Well, here it is again, MPA talk as part of a Mass Bill. There is an upcoming meeting next Monday. If you can contact your senator and let it be known that you do not support the provisions for the MPAs (assuming you don't support MPAs)...

From the RFA:

Attached is a letter drafted by Michael Doebley which details the RFA's concerns with S529 (also known as the O'Leary Bill) as currently written. The hearing for the bill will be on Monday, July 18th, at the State House, at 1 pm in Room 1-A. Letters sent from your organizations or individual members based on this one would be great. Also, please encourage members to attend the hearing if at all possible.

The letter:

Lauren.Coughlin@state.ma.us (Lauren.Coughlin@state.ma.us)

INSERT DATE HERE

Senator Pamela Resor

Representative Frank Smizik

Chairs, Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, & Agriculture Room 473F
State House
Boston, MA 02133

Re: S526, An Act Relative to Comprehensive Ocean Resources Management



Dear Chairs Resor and Smizik:



As a resident of Massachusetts and a recreational fisherman, I must express my strong opposition to S529 as currently written. While I am supportive of the overall goals of this legislation, I believe the sections of the bill that address the issue of no-fishing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) require substantial revisions before I can offer my support.



No-fishing MPAs are very controversial and would undoubtedly cause great social and economic harm in the coastal communities of Massachusetts.



The sections of S529 that address a process for how Massachusetts will determine where and under which conditions the marine waters of the Commonwealth could be closed to all fishing activities are in need of substantial revision. As currently written, I believe these sections of S529 leave the 1 million recreational anglers of Massachusetts vulnerable to the establishment of no-fishing zones based on political, philosophical, and profit-driven desires rather than science and necessity.

I respectfully request that the sponsors of the legislation and members of the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture meet with representatives of the recreational fishing community to draft substitute language that establishes an unambiguous, science-based process for the consideration and possible implementation of no-fishing MPAs.

I wish to reemphasize that I appreciate the efforts of the sponsors of S529 and the members of the committee to improve how Massachusetts’ manages our oceans. I will strongly consider supporting S529 if my concerns are met.



Thank you for your consideration.

YOUR NAME

YOUR ADRESS

This was sent by Steve Medieros ,pres.of RISAA ...


In a nutshell the bill -
Calls for the establishment of no-fishing zones
Stacks an advisory panel with ant-fishing groups
Calls for the establishment of a license. From the bill's exact language:
"(n) The secretary of environmental affairs, in consultation with the department of environmental protection, the department of conservation and recreation, and the division of marine fisheries, is hereby authorized and directed to examine the establishment or renegotiation of fees, licenses, permits, rents, leases and the adjustment or development of other revenue sources for the purposes of funding ocean resource enhancement or restoration through the Ocean Resources and Waterways Fund"


NOT :cool: COOL

The idea behind MPAs is a good one -- save essential fish habitat, save fish. I'm sure they are science-based in the beginning, and only after protest from fishers and other stakeholders, are they shot down. If managers used only a science-based process for determining MPAs, there would probably be a whole heck of alot more. :eek5: But who provides millions, if not billions of dollars a year in revenue to coastal communities and other associated businesses? Who provides funding for sport fish restoration activities through the Dingell-Johnson amendment (read: pays some managers' salaries)? Yep, it's us. We as anglers are so economically important, if not socially and politically, that I don't believe anyone would cut off our fishing rights unless it was a dire emergency for one or more species. Even then, it may not happen. And on a side note, can you imagine the nonexistent EPO in SoCo and the one EPO at the Cape trying to enforce saltwater fishing licenses? :hihi: There's gotta be only a handful of them in New England, I swear.

BassBabe - I agree that MPAs can be a good thing if applied based on science but they are not, they are applied based on policy and the policy makers are listening to those with clout that want to close entire areas.

For example, if an area has determined a significant deletion of say, ohh I dunno, spawning cod, by excessive trawling perhaps, then maybe shutting down that gear type to an area will work wonders. Maybe a combination of closing the gear type and the take of baitfish in the area is sicentifically smart to recover the stock in the area. But why shut out someone fishing the same area say for bass with hook & line? Or Tuna, or Porbeagles? Now the interesting thing is that marine management, if already doing their job, could make that happen under existing laws.

Now if it was truly scientifically necessary to close an area to all fishing (highly unlikely), there would need to be milestones incorporated at the time of closure that would automatically trigger the reopening, whether partial or complete.

