouthbreathers who want to be allowed to kill as many fish as they want to whenever and wherever they want to.

They're throwing around this hysteria about a possible closure of Stellwagen to all fishing when nobody's proposed one.

How 'bout getting behind gear restrictions or other measures that would impact the health of the fishery, not just whining that someone wants to take your dinner away?

PS -- "Flarity", I like it. Very creative spelling. How long did it take you to sound out the syllables?

Attitude makes the difference, no matter what side of the issue you stand on--poor diction is nothing but poor diction. The beauty of the written word is you can edit what you say before you say it; a simple spelling error shouldn't be cause for a bleeding dagger.

As for regulation of gear types, be it fixed or mobile, I agree with you--we need to have bottom types that are closed to otter trawls and scallop drags--but perhaps open to tub trawls and hook-and-liners.

Thefishingfreak,

Thank you very much for your kind words! It means a lot to me.

----

Bleedem,

If you haven't read the information at the following link, please do so.

http://www.msba.net/f2f/otw_on_f2f.htm

These closures are very real and very near. Trust me, if they weren't then I'd love to just go ice fishing instead of attending all of these meetings.

Take Care,
Mike Flaherty

nobody's proposed one? your kidding right??
do some research and you will see the ocean management task force has proposed amendment 13 to close over 800 square miles of the bank.
they have been proposing this since 1999.and pushing very hard.
it's like a long game of risk with them, they casualy put members of there group in certain places, like the stellwagen bank advisory council,the ocean management task force.etc..

they use terms like ocean wilderness and marine preserves.marine protected areas. aka no fishing zones

the mass. freedom to fish act has no bearing on stellwagen anyway. only state waters

this is no joke
there is pending legislature in n.y. that will close 20% of n.y. water as well.
they got beat in r.i. and now there aiming for mass.
the ocean conservacy is tring to reach its goal of closing 5% of the entire coast of the u.s.
why dont you give them your favorite fishing spot so this nonsence is put to an end, and we can fish wherever else we want to "kill as many fish as we want to"??

go to one of the hearings and sit accross the table from these guys and you will see first hand for yourself that this definitly is no joke, it's coming!!! i have.

recreational anglers are not the ones raping the oceans, and killing everything in site, thats the fight between the comm's and the rec's, but thats not the issue.
these enviro's want to close the ocean! and take the fight and the ring away.
not put limmits on gear. or size restrictions.
they don't have any research to back up these closings because they don't have any research vesels.
they just want it closed! permanantly.
"for spiritual and intrinsic value"quote from there website.

the freedom to fish act simply states they will have to prove that bye trolling for tuna on top, that it destroys the scollop beds underneath.

people who burry there head in the sand and say "it will never happen" are fools!!!!!!!!
go ahead and attend one of the meetings and you will see for yourself this is no "hysreria"
you'll even get to see mike flarity crawl in on his knuckles holding his briefcase with his teeth, or should i say tooth, like he does for every other meeting

.
check my spelling would you?

mike f.
no,thank you! for all the hard work you do! even making it so all "we" backseat drivers can do our part simply bye pointing and clicking.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bleedem Quick
This just adds to the perception of the MSBA as a bunch of knuckle-walking mouthbreathers who want to be allowed to kill as many fish as they want to whenever and wherever they want to.


Bleedem, what in god's name are you talking about. I would like to encourage you to state your true Agenda here but obviously, you are another of the many that sit behind their keyboard and want to insult others and avoid any type of serious conversation.

MSBA was the only organization that continued to lobby for a 36" minimum when every other major organization had accepted 28". MSBA was against the 2 fish over 28" and the only other org that had that position was CCA.

You can come after MSBA if you want, it will only help to point out how uninformed that you are.

All groups and individuals have always been welcomed to come and be a part of the process to come up with the concensus that is the MA Freedom to Fish Coalition.

Freedom to fish is unnesscessary. Yah you must be right. Al Gags is wrong. Barry Gibson, Rip Cunningham and the whole staff of Salt Water Sportsmen is wrong. RFA, both their National and 13 State chapters are wrong. CCA National is wrong. ASA National is wrong. MA DMF publication, "Suggested Policies for MPA's", commissioned by MA DMF Honcho Paul Diodati is wrong. RISAA is wrong. The Rhode Island Legislature is wrong. Mass Beach Buggy Assoc. is wrong. Cape Cod Salties are wrong. Plum Island Surf Casters are wrong. MArblehead Surfcasters are wrong. Stellwagon Bank Charter Captains assoc. are Wrong. North East charter Captains assoc. are wrong. Cape Cod Charter Boat Assoc. is wrong.

