From the Recreational Fishing Alliance:

The most recent draft of the bill has been released. Unfortunately, the bill's sponsor, Senator Robert O'Leary (Cape and Islands) has refused to address our concerns. S529 is still so riddled with language that will lead to the establishment of No-Fishing MPAs, that we have no choice but to oppose the bill and seek alternative legislation that addresses real threats such as gravel mining and floating Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities.

The Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Agriculture will be voting on S529 next Monday, December 12th. Now is the time to let the members of the Committee know that we are opposed to S529.


More information at...

http://www.msba.net/main/index.php?option=...d=123&Itemid=39 (http://www.msba.net/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=123&Itemid=39)

Best,
Mike Flaherty
MSBA Website Administrator

P.S.
I received this notice late in the day today. I do not have access to the latest draft on the computer I'm using. There have been many drafts but the latest is the one that is up for a vote on the 12th. For more information feel free to call the RFA (even if you're not a member) at 1-888-JOINRFA.

The original version of S529 can be found at...

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

Guys & Gals - this is huge! Get on the horn as quick as you you can please!!!!

Time to Act on Massachusetts No-Fishing MPA Legislation!
Critical Committee Vote to be Held During the Afternoon of Monday, December, 12th! Call on Legislators Now to Oppose S529!
Hi Folks,

As you know RFA, MSBA, NECCA, and SBCCA have all been working hard seeking changes to Massachusetts bill S529 to prevent the establishment of permanent, arbitrary No-Fishing MPAs in Massachusetts' waters.
The most recent draft of the bill has been released. Unfortunately, the bill's sponsor, Senator Robert O'Leary (Cape and Islands) has refused to address our concerns. S529 is still so riddled with language that will lead to the establishment of No-Fishing MPAs, that we have no choice but to oppose the bill and seek alternative legislation that addresses real threats such as gravel mining and floating Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities.
The Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Agriculture will be voting on S529 next Monday, December 12th. Now is the time to let the members of the Committee know that we are opposed to S529.
Below is a list of all the members of the Committee, their phone numbers, and the towns the represent. Please call all of them by noon on Monday, Decmeber 12th (if you live in the district let them know that you are a constituent) and let them know you are opposed to the bill and that you want them to vote "NO" on S529.
While there are many problems with S529, send a simple message to the members of the Committee that you are opposed to S529 because-

1) S529 will lead to permanent, arbitrary No-Fishing MPAs in Massachusetts waters.
2) S529 will add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy to the fishery management process.
3) S529 will lead to the establishment of a saltwater license.
You need not get into a debate regarding the merits or fine points of the bill with anyone you speak to. As always, be polite, give them your name and your home town. If they ask you for more specifics about opposition to the bill, ask them to call the RFA at 888-564-6732.
--------------------------------------------------------
STATE SENATOR
PAMELA P. RESOR
Telephone: (617) 722-1120
Fax: (617) 722-1089
Party Affiliation - DEMOCRAT
DISTRICT REPRESENTED: MIDDLESEX AND WORCESTER. - Marlborough, Acton, Ayer, Boxborough, Hudson, Littleton, Maynard, Shirley, Stow and Sudbury, precincts 2, 3 and 5, in the county of Middlesex; and Harvard, Northborough, precinct 3, Southborough and Westborough, in the county of Worcester.