That is what is wrong with the type of MPAs often proposed, a total and indefinite closure of an area as a policy as opposed scientifically met targets that would open or close an area based on scientific data.

The other scary stuff in this more recent documentation has the dreaded "L" word. These are prohibitive to many in the form of denying access to fishing.... AND giving the keys to control it to people that are not stakeholders...

Letter sent.

If I had time today I'd write my own version of that letter, I must say though, whoever wrote that letter did a very good job :btu:

Please, everyone take the 5 minutes and send a copy of that letter as I did, I know it seems insignificant but... it can't hurt right??? The only way it can hurt is if you DON'T send it. You can't complain about it later (when it's too late) if you don't take action now.

-Dave

exactly Dave........Letter sent already

JohnR - Please edit your first post. The email address has two dots (..):

Lauren..Coughlin@state.ma.us

-to-

Lauren.Coughlin@state.ma.us


Thanks for throwing a nice template out there. If you do not agree w/ S529, send the letter. It's almost too easy.

TC - thanks for the heads up....


I received a copy of a letter sent by Mike Bucko of Bucko's B&T in Fall River. I have his permission to post it here:


Copy of letter I sent below: Please if there is a time to become active and voice your options it is NOW.

Thank you,



Lauren.Coughlin@state.ma.us
07/13/2005
Senator Pamela Resor
Representative Frank Smizik
Chairs, Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, & Agriculture
Room 473F, State House
Boston, MA 02133

Re: S529, An Act Relative to Comprehensive Ocean Resources Management


Dear Chairs Resor and Smizik:

As owner and operator of Bucko’s Parts+Tackle in Fall River, Massachusetts and a recreational fisherman, I must express my strong opposition to S529 as currently written. While I am supportive of the overall goals of this legislation, I believe the sections of the bill that address the issue of no-fishing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) require substantial revisions before I can offer my support.

No-fishing MPAs are very controversial and would undoubtedly cause great social and economic harm in the coastal communities of Massachusetts.

The sections of S529 that address a process for how Massachusetts will determine where and under which conditions the marine waters of the Commonwealth could be closed to all fishing activities are in need of substantial revision. As currently written, I believe these sections of S529 leave the 1 million recreational anglers of Massachusetts vulnerable to the establishment of no-fishing zones based on political, philosophical, and profit-driven desires rather than science and necessity.



My concern is operating a tackle business in Massachusetts. If this bill is passed as written then Massachusetts water could become laboratory experiment for environmental groups. I believe no-take fishing zone does no good unless tried with a Marine Management Plan such as ASMFC. It does no good to protect part of the ocean so that you can over fish another part. Massachusetts most recent economic data form 2001 is as follows:



Massachusetts

Saltwater fishermen 1,017,535 – MRFSS-2004 Data



Economic Output $888,486,177 - 2001 Data

Retail Sales $225,328,262

Jobs 8,169

Sales and Motor Fuel Tax 29,055,826

State income Taxes 10,605,484

Federal Income Taxes 38,887,196

I respectfully request that the sponsors of the legislation and members of the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture meet with representatives of the recreational fishing community to draft substitute language that establishes an unambiguous, science-based process for the consideration and possible implementation of no-fishing MPAs.

I wish to reemphasize that I appreciate the efforts of the sponsors of S529 and the members of the committee to improve how Massachusetts' manages our oceans. I will strongly consider supporting S529 if my concerns are met.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Michael J Bucko

191 Stafford Rd
Fall River Ma 02724
508-674-7900

JohnR, Perhaps the most logical way of managing MPAs would be to base them on sound science and common sense. But the inherent "problem" in fisheries management remains -- it is not simply based on science and what is rational. There are human dimensions -- ethics and values, politics, economics, etc. This is easily evidenced in many government environmental protection lapses, like the snail darter at Tellico Dam. But I think that things like that provide balance and tend to everyone's beliefs. Little bit of preservation, smidgen of management, dollop of destruction. It's a shame that some people do not believe that science provides the answers, that we should be stewards of the environment, that we should practice sustainable use, etc. But that's the way the cookie crumbles, and who are we to say that we are right and that it should be done our way? It would be just as unfair to the PETA freaks or the capitalists if we always got our way. Everyone has to have a turn.

Also, a stumbling block for provisional fishing closures is enforcement and research, which all comes down to funding. It's probably easier for officials to bar all fishing activitiy, rather than check every person fishing to see what they are fishing for and what kind of gear they are using. And how intensive would the research need to be, to figure out if the closures have had the desired results and if fish habitat and populations have grown enough? That's quite a bit to invest when NMFS could just say to people, "go fish elsewhere".