But you are right.

Maybe you are alone or a radical environmentalist yourself. If so, good for you, state your case but at least have the courage to state you side and not insult others.

Beyond that, leave Mike Flaherty alone. Insult him and, oh well this is a Family site. That one is just unacceptable.

Bleedem.....why is it people like you must criticize those who are trying to make a difference by working their butts off and committing themselves through time and effort to see that we, the people who just take for granted so much that is fishing, have the ability to fish where we like, when we like? I also do not like the "blanket" that you threw over the MSBA as a club that "kills so many fish"! You could not be more wrong and misinformed. The MSBA, since I have been a member, has fought for all of those things that BasicPatrick mentions and more, just so people like yourself can go out there and do whatever it is you do on the water. And all those other issues you mentioned.....if you believe so strongly that something should be done, then get off your high horse, get involved and make a difference instead of sitting around and waiting for someone else to shoulder the weight for you! Pretty easy sitting at home and sending out your opposition to an issue via your computer and criticizing those who actually leave their house to try and make a difference. You seem to be one of the many that I criticize and call "the takers of the world"! Those that benefit through all the hard work and involvement of others, while not only do they not get involved themselves...they criticize and try to tear down all those who really care enough to try to make a difference and protect all that we take for granted! If you want to criticize the cause, then be my guest, you have a voice here and the right to use it, but try and leave personal insults towards people and clubs you have no knowledge about out of it. Educate yourself before you spout off at the pie hole just because you feel like it. If you oppose this cause, you have that right and the ability to voice your opinion, but do it in an intelligent manner!

Lawrence Wentworth/Former VP MSBA

By the way, if you are so opposed to people killing "as many fish as they want", then why is your user name Bleedem Quick? People can kill as many fish as they want, as long as they do not kill more than they are entitled to by law.

nobody's proposed one? your kidding right??
do some research and you will see the ocean management task force has proposed amendment 13 to close over 800 square miles of the bank.


OK, no name calling in this one.

I have read the Final Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies Fisheries Management Plan at

http://www.nefmc.org/nemulti/planamen/final_amend13_dec03_section_1.pdf.

I have read the Ocean Management Task Force's Draft Principles and Preliminary Recommendations -- for Public comment at

http://www.state.ma.us/czm/MOMI/OMTFDraftPrinPrelimRec.pdf

I don't see any proposals for a closure of 800 square miles of thebank.

Would you please point me to a smoking gun?

Bleedem,

The Amendment 13 document is massive and it is easy to miss these options (thats why groups like MSBA work hard for the recreational fishing public). I have pasted the salient excerpt below (3.7.3). From there you can do some more research.

http://www.nefmc.org/nemulti/planamen/amend13_dec03.htm

Also please note the following press release below from the RFA that was sent on Sept 2003.

I don't mind continuing this discussion with you. I only ask that you provide your real name.

Take Care,
Mike Flaherty
Vice President
Massachusetts Striped Bass Association

---

NO FISHING ZONES PROPOSED IN NEFMC AMENDMENT 13 FOR EAST COAST

PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THIS MESSAGE TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE.

A ‘no-fishing zone’ option and various alternatives regarding where they should be sited have been included in the proposed Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. Species managed under the plan include cod, haddock, pollock, yellowtail flounder, white hake, and winter flounder (blackbacks). The proposal is found in section 3.7 of Amendment 13. In the public hearing document, the proposal begins on page 65.

The first proposal is, "Should they be established?" and the second is "Where?".

No-Fishing zones may be established under what is called 'Level 1 Habitat Closure'. The document clearly states on page 67 that this option will, "ESSENTIALLY ESTABLISH NO-TAKE MARINE PROTECTED AREAS AND WOULD PROHIBIT THE USE OF ALL FISHING GEAR IN THESE CLOSURES. THIS LEVEL OF CLOSURE WOULD CLOSE THE AREA TO ALL FISHING GEAR, BOTH COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL."

If 'Level 1 Habitat Closure' is chosen, there are a series of maps showing various schemes for where closed areas would be sited. The maps begin on page 69 of the Amendment 13 public hearing document. There are several alternatives for where these areas will be established.