STATE SENATOR
MARC R. PACHECO
Telephone: (617) 722-1551
Party Affiliation - DEMOCRAT
DISTRICT REPRESENTED: FIRST PLYMOUTH AND BRISTOL. - Bridgewater, Carver, Marion, Middleborough and Wareham, in the county of Plymouth; and Taunton, Berkley, Dighton and Raynham, in the county of Bristol.
STATE SENATOR
STEPHEN M. BREWER
Telephone: (617) 722-1540
Party Affiliation - DEMOCRAT
DISTRICT REPRESENTED: WORCESTER, HAMPDEN, HAMPSHIRE AND FRANKLIN. - Ashburnham, Athol, Barre, Brookfield, Charlton, East Brookfield, Hardwick, Hubbardston, New Braintree, North Brookfield, Oakham, Petersham, Phillipston, Royalston, Rutland, Spencer, Sturbridge, Templeton, Warren, West Brookfield and Winchendon, in the county of Worcester; Brimfield, Holland, Monson, Palmer and Wales, in the county of Hampden; Ware, in the county of Hampshire; and Orange and Warwick, in the county of Franklin.
STATE SENATOR
ROBERT S. CREEDON, Jr.
Telephone: (617) 722-1200
Party Affiliation - DEMOCRAT
DISTRICT REPRESENTED- SECOND PLYMOUTH AND BRISTOL. - Brockton, East Bridgewater, precincts 1 to 3, inclusive, Halifax, Hanover, Hanson and Whitman, in the county of Plymouth; and Easton, precincts 1 and 2, in the county of Bristol.
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
FRANK ISRAEL SMIZIK
Party Affiliation - DEMOCRAT
Telephone: 617-722-2210
DISTRICT REPRESENTED: Fifteenth Norfolk. - Consisting of precincts 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the town of Brookline, in the county of Norfolk.
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
STEPHEN KULIK
Telephone: 617-722-2210
Party Affiliation - DEMOCRAT
DISTRICT REPRESENTED: First Franklin. - Consisting of the towns of Conway, Deerfield, Leverett, Montague, New Salem, Shutesbury, Sunderland, Wendell and Whately, all in the county of Franklin; and precincts A and D, of the town of Belchertown, and the towns of Chesterfield, Goshen, Huntington, Pelham, Williamsburg and Worthington, all in the county of Hampshire.
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
DOUGLAS W. PETERSEN
617-722-2637
Party Affiliation - DEMOCRAT
DISTRICT REPRESENTED: Eighth Essex. - Consisting of precinct 4 of ward 3, and precinct 4 of ward 4, of the city of Lynn, and the towns of Marblehead and Swampscott, all in the county of Essex.
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
WILLIAM M. STRAUS
Room 163
State House
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2040
Party Affiliation - DEMOCRAT
DISTRICT REPRESENTED: Tenth Bristol. - Consisting of the town of Fairhaven, in the county of Bristol; and the towns of Marion, Mattapoisett and Rochester, and precincts 3 and 6, of the town of Middleborough, all in the county of Plymouth.
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
MATTHEW C. PATRICK
617-722-2090
Party Affiliation: - DEMOCRAT
DISTRICT REPRESENTED: Third Barnstable.--Consisting of precincts 5 and 7, of the town of Barnstable, precincts 5 and 6, of the town of Bourne, precincts 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9, of the town of Falmouth, and precincts 2, 4 and 5, of the town of Mashpee, all in the county of Barnstable.
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
PETER V. KOCOT
(617) 722-2210
Party Affiliation - DEMOCRAT
DISTRICT REPRESENTED: First Hampshire. - Consisting of the town of Montgomery, in the county of Hampden; and the towns of Hatfield, Southampton and Westhampton, and the city of Northampton, all in the county of Hampshire.
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
MICHAEL F. RUSH
617-722-2210
Party Affiliation - DEMOCRAT
DISTRICT REPRESENTED: Tenth Suffolk. - Consisting of precincts 15 and 16, of the town of Brookline, in the county of Norfolk; and precincts 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of ward 20, of the city of Boston, in the county of Suffolk.

STATE REPRESENTATIVE
DENIS E. GUYER
617-722-2400
Party Affiliation - DEMOCRAT
DISTRICT REPRESENTED: Second Berkshire. - Consisting of the towns of Becket, Cheshire, Dalton, Hancock, Hinsdale, Lanesborough, New Ashford, Peru, Richmond, Washington and Windsor, and precinct B of ward 1, of the city of Pittsfield, all in the county of Berkshire; the towns of Ashfield, Bernardston, Buckland, Colrain, Leyden, Northfield and Shelburne, all in the county of Franklin; and the towns of Cummington, Middlefield and Plainfield, all in the county of Hampshire.
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
SUSAN WILLIAMS GIFFORD
617-722-2090
Party Affiliation - REPUBLICAN
DISTRICT REPRESENTED: Second Plymouth. - Consisting of precincts 1, 2 and 3, of the town of Bourne, in the county of Barnstable; and the towns of Carver and Wareham, both in the county of Plymouth.
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
DONALD F. HUMASON, JR.
617-722-2460
Party Affiliation - REPUBLICAN
DISTRICT REPRESENTED: Fourth Hampden. - Consisting of the city of Westfield, in the county of Hampden.
STATE SENATOR
ROBERT O'LEARY
Telephone: (617) 722-1570
Party Affiliation - DEMOCRAT
DISTRICT REPRESENTED: CAPE AND ISLANDS. - Barnstable, Brewster, Chatham, Dennis, Eastham, Falmouth, precincts numbered four and seven, Harwich, Mashpee, Orleans, Provincetown, Truro, Wellfleet and Yarmouth, in the county of Barnstable; Chilmark, Edgartown, Gay Head, Gosnold, Oak Bluffs, Tisbury and West Tisbury, in the county of Dukes County; and Nantucket, in the county of Nantucket.
STATE SENATOR BRUCE E. TARR
Telephone: (617) 722-1600
Party Affiliation - REPUBLICAN
DISTRICT REPRESENTED: FIRST ESSEX AND MIDDLESEX. — Gloucester, Boxford, Essex, Georgetown, Groveland, Hamilton, Ipswich, Manchester-by-the-Sea, Middleton, Newbury, North Andover, precincts 2, 3, 5 and 7, Rockport, Rowley, Wenham and West Newbury, in the county of Essex; and North Reading and Wilmington, in the county of Middlesex.