As for the "L" word, I just don't think it will happen. But if for some reason it does, I'll go with it. The money will hopefully go to better management, better research, and better enforcement. Access may be restricted, but life isn't fair; we know that.

I guess my whole point is that I'm defending the management and the scientists. We all know what would be the best choices ecologically, but that's not all we're hired to consider. We work for the government, which is a democratic entity. Not all measures are what we would personally choose. Writing policy that is not always ecologically sound does not occur because we don't know or don't care. It's simply the bane of being a public servant, serving the varied interests of the public.

I am somewhat defending the management and the scientists. I am in favor of MPAs when they are based in science and when there are clearly necessary, with clearly defineable, pre-determined milestones that will automatically be triggered when the goal is met followed by measured and sustainable management practices. I do not feel that areas should be permanatly closed to the public, especially those that would be addressed at a state level which means areas from the high tide mark to the EEZ at three miles. If science says we must close the Cape Cod Canal to achieve a certain goal, then we close the canal, but it is done for scientific reasons and once the goal has been met it is reopened.

What I feel is wrong is that many of the people appointed to these commissions want to close permenantly areas to fishing. This is not a user access or allocation issue, and it is no longer a fishery management "tool" but a tool of denial. A usergroup denial tool. That is not based on science but based on policy and often policy of usergroups that chose to deny access or resources to other usergroups. That is where I feel it is wrong...

This is one main reason I support the RFA and other clubs work on the Freedom to Fish initiative, it allows for MPAs to be used as a tool when science determines it is necessary but not to be used as a tool of policy. Major difference between the two. And if science is used correctly in conjunction with effective fisheries management, MPAs will not be needed to create or maintain a sustainable fishery.

And yes, a license is coming to a state near you, unfortunately politicians have a habit to pickpocket the funds and entities that are supposed to be supported by those licenses. Mitt tried to pull a fast one and got caught with his hands in the cookie jar, this is the only reason some funds were restored - he got caught...

Can anyone tell me where I can find the exact wording of the proposed legislation?

Thanks!

Thanks John...........we all need to come together for this issue. I had posted it yesterday on "conservation issues and notices"......obviously the wrong place to post it considering the urgency. As far as the exact wording, it should be sent out soon and it will indeed be forward to all...........there is strength in numbers, even if it's only an e-mail........they need to know how we feel !!!!!! Fight for what you want. If you can attend the hearing on Monday, please do................

E/mail sent...Come on everyone!!!

I crafted (for what it's worth) my own letter after reading the text of the legislation, and sent it off to the powers that be. You can find proposed legislation at:

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/st00/st00529.htm

It is time to get involved with the Freedom to Fish (F2F) act and work diligently to make sure that we meet two goals. 1) ensure that we recreational fisherman maintain our access and 2) preserve and maintain the fragile marine ecosystem that we all rely on.

GET INVOLVED!

Can anyone tell me where I can find the exact wording of the proposed legislation?

Thanks!

Ok, here is a Word format of the doc and a PDF

Hey all,

Many her know that I am one of the more active persons on the ground in MA working with the RFA on behalf of the members of MSBA...

We have been working on both the Governor's bill and Senator O'leary's bill for months...empty assurances that our concerns will be met and that the bills are targeting massive wind farms and lng facilities have not worked out...this is why there is a full court press to defeat these two bills at this committee hearing...

please keep the pressure on...your e-mails and calls validate the recreational leaders (like myself) when we attempt to represent your interests at these hearings and more importantly when we try to work with the politicians to adjust legislation

we currently have dozens of MPA's that exist and we support...Cod spawning closures, the eex ban on s-b fishing outside of three miles, etc.etc.etc.---we do not have a problem with restrictions that are for a specific purpose and that are lifted if the purpose is reached...we are against letting arbitrary no fishing zones and closures be instituted without pre existing regulations that assure closures are regulated...

BassBabe...Scidntists arte paid and tend to come to findings that they are looking for...this is known as directed research and should not be used as a stand alone reason to estblish a closure of any kind...a closure should be done for a reason or purpose, it's goals should be well defined and there should be sunset provisions it a goal is reached and the original need for the closure has passed...research closures should be required to have research done if they are to happen and should be re-opened after the research is complete...furthermore, a research closure for bottom habitate should not prevent trolling for tuna 300 feet above the bottom...once again, specific regulations....MA DMFG has a paper on MPA's that is very well written...check it out

OK ...I am done

JohnR, I agree with you quite a bit. Permanent closures are ridiculous. And I'm leery about closures in state waters, because what can be used for good can also be used for evil. But, for example, what can you do when over 90% of eelgrass habitat is gone from the Narragansett Bay, and the areas that need protection are in state waters? Darned if you do; darned if you don't.

