They're holding public hearings now as the initial step in implementation of this Act (scheduled to take effect 12/09). It involves coordination of multiple uses of state waters from 1500ft out from the high tide mark, to about 3 miles off shore. For the shore guys it probably isn't a major issue, but for boat fisherman it is a good chance to put a plug in for no closed preserves and for the enhancement of fishing by an artificial reef program. The Act does have a stipulation that "recreational fishing shall be an allowed use" and supposedly this rules out marine sanctuaries, but given the number of people getting up and suggesting them, your voice reaffirming our objection to them is important. Also, the more people they hear pushing for habitat enhancement the more likely it will come to fruition. The act does stipulate that the DMF will continue to have jurisdiction over fisheries management. Meetings are a 7pm
10/22 Eastham, salt pond visitor center
Mon worcester Public Library
10/28 pollard library, Lowell
10/29 berkshire athenaeum, Pittsfield
10/30 Scibelli hall theater, Springfield

It is a lot easier to get your voice heard now than after things get moving. Please go.

george, what time in eastham?

Ditto Ditto ditto what Numbskull said. I have been in on this bill since the day it was filed. Indeed many on this site helped change the language from the original text of the O'Leary Bill. It is potentially a great peice of legislation if we continue to watch over interpretation along the way. I highly suggest you atten the "public listening sessions" (Wendy and I were there in Wood's Hole this evening) and participate. Tell em what you think. I will be representing MA Recs in a special "stakeholder" session next week. It's what we at MSBA do!!!

george, what time in eastham?

Supposedly all meetings are a 7pm.

I would like to see a art. reef program, it could be very beneficial to those long stretches of underwater deserts we have in places and potentially even play a dual role of protecting the shoreline. We should look to FL and NJ as to what they have done/are doing.

I would like to see a art. reef program, it could be very beneficial to those long stretches of underwater deserts we have in places and potentially even play a dual role of protecting the shoreline. We should look to FL and NJ as to what they have done/are doing.

This is the act that will do that. With the impending license fees, there also should be money to drive it. The more voices putting it on their radar screen, the better.

When they retired the old ferry, "islander", I was pushing for them to sink it off the south shore and make it a reef/wreck and habitat for fish in an area where there is little to no boat traffic and a place where marine life currently just passes by and does not hang around very long. People looked at me like I had two heads.

This is the act that will do that. With the impending license fees, there also should be money to drive it. The more voices putting it on their radar screen, the better.

As a member of the DMF MA Recreational Registy Steering Committee (aka the committee developing the Salt Water License recomendations to the legislature) I can tell you that an Artificial Reef Program and the specific allowance for license money to pay for these is in the recomended language.

Numby is once again correct as the MA Ocean Plan will have to allow artificial reefs for this to happen. I will make sure I deliver that request at the "stakeholder" rep meeting next week.

I would like to see a art. reef program, it could be very beneficial to those long stretches of underwater deserts

Absolutely!
The used rubble from the Jamestown bridge for this purpose.
We need more projects like that.


[/QUOTE]we have in places and potentially even play a dual role of protecting the shoreline. [/QUOTE]

I'm a bit less in favor of this part.
make them wrecks... putting something in to 'protect' the shoreline ALWAYS of ALMOST ALWAYS have collateral impacts...