Here are the highlights:
Beginning 3 miles off the coast of Chatham, MA, extending north almost as far as Provincetown and out to 20 miles. About 900 square miles total.

Depending on location, beginning anywhere from 3 miles to 20 miles off the North Shore of MA and extending out about 20 miles. About 800 square miles total.

About 10 miles south of the western end of Nantucket and extending west to about 20 miles south of the western shore of Buzzards Bay and for 20 miles south. A total of about 800 square miles.

Another is about 15 miles due east of Montauk, or to think of it another way, 20 miles due south of the Southwest tip of Block Island, extending east to about 60 miles south of the western shore of Narragansett Bay and then heading due south for 40 miles. About 800 square miles total.

Another is off of New Jersey and Long Island. From the New Jersey perspective, this area would extend from about Asbury Park New Jersey to the tip of Sandy Hook beginning 3 miles from shore and extending out about 20 miles. From the Long Island perspective, this area would start about 10 miles offshore from the Western end of LI and continue east to the western end of Great South Bay and extending 20 miles beyond that. This area is 900 square miles.

Another would encompass the area off of New Jersey/New York known as 'The Mudhole'.

Finally, an area that would begin about 20 miles off of Cape Hatteras. From North to South, this area runs from about Manteo to Ocracoke Island and extends about 40 miles out to sea for a grand total of 800 square miles.

The public hearings are underway. See the list below of the remaining hearings.

If you are attending the public hearings, demand that the New England Council reject 'Level 1 Habitat Closures' for all areas.

NEFMC is accepting comments via email until October 15th. Send your comments to:
<comments@nefmc.org>

In the subject line, NEFMC request that comments be labeled, "Comments on Groundfish Amendment 13".

PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE

Hyannis, MA
Monday, September 15th
2:00pm
(Recreational Issues at 7:00pm)

Gloucester, MA
Monday, September 22
4:00pm

Portsmouth, New Hampshire
Tuesday, September 23rd
2:00pm
(Recreational Issues at 7:00pm)

Ellsworth, Maine
Wednesday, September 24
5:00pm

Portland, Maine
Thursday, September 25
4:00pm

Fairhaven, MA
Tuesday, September 30
4:00pm

Michael J. Doebley
Deputy Director for Government Affairs
Recreational Fishing Alliance
1-888-Join-RFA

You are a better man than most Mr. Flaherty.....you are doing a great job!:kewl:

Also note that Level 1 closures are not simply "no-take" as the description might imply (ie. perhaps allow C/R). Since these proposed closures would close the area to "...all fishing gear, both commercial and recreational", it is truely a "no-fishing" zone for ALL.

Mike

P.S.
Fotunately, at the time of this writing, these options have not been adopted in the final Amendment 13 rules which will go into effect in May.

Fotunately, at the time of this writing, these options have not been adopted in the final Amendment 13 rules which will go into effect in May.


So, nobody is in fact currently advocating a Level 1 closure of 800 square miles of the Bank?

Bleedem,

Your name sir?

Bleedem - another thing often lost in all this hoopla is that one of the chief benefits of that awfull F2F proposed by the neanderthals of MSBA and other jurrasic fishing clubs is that an area can still be closed or restricted from particular methods or destructive gear type. Just that, and here is the kicker, there will be predefined triggers that will REOPEN an area after specific goals are met - those same goals that required the closure in the first place. That the reasons for closing an area and recovering a stock to a SUSTAINABLE level are applied but the key is not thrown away. There can be a reopening of an area AFTER it's closed. It also allows sane management of a problem. A guy running his boat out to Stellwagen and R&R his 5-10 codfish, that did not hypothetically rapre the resource doesn't get lumped in with the trawl that hard hit an area.

It offers FLEXIBILITY in management and does not introduce an ADDITIONAL consortium of "Fishieres Management Regulations" into the mix.

I'm interested in hearing your reasoning for these statements and what supporting info you have to mold your thinking.

Thanks,

John Redmond

Bleedum seems big on his opinions, however, he seems rather reluctant to offer his name here.....:huh: I belive he would rather just stay hidden behind his computer and user name. Anonymity offers a great hiding place!:hidin:

Your name sir?

Humbert Humbert.

I don't know what the fuss is about my name. I haven't even stated so many "big opinions".