Patrick, I have never geared my research towards a certain outcome -- not even in high school chemistry -- and I know that I never will. I can't be the only person who wouldn't compromise her scientific morals. If research is biased, why should it be used to support a closure and to reopen an area later? How do we know which studies are directed or not? I already understand what an MPA is, and methods of implementation, but I will look up that paper you suggested.

There are alot of "shoulds" in fisheries management, and they're all subjective. Policy and regulations can never make everyone happy.

BassBabe I do not know you and until your last post did not know that you were a scientist. I have for the last three years been defending recreational fishermen's rights from a full court press to institute what I beleive are arbitrary no fishing zones or level 1 MPA's in a variety of venues. Unfortunately the science used in the MPA arguement tends to be directed by organizations that have published goals of instituting no fishing zones prior to the science they are using today being completed.

(At a hearing in the MA state house last year, a so called neutral scientist testifieds as follows...I am John Smith and I work at the Woods hole Oceanogrphic Institute. I am not speaking for the Institute here today but as an individual....then this scientist goes on to preach about no fishing zones etc etc...Public records later showed that the study this so called neutral scientisrt was promoting and was what he was working on was funded by a group that has a public policy to close 5% of all State Waters in MA. It also is suspected that the gentlemen was paid to testify as a consultant...it this ethical...I do not think so...)

I have another...The National MPA Center has a scientist that receivved her doctorate just about a year ago...this "Doctor of Science" has done nothing for work but shop her pro MPA presentation around the country...this presentation comes from her graduate work and disertation...in other words she has done nothing but pro MPA work since at least graduate school...this "doctor" was hired to speak at a New England Fisheries Management Council MPA Workshop...at that workshop she did her presentation...in the presentation she gave stats that showed level 1 no fishing zones resulted in a 400% increase in fish species inside the MPA...Under questioning she was asked questions about the MPA's that were used in the study she was quoting in her presentation...it turns out that she was comparing a Level 1 MPA from a third world country where dynamite fishing was ceased and never had any fisheries management to the waters off MA that just happen to be the MOST regulated waters in the world. She could not give answers to well thought questions and became flustered as reasonable points were made that her comparisons were a stretch...

My point is this...science must be paid for and there is no way that any science funded by groups with a pre determined purpose of agendA SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT...there is not perfect answer however I only think that govermnment agencies should be doing the science used and that fisheries managers need to set up strict guidelines as I mentioned earlier that set up protections to prevent political and financial influences on our rights to use the ocean...

Patrick, Wow, "John Smith" is giving WHOI a bad name. I'd like to find him and :fishslap: him. So many great and reputable scientists and studies have come from there. Grrrr. What's that National MPA Center woman's doctorate in, and what school did she get it thru? Doctor of Flaming Unscientific Advocacy from the University of Phoenix Online or something? Crikey. I totally agree that fair and unbiased science should always be used to support regulations, and I think that what you're doing is quite admirable. It will be hard to keep politics and economics out of fisheries management, however. These days, us kiddies are taught that it's all part of the "policy stew", and that social values should be taken into account. The organic acts of many natural resource management agencies are vague and provide for the consideration of ecological as well as financial, political, and ethical concerns. Even the NEPA of 1969, which is very pro-environment compared to many laws, includes provisions for social and economic needs of humans. We may have to overhaul our entire system of natural resource policy and administration...? Ain't gonna be my job. :laughs:

I crafted (for what it's worth) my own letter after reading the text of the legislation, and sent it off to the powers that be. You can find proposed legislation at:

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/st00/st00529.htm

It is time to get involved with the Freedom to Fish (F2F) act and work diligently to make sure that we meet two goals. 1) ensure that we recreational fisherman maintain our access and 2) preserve and maintain the fragile marine ecosystem that we all rely on.

GET INVOLVED!

Unfortunately, the version of the bill on mass.gov is NOT the bill as it currently reads. In fact, that version bearss no resemblance to the current S529. I have a mark-up of the bill that I will e-mail to anyone who needs the real thing. Just shoot me an e-mail: zharvey@thefisherman.com.

Zach Harvey