I can see in a very short period of time friends and family of Mr. O'Leary having jobs on the new ocean management task force. I should be writing something anything more appropriate here, but I smell a huge power grab by the cape cod pundit. :realmad: This really really smells.

So how did the vote turn out?

Todays CCTimes says that O'Leary has dropped the MPAs' from his bill?

Perhaps one of the moderators could combine the 2 ACTION ALERT/MPA threads?

I emailed Bob Creedan that I have known for many years and implored him to at least table the bill for the time being until Mr. Diodati can add his opinon. The Creedan family use to be fervant stripedbass fishermen when they were young men and still enjoy saltwater fishing today although I am sure its on a smaller scale.
I hope it helped.

Frank

Todays CCTimes says that O'Leary has dropped the MPAs' from his bill?

That's true and the bill will go to the legislature with no section on creating MPAs. MPA section was deleted due to fisherman objections.

In that mode, with no MPA section, it is probably a good bill and worthy of support.

Looks like you guys won, Congrats!

Looks like you guys won, Congrats!

While a few of us did some work to defeat it; in retrospect, I think it was the commercial groups like CapeCodCom.Hook Fishermen, NAMA and NH Fisheries Coalition to name a few.

dont forget about the
m.s.b.a.

and all the work Mike and Patric put in to this :claps:

Your absolutely right. MSBA did a lot of legwork on this and is doing it on many other important issues. Sorry, I didn't mention them.

Regardless of who did the work - groups and individuals (and good work BTW :btu: ), it is still not done. Now instead of hoping to fix one proposal in the legislature, there are now three live ones bouncing around :smash: :bsod:

What are the other three, John ?

I believe there are three total, Romney's, O'Leary's, and one other Representative's bill that have all come out of commitee

Just got this from the RFA in an email:


Threat of No-Fishing Zones in Massachusetts Takes a Step Forward

The Joint Committee on the Environment, Natural Resources, and Agriculture released S529, introduced by Senator Robert OLeary (Cape and Islands). This bill is the greatest threat ever to recreational fishing in Massachusettss waters. RFA and allied organizations continue to remain adamantly opposed to the bill as written, and continue to seek changes that will remove language intended to serve as the basis for the establishment of arbitrary No-Fishing Zones in the waters of the Commonwealth.

As of now, Senator OLeary has refused to address the concerns of the recreational fishing community, which includes a sizable number of his constituents and businesses in his district. Senator OLearys staff is claiming that changes have been made to S529 that remove the MPA language, and thus the concerns of the recreational fishing community have been addressed. These statements are false. The Senator has received letters from the RFA and allied groups regarding S529 explaining that simply removing a specific directive to create No-Fishing Zones does not mean that arbitrary No-Fishing Zones cannot be created, said Barry Gibson, RFA New England Regional Director. S529 still includes guidance, goals, directives, and mandates that will undoubtedly lead to the establishment of permanent No-Fishing Zones whether through the flawed and arbitrary political process established by S529 for developing a Massachusetts ocean management plan, or through certain litigation that will result if S529 were to become law.

RFA also contends there are other problems with the bill, including a possible saltwater fishing license, and the establishment of a special account controlled by the Secretary of the Environment, which can receive private money, without oversight from the legislature, which is possibly unconstitutional.

We have done everything possible to work with Senator OLeary and he continues to ignore our concerns. We hope that this will change or we will be forced to do everything possible to see that this legislation does not pass and a more reasonable bill is considered, said Gibson.

well if he's ignoring our concerns, then I guess it won't be so bad when we ignore MPA's :fishslap:

time for revolution

Last night at the M.S.B.A. monthly meeting Pat Paquette stressed that this legislation is a cover for introducing a salt water fishing license. The R.F.A. lawyers that have been studying s539 see it this way.

I think that s539 is a camoflage for more than just a license to fish in salt water. I see the commission that is created from this law as a precursor to another level of patronage for the cape and islands. It would surprise me to find out that this is a legislative reward for O'Leary for being s strong party line supporter. I believe if this passes it will also be the body that oversees the cape and islands windmill project. I wouldn't be surprised if it comes to light that people involved in this endeavour, the windmill farm, are donating to O'Leary's reelection campaign and the campaigns of those that are his biggest supporters. And I can see the headlines now, "The donations will not sway might vote one way or the other," ya right.

I think we are about to take multiple hits from varying directions, which will serve to keep us off balance. These observations of "mine" are derived from years of watching and reading power politics in Massachusetts. This proposed law just didn't appear a couple of years ago. It had to have been in the works for a few years prior to our finding out about it. Its worded to make it look like it is for and against anything along the coast or in the water. If those windmills get erected that will be the biggest no fishing zone out there. You watch..........:shocked: and if you just watch without protesting in some form or another, we will all go quietly into this bad night.