I said I don't see anyone advocating complete fishing bans.
Someone else said do the research, check out Amd. 13.
I checked it out and didn't find it.
Mr. Flaherty quoted from documents where it used to be, but isn't anymore.

I tend to see F2F as a tool of the commercial industry, an extra impediment in the case of new closures (at any levels) or restrictions.

Mr. Flaherty has been posting this Henny-Penny the sky is falling stuff all over the internet.

And JohnR, with all due respect you say

another thing often lost in all this hoopla is that one of the chief benefits of that awfull F2F proposed by the neanderthals of MSBA and other jurrasic fishing clubs is that an area can still be closed or restricted from particular methods or destructive gear type. Just that, and here is the kicker, there will be predefined triggers that will REOPEN an area after specific goals are met - those same goals that required the closure in the first place. That the reasons for closing an area and recovering a stock to a SUSTAINABLE level are applied but the key is not thrown away. There can be a reopening of an area AFTER it's closed. It also allows sane management of a problem. A guy running his boat out to Stellwagen and R&R his 5-10 codfish, that did not hypothetically rapre the resource doesn't get lumped in with the trawl that hard hit an area.

Does that come from the text of the F2F amendment or from RFA or MSBA policy statements? Because most of that business of selective restrictions, and maybe only certain gear types in certain areas, etc., is addressed at length in Amendment 13.

The F2F bill mandates scientific reasons for any closure. Well, I'm certain that the whole process in arriving at management measures by the ocean management task force types will involve some measure of science. The language in F2F looks like a built-for-litigation trigger to ensure that no new restrictions are imposed without a five year science slog through the courts.

It's being sold with this "they're trying to take away our fishing" hysteria WHEN NOBODY IS IN FACT TRYING TO TAKE AWAY OUR FISHING.

Actually - here is the text as it stands on the Senate Bill 2043 - F2F:

AN ACT RELATIVE TO PRESERVING FISHING RIGHTS IN THE COMMONWEALTH
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

SECTION 1. Chapter 130 of the General Laws as appearing in the 2000 Official Edition is hereby amended by inserting after section 5 the following section:

Section 5A. The marine waters of the commonwealth shall not be closed to fishing unless (i) there is a clear indication that fishing is the cause of a specific conservation problem and that less severe conservation measures, including but not limited to gear restrictions, minimum size requirements, bag limits, or seasonal closures will not provide for the adequate conservation of the affected stocks of fish; (ii) the closed area regulation includes specific measurable criteria to determine the conservation benefit of the closed area on the affected stocks of fish and provides a timetable of periodic review of the continued need for the closed area at least once every 3 years; (iii) the closed area is no larger that that which is supported by the best available scientific information as determined by the division of marine fisheries; and (iv) provisions are made to reopen the closed area to fishing whenever the basis for closure no longer exist.

http://www.state.ma.us/legis/bills/st02043.htm

So I paraphrased a little :)

OK - in this particular bill this is the Mass State version of the proposed Federal Bill. The idea of the Mass version is to preven the creation of an inshore "no fishing zone". So when - for grins and giggles we'll say Black's creek in Quincy is closed permenantly as it is a vital habitat to the Smelt Fishery and destructive gear (Shakespeare Ugly Sticks) are destroying the Smelt Habitat, you are no longer able to fish for eary season schoolie stripers there because the entire area has been permanatly closed by whatever "comittee" based on recommendations by the "Wolly Beach National Sanctuary Assn". Other methods could have been used in place of a no fishing zone instead of closing the habitat. Yeh, I'm being a little tounge in cheek here with my example but... On a serious note, this is happening on a STATE basis elsewhere in the nation, like the Channel Islands in California. For comparison, say it was determined that you can no longer fish around Nantucket? For a semi apples to apples comparison.

So as a concerned angler, I'm willing to allow a closure of an area for fishing when it serves a need - recovery of a species, and when other methods like season, gear restrictions, bag limits, and the like WON'T bring back the stock. So if it is necessary to CLOSE an area as that is the only solution - I'll go along with it. However, once that only solution of a closure has brought about a recovery and the milestones and triggers have been met, I expect the area to reopen.

Ooops - gotta run

tool !!!

guys,
he's one of them!!!
da smaert'{tree hugger} ones.
now i know why- i hate sailboaters so much


MIKE{almost herring time}D.

I sent my letters already! Can't be heard if you don't speak!

http://www.state.ma.us/czm/MOMI/OMTFDraftPrinPrelimRec.pdf

Originally posted by thefishingfreak
tool !!!

guys,
he's one of them!!!
da smaert'{tree hugger} ones.
now i know why- i hate sailboaters so much


MIKE{almost herring time}D.

Nahh - he's not one of "them" I don't think. I'm guessing that he's of two minds, one - he's a little, uhh more ehh pure than us clam tossers and that we are not doing enough to close down the loopholes of those dastardly commercial heathens and two, he's having a little fun taking a poke or two.

He's already "connected the dots" on some of Mike Flaherty's other fishing issues that Mike focuses on personally (and not as speaking for MSBA) and figures, incorrectly, that Flaherty and by association, MSBA, is a psuedo-commercial fishing action committee. I don't think he's PETA class or wanting to shut down the whole ocean, I just ASSume that he's ASSuming too much...

Touché!

From the Ma Ocean Management Task Force Draft Reccomendations

“Statewide planning of ocean resources may identify a need to restrict certain activities in discrete areas of the ocean for the protection of important fisheries, sensitive and/or unique habitats and species, and/or the protection and study of marine biodiversity and ecosystems.”

At the woods hold meeting of the OMT it was made clear that this statement would leave open the possibility that an area could be closed to all fishing in order to STUDY etc. etc.

THIS IS A PROPOSAL

i'm kinda glad i got into this discussion because it has forced me to do some more research. check out this link for some info.

i can see someone reading most of this hoopla and agreeing that this is whats needed to be done, to protect our "ocean wilderness"
but, you must also look for the key words such as
mpa's,
no take marine reserves,
fully protected marine reserves,
even they will admit that this means " no fishing"

http://www.clf.org/advocacy/stellwagen_page.htm



"There is also a "rapidly expanding body of research" on the effectiveness of "fully" protected" no-take" marine" reserves" in enhancing marine ecosystem function and protecting and restoring marine habitats and the biological communities they support. This research strongly supports the establishment of "marine reserves" as essential components of any marine ecosystem management strategy. "


." Conservation Law Foundation strongly believes that "fully" protected", no-take" marine" reserves "should be a central component to any resource restoration and protection strategy which SBNMS implements to meet the "NMSA mandate" of maintaining natural biological communities and protecting, restoring and enhancing “ natural habitats, populations and ecological processes.” Since the designation of SBNMS in 1992, an increasingly large body of scientific research and peer reviewed literature, including that of the National Research Council, the Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis and others,{<--- them, they, the ones with the research vesel's} has provided strong evidence for the effectiveness of "marine reserves" in "restoring and protecting marine habitats" and marine biological communities and in providing "undisturbed areas" for scientific research. Scientists from around the world are calling for an expansion of marine reserves worldwide. Currently less than one percent of US waters are fully protected. It is incumbent upon SBNMS to be a leader and pioneer in marine ecosystem management and to" fulfill the mandate" of the NMSA “to create models of…and ways to conserve and manage these areas including the application of innovative management techniques. Indeed, the Florida Keys "National Marine Sanctuary" has blazed the trail for SBNMS to be the next "national marine sanctuary" to employ such an innovative and effective approach to the management and protection of its resources. During SBNMS’s first decade of designation, anthropogenic stresses on this magnificent "marine ecosystem" have increased dramatically. Most of New England’s commercially important fish populations declined to record low abundance levels in the mid-1990s – population levels that "strict "new regulations" are now only beginning to rebuild". SBNMS is home to many of these fish{<---insert sympathy here}
there is important new evidence of a "decline in diversity of fish species" "within the Sanctuary" (Auster 2002)1. And there is increasing evidence of the "destructive impacts" of mobile fishing gear on the seafloor". New industrial uses of the ocean in and around SBNMS for fiber optic cables, gas pipelines and windfarms call for proactive planning to ensure the protection of marine resources and ecological processes within the Sanctuary."



does anyone know what "the sanctuary" means? or how big "the sanctuary" is? {hint it's 842 square miles}

Touché!

I used "touché" in the sense of "you got me". JohnR is apparently pretty good at reading between the lines.

The CLF is a lobbying group, it's not a policy-making body. FishingFreak is taking the most extreme part of what they're talking about (full closures) and applying it to the largest possible territory (all of Stellwagen and what surrounds it) as evidence that we immediately need F2F in order to keep PETA from closing the ocean and making us all fish for hatchery raised tofu in outdoor bathtubs.

I am troubled by the extra level of protection from regulation in F2F. Who gets to decide what's "scientifc" under F2F? My guess is it's whoever wins in court, or whoever can force delays in court (commercial lobbying groups) while new multi-year "science" experiments are ordered by judges.

Do you guys remember a couple of years ago how the scientists were pulling a trawl with the cable on one side 6' shorter than on the other side, so the commercials were able to say "you did it wrong, there's no evidence that the fish stocks are declining"?

I thought we hit bottom when dogfish became more economically important than cod in Massachusetts. Imagine my surprise when even the dogfish stocks started collapsing.

I do think we need to close some areas to some gear types. I don't know all of the science or exactly which areas. I do know that trawlers have been scraping the ocean floor with squeegees for long enough that there aren't any nooks and crannies for small fish to grow large in. You can't protect cod by just making laws about how many/how large cod you can take. You need to protect kelp and seaweed and little tiny crabs and phytoplankton and all the other stuff in the biological soup that creates fish that we fish for.

Same with stripers, same with everything else.

yeah, i agree. the trawlers have been roto-tiling the ocean floor for far too long!
dogfish are more important than herring, in mass. right now.
but, your not going to close my fovorite striper hole, or shark/tuna hole, to "all types of fishing".
or turn them into "fully protected, no take, marine reserves"no matter how small they are.
just because the comm's are raping the ocean, dosn't mean you get to close 20% of our fishing grounds.

they want 20% of mass. state "inshore" waters.

which 20% should we give 'em?

Actually, Freak, I don't think I disagree with you at all, except maybe on what the effect of F2F would be.

I don't think there's any need for a full closure of any part of Massachusetts waters. Let the comms and the regulators fight it out about trip limits or days at sea or whatever else it takes to adjust the size of the harvest to the ability of the stock to recover. If they're fishing longlines or probably even gill nets they're not trashing the habitat, just killing fish. I kill fish, too.

I do think we need to close large areas to bottom dragging, and the closures need to last years.

I see F2F as a roadblock to getting that done.

point me to the roadblock please {link?}


rip kinningham, had a great letter in saltwater sportsman magazine about this.
{something allong the lines of why don't we:the "rec's" and they, the "groups" get together and "shut down" the bank to dragging"?
no more dragging "nets"
no more comm's in "the santuary"
ever!

the "groups" get together and "shut down" the bank to dragging"? no more dragging "nets"
no more comm's in "the santuary"
ever!

You sure you're not one o' them PETA types?

OK, your serious question is where do I see the roadblock to gear restrictions, etc. in F2F, and do I have a link. I have no direct links, the only opposition to SB 2043 that I find online is the CLF's and they do seem to want to close a large chunk of the bank to everything but whale watching and I'm sure it will occur to them that it's not nice to scare the whales.

So, the rest of this post is going to be a little bit legalistic, which can be boring. Also, I'm not a lawyer, which means this could be malpractice. But we are talking about a law, which makes this necessary.

Also, doing this research led me to something startling, which is at the end of this post. (No, please don't skip ahead. Stay with me.)

The bill, already quoted here verbatim, has phrases like "shall not be closed" and "best scientific information".

Amendment 13, also discussed here, describes various levels of "closure", from level 3 restrictions on types of fishing to full-blown level 1 shut the barn door closures. The language of the senate bill seems to imply that gear, season, and other limits are alternatives to "closure", so it becomes important to know what that word means.

Laws and contracts generally have a section of defined terms in which any ambiguity is clarified. Like, "'barn door' shall mean any permananent or temporary appurtenance upon an opening in any barn which can be closed or opened to facilitate or hinder the ingress or egress of any animal".

SB 2043 amends section five of chapter 130, chapter 130 has a list of definitions here: http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/130-1.htm, which does not define closure.

So, what does section 5, the part that's to be amended say? It turns out to be a section called "Jurisdictional Boundaries", and it covers the way in which freshwater (DFW) and saltwater (DMF) are divided between the regulatory groups. It's here: http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/130-5.htm.

And that's where it hit me! Jurisdiction!

Why didn't I notice this earlier? The CLF and probably some other people really do want full closures in Stellwagen. But the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary is in fact a national marine sanctuary. The entire area under discussion is in federal, not state, waters.

F2F has absolutely no impact on the regulation of marine closures in federal waters.

I think. Opinions from actual lawyers or better-informed amateurs are welcome.

Bleedem wrote:
"F2F has absolutely no impact on the regulation of marine closures in federal waters. "

True. The Mass bill will not affect SW bank and this was noted in the OTW response. This link was posted earlier in this thread and I suggest that you read it in full because it explains a lot.

See: http://www.msba.net/f2f/otw_on_f2f.htm
(also see the excerpt below).

However, it important to demonstrate that these groups have active campaigns to shut down some of your favorite fishing destinations in offshore waters as well as inshore waters.

Excerpt from MF2FC response:

Would it surprise you to learn that CLF also has a paid member of its staff, Priscilla Brooks, sitting on the Stellwagen Bank Advisory Council and the Ma Ocean Management Task Force? She has also been among the leading voices against S.2043. In fact the Rhode Island version of F2F became law this past year despite her best efforts to defeat it.

As I mentioned earlier S.2043 only applies to state waters. This means that it will have no bearing on closures within Stellwagen Bank (that’s H.R. 2890’s job). Although, it really makes no difference where state waters end and federal waters begin. These are simply man made lines on a man made map. Basically speaking, if there is a spot worth fishing, then these ENGOs want to see it closed.

More on the point of coastal closures, CLF has authored a 140-page study titled Conservation Coast to Coast. In this study, CLF asserts…

"…Massachusetts’ role in marine protected areas is disappointing. Yet it could be the region’s leader if it chose."

So what does it mean when CLF says that Massachusetts could be an MPA "leader"? It is no exaggeration that the areas listed in this document literally include every square inch of the Massachusetts coastline from the New Hampshire border to Cape Cod & the Islands. Here are just a few specific locations that CLF would like to see considered closed.

- Billingsgate Island Sanctuary
- Boston Harbor Islands State Park
- Scusset Beach State Reservation
- Waquoit Bay Inner Cape Cod Bay


It is also important to note that the hope is that the state bills like S2043 will help build momentum for the Federal version that WILL affect federal waters like Stellwagen Bank.

Bleedem, also regarding your response "So, nobody is in fact currently advocating a Level 1 closure of 800 square miles of the Bank?" which was in response to me saying that the Level 1 closures in Amendment 13 were not being adopted.

The reason why they are not on the table at the moment (not final at all yet until May), is again because groups like MSBA showed up at the Amenedment 13 hearings to voice the concerns of the veryday recreational angler who can't keep track of all these threats to their beloved pasttime. The point of S2043 is to avoid these, buried, back door, attempts at arbitrary closures. It seems every time we turn around there is some government agency or so-called conservation group trying to sneak these closures in. This is why we need the protection that the Freedom to Fish provides (state and fed).

The following is an excerpt of MSBA testimony given at the Amendment 13 hearing on September 15th in Hyannis, MA.

Source:
http://www.nefmc.org/nemulti/a13_public_hearings/hyannis_ma_summary.pdf

Bleedem, were you there? Did you get involved? Interestingly, I didn't hear any testimony in Hyannis from anyone by the name of "Bleedem". Clearly, you have no interest in supporting S.2043 and that is certainly your right. I am only responding here in order to clarify some of your statements.

Mike Flaherty

Thanks for the clarification.

As I now understand it we need F2F to stop Amendment 13 from closing Stellwagen. Except nobody is currently threatening to close Stellwagen ("threatening" here means legislation or rules are pending). Also, F2F as a state house bill has no impact on Stellwagen.

So we need F2F to keep Waquoit from being closed. Well, where's the pending rule that would close Waquoit or Black's Creek?

We need F2F as a symbol, to encourage the thus-far failed federal F2F. Novel, interesting, but you've had supporters posting maps of 842 square miles of imminent closure.

I have read your links in full, including the Bill Heough editorial you react against on your site. He accuses you of hysteria. I concur.

[gotta run, more later]

{originaly posted by thefishingfreak on 2-11-04}
the mass. freedom to fish act has no bearing on stellwagen anyway. only state waters

gotta run, going to montreal for the weekend, oui'-oui'

Have fun in Montreal.

I think I'm done in this thread. JohnR guessed correctly that I came over here to have fun and push some buttons, but you guys turned out to be pretty cool.

I'm still not joining Mass Bass, though. :angel: