Sorry if this is a duplicate thread but I didn't see this mentioned on the boards and its too important to let fade away.

FISHERMEN TO MARCH ON WASHINGTON, DC

For Immediate Release, December 10, 2009:

Recreational and commercial fishermen, support business owners, families, and community leaders will gather at the steps of our Nation’s Capitol on February 24, 2010 from noon to 3 PM to show congress a united front of the impacts caused by the unintended impacts of the Magnuson Stevens Conservation and Management Act as revised effective January, 2007 (RMSA). The overly restrictive management requirements created by the RMSA based on non scientific arbitrary deadlines are forcing anglers off the water, eliminating commercial fishing, preventing consumers from purchasing locally caught fresh seafood, destroying small family businesses, increasing unemployment, and adversely affecting coastal communities.

We fully support real science based management and the conservation of our marine resources while also being able to sustain recreational and commercial fishing activities, providing locally caught seafood, sustaining small family businesses, and supporting our coastal communities. Please stay tuned as the details are being developed and will be provided. Make your plans to join us for this historic event and work with us in a United effort from coast to coast.

UNITED WE FISH and FISHING MATTERS

CCGF urges all elected officials to work together and to join the efforts by the leaders of other coastal states for the best interests of our coastal communities and the Nation.

This effort is being coordinated by many organizations and individuals including but not limited to CCGF, RFA, FRA, United Boatmen of New York, United Boatmen of New Jersey, MSSA and more to be announced.

CCGF is a 501(c) (6) non profit that represents recreational for-hire vessel owners and operators, supporting businesses, and recreational anglers from the Gulf of Mexico

.........there are a number of organizations out to eliminate fishing in all venues/methods....time to stand together to protect not only the resource(fish!),,but to protect all participants.....lifestyles and jobs...:fishin::agree:

What is being "advanced" in this march?

The idea is to protest against some of the excesses of the revised MSA. Such as the mandate to stop "overfishing" by severely restricting catches even when everyone knows that the catches are not what is responsible for the "overfishing." Remember any shortfall in biological mass from the fishery management plan is by definition "overfishing."

Also to stop nonsense like the overuse of the "precautionary principal" like we have seen with the dogfish explosion.

“UNITED WE FISH” TO ASK FOR CONGRESSIONAL RESPONSE ON FEB. 24

(N.B. I HAVE TAKEN THE LIBERTY OF HIGHLIGHTING SALIENT PASSAGES FOR YOU! - Skip/SORTIE)

12/16/09 - In a historic show of solidarity, recreational and commercial fishermen will gather together on the steps of the Capitol on February 24, 2010 from noon until 3 p.m. in an organized demonstration against the unintended negative impacts of the Magnuson Stevens Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the federal fisheries law which was revised in January of 2007. Coordinating the march under the flag of United We Fish, rally organizers are hoping to see a large show of force in defense of coastal communities. “The closures keep coming and it’s good to see the collective fishing communities and industries, both recreational and commercial, calling for scientific based Magnuson reform,” said Jim Donofrio, Executive Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA). “We are all in this together.” Donofrio cited recent closures of amberjack, black sea bass and red snapper fisheries as examples of what he calls a “broken” federal fisheries law. The groups organized through United We Fish are hoping to prove to legislators just how many American anglers and business owners are truly being impacted by the overly restrictive management requirements created by MSA based on non scientific arbitrary deadlines. According to Bob Zales of the Conservation Cooperative of Gulf Fishermen (CCGF), the timespecific deadlines mandated by MSA coupled with flawed data collection methods are forcing anglers off the water. “We fully support real science based management and the conservation of our marine resources while also being able to sustain recreational and commercial fishing activities, providing locally caught seafood, sustaining small family businesses, and supporting our coastal communities.”

This effort is being coordinated by many organizations and individuals including but not limited to the RFA, CCGF, United Boatmen of New York, United Boatmen of New Jersey, New York Sportfishing Federation, Maryland Saltwater Sportfishermen’s Association and the Fishing Rights Alliance. “Some people have asked ‘why, it’s winter’,” said Donofrio who said he’s gotten the required permits and expects a large crowd in DC on February 24th, regardless of weather. “We can’t let seasons stop the momentum, and if we wait any longer none of us will be fishing. Many members of Congress will be standing shoulder to shoulder with us,” Donofrio said.

Nils Stolpe, a consultant to the commercial fishing industry and columnist for SavingSeafood.org said that over the past three decades since the original Magnuson Act was established, fishermen have been gradually phased out of the fisheries management process, regardless of sector. “The scientists have been put in charge, and as the list of closures and restrictions up above painfully demonstrates, the Act has been turned into a weapon that is now being used against fishermen and fishing communities.” U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) first introduced the Flexibility in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act of 2008 in the 110th Congress to provide "limited flexibility" for federal fisheries management. More than 100 fishing groups and industry members from around the country pledged their support for the legislation and the bill’s 19 bipartisan coastal cosponsors, but the bill languished during the volatile economic climate in advance of the presidential elections in November of 2008.

PRESS RELEASE
Recreational Fishing Alliance
176 B South New York Road, Galloway, NJ 082054
P: 1-888-564-6732 F: 609-404-1968

Realizing that fisheries closures would continue without congressional intervention, in March of this year, Rep. Pallone and fellow Representatives John Adler (D-NJ), Henry Brown, Jr. (R-SC), Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL), Barney Frank (D-MA), Walter B. Jones, Jr. (R-NC), Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), Mike McIntyre (D-NC), Michael Michaud (D-ME), Solomon Ortiz (D-TX) and John Tierney (D-MA), reintroduced the Flexibility in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act of 2009 (HR 1584). Twenty-five co-sponsors have since pledged support including Rob Andrews (D-NJ), Timothy Bishop (D-NY), Allen Boyd (D-FL), Joe Courtney (D-CT), Peter King (R-NY), Rob Wittman (RVA), Jo Bonner (R-AL), John Mica (R-FL), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH), Clifford Stearns (R-FL), Donna Christensen (D-VI), Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), and Ander Crenshaw (R-FL).

Following a letter-writing campaign by the RFA-NY and members of the New York Sportfishing Federation, senior Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York announced his Senate version of the bill (S.1255). Currently, the Senate bill to correct the flaws in MSA has no cosponsors, which is something United We Fish organizers are hoping will change in February.

“New York’s Senator Schumer is as concerned about his fishing constituents as he is about the fish, just as Congressmen Pallone, Frank, Jones, LoBiondo, Kennedy, Adler and others in the House of Representatives are,” said Stolpe. “Hence they have formed the nucleus of a growing movement in Congress that, in spite of the editorial opinion of the New York Times and the expenditure of many millions of dollars by the Pew Charitable Trusts, is aimed at preserving recreational and commercial fishing, the lifestyles of millions of fishermen, and the tens of thousands of businesses and hundreds of fishing communities that they support,” Stolpe added. Organizers from within the recreational fishing sector are hoping to get commitment from all user groups and across varied state and regional boundaries. “This is much bigger than any one state issue or individual grievance,” said RFA’s Managing Director Jim Hutchinson, Jr. “Whether it’s our restrictive fluke fishery in New York, the arbitrary closure of state waters for our anglers in California, or the shutdown of red snapper and amberjack down south, our community has been divided by preservationist tactics for too long. It’s time to unite the clans in defense of our coastal heritage and traditions,” Hutchinson said. “We need to let Congress and NOAA know that we are the collective voice of the recreational fishing community and the collective voice does not accept the current broken management system which wreaks such havoc on all of us and our businesses,” said Donofrio, adding “The goal on February 24th will be to get all of our congressional friends to attend.” “At this point Senator Schumer and his Congressional colleagues in the House deserve the thanks and the support of every one of us who fishes, whether for fun or profit,” said Stolpe.

The United We Fish rally is set for 2/24/10 at noon at the Capitol.

The idea is to protest against some of the excesses of the revised MSA. Such as the mandate to stop "overfishing" by severely restricting catches even when everyone knows that the catches are not what is responsible for the "overfishing." Remember any shortfall in biological mass from the fishery management plan is by definition "overfishing."

Also to stop nonsense like the overuse of the "precautionary principal" like we have seen with the dogfish explosion.

The goal is to protect the stock, and help rebuild it right? Isn't the only way to do that is to pare down the total allowable catch? What should they call the shortfall ? Who cares who or what is responsible if all we can control is the TAC.

Is anyone planning on going...anyone interested in buying a ticket for a group bus trip like they are doing up and down the coast

Does it occur to anyone that action by the Pew Trusts may actually improve the quality of our fishing?

When fishermen have depleted a public resource to the verge of collapse, fighting for the right to keep doing so is the height of stupidity and irresponsibility.

The only way to avoid environmentally mandated correction of destroyed fisheries is for fishermen to do it voluntarily and quickly. Fighting against it will destroy us. Too bad we are such fools.

PEW seems to be quite busy...

Posted - 10 Dec 2009 : 1:35:46 PM

MEDIA RELEASE

Garrett’s marine environmental policy on the brink of disaster
National Spokesperson for the Boating and Fishing Council of Australia (BFCA) Dean Logan today pointed
to the front page article in the Weekend Australian (Dec 5-6 Marine Park Battle of the Coral Sea ) on the
Coral Sea as a defining moment for Peter Garrett’s environmental leadership of Australia’s marine
environment.
Mr Logan commented, “The unilateral decision to declare the Coral Sea a Conservation Zone and side with
the USA funded Pew Environment Group (a division of The Pew Charitable Trusts), was done without any
consultation.“As a result Peter Garrett has single handedly lost the respect of the entire Australian recreational marine,
boating, outboard and fishing sectors and is causing deep divisions within the Australian environmental
lobby.”
On 20 May 2009 the Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett set a worrying precedent with the
unilateral decision declaring the Coral Sea a Conservation Zone with no prior consultation with industry or
affected Queensland communities. Significant angst and uncertainly now exists as a direct result of the
decision with the international environmental lobby group Pew – with a $US4bn balance sheet - using the
Coral Sea issue to push for the implementation of ‘no take’ marine policies throughout Australia.
Logan continued, “The BFCA makes no excuses for adopting a strong marine environmental stance,
however the appalling Coral Sea decision is a significant issue that effects not only Queenslanders but has
major ramifications for other parts of Australia.”
Pew have a clear no-negotiation, no-take – and in some instances no-human activity – policy stance and
are already using the Coral Sea announcement as a backdrop to run massive campaigns in Western
Australia.Logan went on to say, “Make no mistake that some of Australia’s largest companies are watching this very
issue with great concern.
“In our view the environment will benefit more through a collaborative co-management approach where both
industry and community views are respected and taken into consideration. We have some of the best
marine environmental policies in the world for this very reason.”
Peter Garrett’s Ministerial leadership and judgment is further questioned with the Bio-Regional Planning
Process also in complete disarray. The BFCA and the Federal Department of the Environment, Water,
Heritage & the Arts have convened a critical meeting this Friday in Canberra to resurrect what is a
terminally ill process.
Logan concluded, “Our door is open and we will continue to work with Australian environmental groups to
secure a balanced outcome for industry, the community and importantly the environment. We can’t however
stand by and allow international lobby groups to dictate terms and disrespect decades of hard work by our
respective sectors. The sooner Peter Garrett realizes this and starts to work with us the better,” concluded
Mr Logan.
END - Media can contact Dean Logan (National Spokesperson) on 0403 195 798
Boating and Fishing Council of Australia - Canberra
8 December 2009

Does it occur to anyone that action by the Pew Trusts may actually improve the quality of our fishing?

When fishermen have depleted a public resource to the verge of collapse, fighting for the right to keep doing so is the height of stupidity and irresponsibility.

The only way to avoid environmentally mandated correction of destroyed fisheries is for fishermen to do it voluntarily and quickly. Fighting against it will destroy us. Too bad we are such fools.

Name one stock that fishermen have depleted to the "point of collapse." One of the national standards that are supposed to govern fishery management is the economic well being of fishermen and their communities. That standard has been totally ignored over the last several years.

Look at Black Sea Bass, the stock is fully rebuilt and according to the science there are more sea bass around now than there have ever been. Yet the NMFS is going to cut recreational anglers back to a two month season. Where is the sense in that? Same goes for scup, fluke and many other species that we don't catch around here.

Maybe if you're a strictly C&R fishermen your fishing may improve, but bag limits are getting tighter and tighter for those of us who actually bring fish home for a meal. But even you are going to have a hard time fishing when all of the Bait & Tackle shops go out of business.

Mr Logan, like most of us is missing the point. The environmental issue that attracts Pew's attention ONLY EXISTS because of the actions of Mr. Logan and his like minded friends. Furthermore, no international lobby group will have any long term success dictating terms in a democracy unless they have represent a valid concern supported by a significant portion of the public.

The truth, like it or not, is that if we or the Aussies want to continue fishing, we need to reduce our impact on the fishery while we do so. The majority of people in the US and Australia, informed or not, will favor "protection of the environment" over the "right" to fish. Just as many people (informed or not) feel logging in national forests or drilling in wildlife refugees harms them in some vague way that makes them uncomfortable, most of the public feel the same about depleting the ocean of fish.

It does not matter if they are hypocritical about it (buying fish, generating pollution, and consuming lumber). When the issue is presented in the terms of "damaging the environment" people in a democracy feel uncomfortable and responsible so they vote to change it......impact be damned.

There are too many fishermen killing too many fish. If we continue down the same path we are heading for mandated closed areas and judical (rather than legislative) fishery managment. Which will indeed help fish populations to recover and improve fishing in the limited areas remaining. Think of the Boston Harbor clean up. Wasn't that driven by the CLF (and I believe Pew trusts)? How did that work out for fishermen? And what about the cod and haddock fishery? Does anyone think there would be any inshore fishery for either anymore without judicial action driven by environmental groups? Wake up people.

We have no one to blame but ourselves. Denying the problem and refusing to make sacrifices now (and in the past) is suicidal. Marching on Washington is a gesture, not a solution. WE are the problem, not the Pew trust.

a little closer to home...

01/01/10 at 10:17 PM


The Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) charges that the Government has already acknowledged that data collection methods used to justify red snapper closures were not intended to be used for such purposes.
NOAA/NMFS, in conjunction with Pew Charity, is, under provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), so very quick to close down fisheries. However, NOAA continues to ignore requirements of MSA to eliminate all inconsistencies within the data collection process.
Mister Bob Bryant, President / CEO of Actuarial Systems Group ,explains why, (January issue of Woods'n Water, page 123), trust in NMFS is 'At an all-time low.' NMFS should use extreme caution in relying on what he, and we, call, "Highly suspect data."
Per this data expert, "Anecdotal evidence from across the Gulf of Mexico and up ,and down the East Cost from North Carolina to Florida indicate that red snapper and grouper in both these regions are in a strong rebound. On many reef complexes it is almost impossible to get a bait past red snapper to other species." Nothing new to us. I see it every time I visit the Middle Grounds.
East Coast Fisheries (SFA) Chairman, Mister James G. Hull Jr., (Woods'nWater, January, page 63): "All recreational fishermen, sport fishermen, commercial and average citizens of this country will no longer have local fisheries resources available to them because of the Pew Charity, which is now in charge of managing our nations fisheries." Pew Charity is an independent nonprofit charitable trust beneficiary of seven individual charitable funds.
Pew, (info @ pewtrusts.org.), was established in 1948. Pew is vigorously campaigning to protect what it calls ,"Overfished species." Pew, in the words of Captain Bob Zales, "Is the primary enviro group working to destroy fishing and boating."Mister Hull continues: "This is just the first installment of many more installments of your ocean resources being given to the Pew Charity. This has nothing to do with valid science and is totally a political decision." As Pew Charity spokesman Joshua Richards says, "It's not about science, it's about politics."
Mister Bob Jones, SFA, "I cannot support an agency decision that needlessly puts people out of work and who will not listen to scientists not on the government teat or serving on the hand-picked SSC Committee. I hope you keep an eye on the Pew Charity because there isn't a charitable bone in that corporate body.

Unfortunately, the environmental wing of the Pew Charitable Trust (Pew Environment Group) is a huge corporation with many different branches. Some are very extremeist and opposed to all that fishermen beleive and sometimes they're positions are right there with us.

I am the MA State Chair of the RFA and at the same time have worked with Pew moderates on isses where we share a common interest.

IMNSHO...both views on this thread are correct and incorrect at the same time.

Remember...For a long time Bob Pond was laughed at by the recreational fishing community...today he is known as the first person to stand up for Striped Bass.

Sort of like the civil war all over again. "The problem isn't slavery, the problem is the people who don't like slavery. Damn abolitionists are the enemy." Take a look at how that reasoning worked out and I think you can see where we are headed.

The problem isn't the Pew Trust. The problem is that they are right, we have abused our fisheries. Making them into boogie men isn't going to change that even if we want to pretend it will. :rollem:

Sort of like the civil war all over again. "The problem isn't slavery, the problem is the people who don't like slavery. Damn abolitionists are the enemy." Take a look at how that reasoning worked out and I think you can see where we are headed.

The problem isn't the Pew Trust. The problem is that they are right, we have abused our fisheries. Making them into boogie men isn't going to change that even if we want to pretend it will. :rollem:

If you really think the civil was fought over slavery its no wonder you think Pew and its allies are only trying to protect the fish. Again I ask, show me one stock that fishing has driven into deep trouble. Also, why your at it, explain to me why we are facing increasing restrictions on species that are at an all time high?

[QUOTE=MakoMike;737083]I Again I ask, show me one stock that fishing has driven into deep trouble. QUOTE]

Weakfish
Inshore Cod
Halibut
Striped Bass once and heading there again
Scup
Fluke
Inshore Pollock
Whiting
Swordfish
White Marlin
Bluefin Tuna
Yellowfin Tuna (NE population)
Big Eye Tuna
Winter Flounder
River Herring
Wolffish
Tautog heading there fast S of NE.

You can quibble on a few, but none of those populations are anywhere near where they were 35-40 years ago....except Halibut which got wiped out 80 years ago. But who cares, cause who would be willing to pay you to take them off the Race in March to catch 200 lb fish?

[QUOTE=MakoMike;737083]I Again I ask, show me one stock that fishing has driven into deep trouble. QUOTE]

Weakfish
Inshore Cod
Halibut
Striped Bass once and heading there again
Scup
Fluke
Inshore Pollock
Whiting
Swordfish
White Marlin
Bluefin Tuna
Yellowfin Tuna (NE population)
Big Eye Tuna
Winter Flounder
River Herring
Wolffish
Tautog heading there fast S of NE.

You can quibble on a few, but none of those populations are anywhere near where they were 35-40 years ago....except Halibut which got wiped out 80 years ago. But who cares, cause who would be willing to pay you to take them off the Race in March to catch 200 lb fish?

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest over this. But you obviously haven't done any research in compiling the above list as you are wrong for more than half of it. According to the scientists that do the match, the fluke population is at a historic high, never been more fluke around than there are today. So how come we have these ridiculous fluke regs of 4 fish at 20" inches or similar?

[QUOTE=MakoMike;737294][QUOTE=numbskull;737096]

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest over this. But you obviously haven't done any research in compiling the above list as you are wrong for more than half of it. QUOTE]

So you agree then that the other 1/2 of the list is overfished?
Point made, I think.
You planning any Halibut trips this year, or that income wouldn't be helpful?

i think ALL fishermen are to blame in the decline of the fisheries that i've been involved in. i've been fishing for 50 yrs and must say that the striper, bluefish, blackfish and winter flounder fisheries are not what they once were, period. just going by the eyeball test....

can't blame just the fishermen....

In round numbers, the various marine mammal species in the northwest Atlantic consume 20,000,000 metric tons of food each year. And at an average 3% annual increase, a fairly conservative estimate, each year the amount of food they consume could increase by more than half a million metric tons.

The total commercial landings for all species (finfish and shellfish) from the U.S. East Coast and Atlantic Canada are 680,000 and 870,000 thousand metric tons respectively. (Canadian Division of Fisheries and Oceans - http://www.qc.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/peches/en/statistique/2001_2002/Documents/dfo_adm.pdf and National Marine Fisheries Service NMFS Commercial Fishery Landings Data (http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/index.html) ).



In perspective, in the Northwest Atlantic in 2006, marine mammals ate approximately 13 times as much fish and shellfish as commercial fishermen landed, and the annual increase in their total consumption might well have exceeded the U.S. East Coast landings in 2007.



And what are they eating? In large part, it’s what the fishermen are catching. If a fisherman wants to catch it, there’s an excellent chance that a whale or a dolphin or a seal is going to want to catch it as well. And if a commercial fisherman doesn’t want to catch it, then the probability is that something that he or she wants to catch is going to be eating it.



Consider the most numerous species, harp seals. If cod make up only five percent of their diet (it is reported as “a small percentage”), they consume on the order of 500,000 metric tons of this valuable species every year. At the fishery’s peak, cod landings for the north coast of Newfoundland, which is in the middle of the harp seals’ range, didn’t quite reach 800,000 tons. Capelin, one of the harp seals’ preferred foods, is also a preferred food of cod. This single species could be eating as much cod as Newfoundland’s commercial fishermen were once catching, and are undoubtedly eating far more of the cod’s preferred food, the cod have been declining as the harp seal population has been increasing, and yet overfishing is considered to be the reason for the decline.



In view of the massive levels of marine mammal predation, and remembering that much of it is either on the species that fishermen target or the food of those species, from any rational perspective it seems incredible that our fisheries management systems and our fisheries managers are still exclusively focused on fishing. And we haven’t yet considered the other factors, human-induced and natural, that will be the subject of subsequent Fishnets. But that’s what we’ve done and that’s what we’re doing, and because of the slavish devotion to that view, the concept of Ecosystem Based Management has been distorted into just another iteration of the failed “blame it all on fishing” philosophy.

Getting real about ecosystem based management (http://www.fishnet-usa.com/ecosystem_management.htm)

the seal population hasn't increased at all on the Cape...has it?

Absolutely increasing predation (which ASMFC seems to ignore) is an issue. I suspect the poundage numbers are skewed, whales eat a lot of krill and small forage (sand eels/anchovies/etc ) likely constitute most of it.
On the other hand, every available historical record indicates finfish populations (and presumably predator populations as well) where many times more abundant when man (us non-native guys) arrived here than they are now. That makes it pretty hard to sell the argument that fishing is not a major cause of where we are today.

It doesn't matter, however.

People do not like to feel uncomfortable.
Most people do not fish.
Fishing causes some degree of "environmental damage".....meaning depletion of fish.
Damaging the environment makes most people uncomfortable.
Most people are unwilling to be made uncomfortable so we can fish.
Enter Pew trust and fishing restriction legislation stage left.

If we want to continue to be able to fish, we need to minimize (not fight for) our impact on the fish (read environment). We are on VERY thin ice if we don't, and there are far too many of us on that ice for it to hold.

Freshwater fisherman long ago had to adapt their behavior to preserve their resource and "right to fish". Saltwater fishing is 50 years behind, but we are going to have to do the same or be shut down. Fight it and we'll end up like the recreational/commercial migratory bird hunting industry of yesteryear. Wake up and go with the flow and we can end up like the freshwater fisheries of today.

Neither is what we want. One is better than the other.

"going with the flow"....like this?

The White House created an Interagency Oceans Policy Task Force in June and gave them only 90 days to develop a comprehensive federal policy for all U.S. coastal, ocean and Great Lakes waters. Under the guise of 'protecting' these areas, the current second phase of the Task Force direction is to develop zoning which may permanently close vast areas of fishing waters nationwide. This is to be completed by December 9, 2009.

Dave Pfeiffer, President of Shimano American Corporation explained, "In spite of extensive submissions from the recreational fishing community to the Task Force in person and in writing, they failed to include any mention of the over one million jobs or the 6o million anglers which may be affected by the new policies coast to coast. Input from the environmental groups who want to put us off the water was adopted into the report verbatim – the key points we submitted as an industry were ignored."

here are a couple of other worthy reads regarding Pew and the "no-take" zones...how they get implemented and in which direction the "flow" is quickly moving...

Sport Fishing (http://www.sportfishingmag.com/blog.jsp?ID=13)
Did environmentalists screw up with the Marine Life Protection Act? | News & Culture in The North Bay (http://www.bohemian.com/bohemian/08.26.09/feature-0934.html)

this National Angler Registry has simply given the feds the ability to bypass the various rec. groups that may lobby or otherwise put up a stink with regard to closures or curtailments of access....the feds can now claim to have accurate and up to date scientific data through direct contact based on random calls to area fishermen that these groups sometimes represent and in fact have better data than the anecdotal evidence from little fishing clubs/organizations ...read the NOAA justification for this registry..."create and angler phone book"The registry will serve as a national “phone book” of anglers, allowing NOAA to quickly and easily reach current fishermen to learn about their most recent fishing activities. That information is a crucial part of our ability to estimate the health of fish stocks, and to check that protections put in place to preserve fisheries will be fair, effective, and based on sound science. The registry is also a tool for recreational fishermen. As the first comprehensive accounting of the scope of recreational saltwater fishing in the U.S., it will help to more fully demonstrate anglers’ economic, conservation and marine stewardship impacts. ....read any of the accounts from Australia to the US West Coast, the Gulf and you will find the common theme that the rec fishermen/sport are being ignored, they won't need to hear from the angling groups, we've already contacted the members ourselves....thank you...goodbye..hang up or wait on hold for the next available activist/bureaucrat

No thanks, count me out.

The idea is to protest against some of the excesses of the revised MSA. Such as the mandate to stop "overfishing" by severely restricting catches even when everyone knows that the catches are not what is responsible for the "overfishing." Remember any shortfall in biological mass from the fishery management plan is by definition "overfishing."

Also to stop nonsense like the overuse of the "precautionary principal" like we have seen with the dogfish explosion.

I thougt maybe I should be more specific about my previous post.

I do not necessarily disagree with MSA that if there is a shortfall in biomass, then there is overfishing. Even if other factors are reducing the biomass, the catch level needs to be reduced to be proportionate to the amount of biomass.

In simpler terms... the amount of flounder in a spot is reduced from 10 tons to 1 ton for whatever reason. That year only 1 ton was due to fishing. The next seasons catch has to be reduced no matter what is most responsible for the reduction in biomass.

Also, the precautionary principal could have prevented the fact that for most of my young childhood there wasn't a striped bass to be found where we vacationed on the Chesapeake Bay.

"The problem isn't the Pew Trust"
Really??...an oil $$ funded NGO that provides millions of dollars to radical environ. organizations directly involved in efforts to restrict ocean access, close complete fisheries, etc.

Take a look at the MLPA info. over @ Bloody Decks and see who's responsible for the Calif. mess and take some time to review the incestuous relationships between Pew funded groups and the agencies charged with regulating and designating protected areas. People should be going to jail over there!!

Do you really think it's right for these groups to monopolize the management of our fisheries & oceans simply because they have the $$ to do so?

Wake up. What you and I think is "right" DOES NOT MATTER.
What we do is what matters. If we ignore the environmental impact of our fishing (as we are want to do) we give organizations like the PEW Trusts EXACTLY what they need to convince the public (or judiciary) that we SHOULD BE IGNORED.

Fishermen need to stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution. Pretending fish stocks are in good shape and that we are not a MAJOR part of any problem we refuse to acknowledge exists...........MAKES US IRRELEVANT.

Oh sure, we can scream and shout and make lots of noise and play the pity card......but in the long run if we do not voluntarily restrain our impact on over strained fisheries WE ARE GOING TO LOSE THEM. Remember, 290 million people in this country would pick resource protection over "fishermen's rights".

Do YOU lose sleep over loggers prohibited from logging in National Parks? Do you think the public will lose sleep over fisherman shut out of Marine Parks?

I don't like this any more than anyone else, but it is going to happen....and our stupid greed and inability to curb our catch is the reason it is going to happen.

Here is an interview with the head of PEW by Sport Fishing Magazine http://www.sportfishingmag.com/species/pews-reichert-talks-to-anglers-1000071919-page-1.html

The guy is very intelligent and level headed....and a fisherman. We change our behavior and restore our fisheries we can continue to fish. We refuse to change and want to fight, they'll be glad to fight.

Interview: Pew talks to Sport Fishing - Saltwater Fishing Forums (http://forums.sportfishingmag.com/showthread.php?p=380065#post380065)

you should also read through the comments...

"What you and I think is "right" DOES NOT MATTER" !!

Maybe not you...but I fight for what I think is right...I don't generally bend over to make it easier for someone to screw me!

Best to be sure what IS right before you start a fight.

If you think continuing to manage fisheries the way we have been is a "right", well good luck to you.

If you think you have a "right" to fish, well maybe we agree, but you had best start thinking how you can do so without the impact on the "environment" you have been having to date........because the HUGE majority of people in this country don't believe your "right to fish" trumps their concerns about the environment.......and like it or not fish are part of the environment.

Interview: Pew talks to Sport Fishing - Saltwater Fishing Forums (http://forums.sportfishingmag.com/showthread.php?p=380065#post380065)

you should also read through the comments...

Such as this one by the president of Florida charter captains?

".....
The takeaway is that Pew is flexible and the driver of the catch shares system, is EDF.

We cannot beat Pew in a street fight. We need to encourage Pew to continue advocating for a slow and deliberate approach to regulating and turn our focus to EDF, which is advancing the doomsday agenda."
__________________
Captain Gary S. Colecchio
Silver Dawn Charters
Bonita Beach


Pew prioritizes the environment. If recreational fishermen do the same everybody both can win. If recreational fishermen fight to do otherwise, well then we're in for a "street fight".

"We fully support real science based management and the conservation of our marine resources while also being able to sustain recreational and commercial fishing activities, providing locally caught seafood, sustaining small family businesses, and supporting our coastal communities"

This quote from the 1st post by MM says it all. Minimal impact within this framework should be everyones goal.

" because the HUGE majority of people in this country don't believe your "right to fish" trumps their concerns about the environment.......and like it or not fish are part of the environment"

Yikes...change a couple of words and this could be from a PETA flyer!! :devil2: Only kidding......I think.:fishin:

"We fully support real science based management and the conservation of our marine resources while also being able to sustain recreational and commercial fishing activities, providing locally caught seafood, sustaining small family businesses, and supporting our coastal communities"

This quote from the 1st post by MM says it all. Minimal impact within this framework should be everyones goal.



And there is the rub. Sustaining recreational and commercial fishing activities is OUR priority.

Conservation of marine resources is PEW's priority.

The "impact" required to maintain current levels of recreational and commercial fishing activities is more than the goal of conserving marine resources can tolerate.......which is why most of the world's saltwater fisheries (both commercial and recreational are suffering).

Which goal do you think the non-fishing public will see as the more important?

If you and I want to continue to fish, we have to reduce our impact on the fish. Fighting not to do so (such as this ill-conceived march on Washington) may feel good in the short term but is likely to cost us BIG TIME in the long term. Freshwater guys figured this out decades ago and are fine with the result. Why are us saltwater guys so stupid?

he is correct, as constituted, a loosely affiliated and relatively small rec. fishing community splintered through various areas would have a difficult time organizing against a very practiced and organized 5 billion dollar worldwide propoganda machine...most rec. fishermen fish part time and infrequently...these guys are full time, highly funded activists


George, you act as though there is no fishery management at all, if that is true then what have all of the various agencies and organizations been doing for the past 30 years, you sound as though every fish stock is on the verge of collapse and if we don't get in line and follow along with the demonstrably radical enviro's...they'll take it all away from us...hell of a choice, dance with the devil or burn at the stake:rotf2:....I would argue that through the various fishing groups and clubs and organizations most fishermen are far more conceincious than they have ever been, most stick to the catch limits and I doubt that most would disagree with reduced catch limits.....have you checked the striper stock estimates 1980-late 2000's?...if what you indicate is true, you need to turn the graph upside down like the Global Warming guys do with theirs...there is already "control" of limits, sizes, seasons...just read the stories where Pew is exerting it's considerable muscle...they will find a way to get you off of the water entirely.....if you let them roll right over you :uhuh:

[QUOTE=numbskull;737607]Such as this one by the president of Florida charter captains?

".....
The takeaway is that Pew is flexible and the driver of the catch shares system, is EDF.

We cannot beat Pew in a street fight. We need to encourage Pew to continue advocating for a slow and deliberate approach to regulating and turn our focus to EDF, which is advancing the doomsday agenda."
__________________
Captain Gary S. Colecchio
Silver Dawn Charters
Bonita Beach


George, I though this was an interesting take on the PEW interview...it's not always what you see, or even what they show you..:uhuh:

You ask, why does Pew have so much influence in our society? Here's why.
Because
1. They are well organized and firmly focused.
2. They have lots of money (almost $6billion) and spend some $500million each year to get what they want (no fishing 24/7).
3. They know how to dupe or buy media . They make them Pew Fellows, call them "marine experts", grant them $150,000 to $400,000 and tell them exactly what to say - or else.
4. They are well connected all the way to the top. The former head of Pew was Bill Clinton's chief of staff and was appointed head of the CIA by Obama. The head of NOAA was a Pew Fellow and remains thisclosetoPew.
5. They are well skilled in half truths and how to sell them. Sport Fishing magazine interviewed the head of Pew's Environmental Group (June '09) who said they were "not involved in major efforts in the lower 48, except in Oregon, or Alaska [huh?]to creat reserves in U.S.coastal waters". However, the other half is that they fund others to do it for them as in California, South Carolina, Massachusetts and New York and who knows where next. Meanwhile, Pew is "absolutely transparent about our work" while fishermen are "silly", "ridiculous", under "false perceptions" and "distort what we do". Sport Fishing played right into his hand. They were out of their league, way out.
6. Pew allocated $70million to set up "umbrella" groups such as the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership to carry the ball for them. Joining that group was the peripatetic Coastal Conservation Association and the American Sportfishing Association who Pew would put out of business. What were they thinking?
Cutting to the chase -
7. The millions of fishermen and thousands of fishing associations are rarely organized and seldom focused.

Flippity, Floppity, I still don't know what side of this fence I'm going to fall from.

We need better managed fisheries and science
We need better environmental controls
We need less hooks in the water from every group (yes, sucks but true).
We need less destructive commercial fishing.
We need better top to bottom management of the whole entire enchilada

We are very disorganized and spend more time battling each other than those trying take away our fisheries.
We are sitting ducks unless we do something about it but there has never been a unifying voice for saltwater recs up and down both coasts.
We don't have enough "We" where it counts.

you are right John, it should not be contentious among the guys here, I fully appreciate George's point of view and admire his passion...seems to me that we now have an agenda driven by Pew to dictate fishery policy, scientific studies either directly or indirectly being funded by Pew not to mention the surrogate groups that they create....and a NOAA director who I believe is a former Pew fellow who can now claim to speak for the recreational fishing community as a result of this National Angler Phone Book...information is good....we are in a tough spot...I don't think you climb in bed with the devil till you are sure what the devil intends for you

The Pew Trusts

They aren’t the average charitable foundation, having been taken far beyond the traditional role of grant giving. In “Charity Is New Force in Environmental Fight” in the NY Times (06/28/01), Douglas Jehl wrote “a $4.8 billion foundation called the Pew Charitable Trusts has quietly become not only the largest grant maker to environmental causes, but also one that controls much more than the purse strings. Unlike many philanthropies that give to conservationist groups, Pew has been anything but hands-off, serving as the behind-the-scenes architect of highly visible recent campaigns….” Pew has moved beyond the role of facilitation to developing and advocating specific positions, a vast departure from business as usual in the foundation world. In the wrap up of his article, Mr. Jehl quotes Rebecca Rimel, president of the Pew Trusts, on Pew’s effect on the national debate on global warming, "let's wait and see what the outcome is, let's see who has been able to win the hearts and minds of the public." She could have just as easily been speaking about fishing.

SeaWeb was only the start. Since its creation, Pew has been a major funder of “marine conservation” programs of anti-fishing ENGOs – almost $5 million to Environmental Defense, $3 million to Natural Resources Defense Council, $3 million for the Marine Fish Conservation Network, $4 million for Audubon, etc. Pew has also invested heavily in two organizations that it created; $34 million for Oceana and $40 million for the National Environmental Trust, both of which have been in the forefront of the anti-fishing crusade.

What’s wrong with funding fisheries research? That depends – primarily on the kind of research being funded. If it’s to learn more about fish or the environment they live in, it’s fine. We don’t know enough about any species for really effective management, and with generally meager government research budgets it will be a long time before we do. How about gear research? Anything that allows fishermen to fish more cleanly or, in these days of skyrocketing energy costs, more efficiently is going to be good for the fishing industry and good for the fish.

That’s not what Pew buys. I’ve never seen reports of Pew-funded population, gear or habitat research that involves scientists out there on the water. Pew “research” involves sifting existing – and undoubtedly inadequate – data to “prove” that fishing practices, management regimes, just about anything to do with commercial fishing, is leading to the destruction of the oceans. Calling it agenda driven research seems a pretty good fit, and, as Ms. Rimel’s comments demonstrate, it’s not just the research that’s agenda driven.

This was conveniently illustrated in a letter to the Telegraph on September 16 referencing an article about comedian Ted Danson’s concern with spiny dogfish. Juliana Stein, Pew/Oceana’s communications manager, wrote “overfishing is the most severe threat facing our oceans, and if governments don't properly manage fisheries -- including shark fisheries -- using science-based measures, many fish populations could end up beyond the point of return.” Not climate change, not massive oil spills, not unbridled offshore energy development and not the continuing and growing outwash of a world population approaching 7 billion that is increasingly dependent on noxious household chemicals and pharmaceuticals that end up in our estuaries and oceans; according to Pew/Oceana, it’s all about those rapacious fishermen, and the Pew/Oceana/SeaWeb PR machine reinforces this whenever possible. I’ll bet dollars to donuts that Pew won’t kick any of its billions of Big Oil bucks into actually going out and counting, weighing or measuring sharks.

But Pew’s severely distorted view of what’s going on in the oceans isn’t restricted to letters to editors, press releases and other trivial-seeming yet cumulatively damaging communications by salaried flacks. It goes far beyond that.

A few years back Pew spent $5.5 million on The Pew Oceans Commission. Led by a former Congressman who had served as Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff, it was supposed to present an objective evaluation of who’s doing what to the oceans and how to fix it. From its website, it is “conducting the first review of polices and laws needed to sustain and restore living marine resources in over 30 years. The Commission includes leaders from the worlds of science, fishing, conservation, business, and politics.”

In the “follow the money” tradition established by Woodward and Bernstein in Watergate days, I did some digging into the relationships between Pew and the various commission members (discussed in greater detail in “The Pew Commission – a basis for national ocean policy?” at FishNet USA #23 - The Pew Oceans Commission (http://www.fishingnj.org/netusa23.htm)).

“The Pew Ocean Commission includes the president of the Natural Resources Defense Council; the president of the Center for Marine Conservation (now the Ocean Conservancy); a trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (which has provided grants to the Conservation Law Foundation, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Marine Conservation, the American Oceans Campaign, and Audubon – each of which has contributed significantly to making life miserable and earning a living increasingly difficult and often impossible for large numbers of working fishermen); a trustee of the Packard Foundation (which has also provided grants to the Conservation Law Foundation, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Marine Conservation, the American Oceans Campaign and Audubon as well as Environmental Defense - ditto - and SeaWeb – ditto again); the past president of the American Sportfishing Association (which is a member, along with most of the NGOs listed above, of the Pew-funded Fish Conservation Network); the president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change; a Pew Fellow; and two commercial fishermen, one of whom is the president of a trade association that has been funded by Packard and the other was a trustee of a trade association whose formation was supported by and with other ties to Pew.”

(Were we talking matrimonial rather than funding relationships, that much incest would likely have brought about the hemophilia-driven expiration of the Commission long before that $5.5 million was spent.)

I then did a simple analysis of the references that were used to support the conclusions of the Commission’s report “Ecological Effects of Fishing in Marine Ecosystems of the United States.” Two of the three authors of the report were Pew Marne Conservation scholars, well more than a third of the 179 references the report cited had at least one author who was financially connected to Pew, as did almost half of the cited references published since 1995 (it was then that Pew became actively involved in convincing the public that commercial fishing, not Big Oil, was ruining the world’s oceans). This isn’t scholarly research, it’s a deck of cards stacked to support a particular player. Yet it’s designed to inform national policy makers on what ocean governance should be. And there’s no reason to think that this campaign isn’t going international, particularly considering Oceana is also in business in South America and Europe. Who’s next?

You guys should go read this letter and sign on if you agree http://fs16.formsite.com/FixMagnusonNow/form793561462/

you are right John, it should not be contentious among the guys here, .........I don't think you climb in bed with the devil till you are sure what the devil intends for you


I have no passion for PEW (or for the environment for that matter......I run a boat that burns 15 gallons an hour). I have a passion for fishing.

I want fish to fish for and opportunity to do it. Under current management practices the fish are disappearing (based on 40+ years of experience). I don't need PEW to tell me this, I live it.
Closed areas threaten me, but not as much as no fish to fish for threatens me.

I have seen what current fishery science and more of the same can do......and it is not pretty.

I have also seen what PEW and CLF can do (Boston Harbor clean up and some rudimentary improvement in codfishing) and I see that as far more constructive.

Science is science........nowhere near as objective or certain as people pretend it is. Both sides can use "science" to sanctify their cause.

Fact is Fact. The fact I see is that there are one hell of a lot less fish now than earlier in my life. Current fishery management coupled with lack of recreational and commercial restraint got us here. I have NO faith at all that they will get us out.

I have also seen what PEW and CLF can do (Boston Harbor clean up and some rudimentary improvement in codfishing) and I see that as far more constructive.

Science is science........nowhere near as objective or certain as people pretend it is. Both sides can use "science" to sanctify their cause.

Fact is Fact. The fact I see is that there are one hell of a lot less fish now than earlier in my life. Current fishery management coupled with lack of recreational and commercial restraint got us here. I have NO faith at all that they will get us out.

You keep referencing the Harbor cleanup and giving PEW and CLF credit for it, but the truth of it is that they had almost nothing to do with it. It was the EPA that was primarily responsible for it. But regardless, the harbor clean up, like it or not, had nothing to do with fishery management. The clean up was under the auspices of the clean water act, which has nothing to do with fishery management and is not handled by the same agencies as fishery management .

Did it ever occur to you that the reason you are seeing "one hell of a lot less fish" doesn't have mean that are less fish in the ocean? Maybe they moved to different area? Many studies have shown that over the last 50 years almost all of the fish off the mid-Atlantic coast have shifted their range to the north. The "science" tells us that most of the species off our coast are either fully recovered or at an all-time high.

But you are correct in one respect, the "science" of fishery management is not hard science, in fact many of the scientific findings are extremely suspect. which is the main reason fishermen are protesting, because this "science" ignores the realties of what's going on on the water, yet the same "science" under the Magnesson-Stevens act is what rules fishery management.

Two Quick Examples: Dogfish - the "science" tells us that there are not enough female dogfish to rebuild the population under the timeline required by the MSA. Yet people who fish, both commercial and recreational see a plague of dogfish in the water and even the scientists admit that their population is growing by leaps and bounds. But they use the "precautionary Principle" to restrict the landing od dogfish.

Black Sea Bass - The MAFMC asked its scientific and statistical committee (That is the committee that has the absolute power to set the acceptable biological catch) to reconsider the ABC of about 2 million pounds that it has set last fall. Using the same data that they had last fall they have now recommended an ABC of almost twice that amount. Now keep in mind that under the original ABC the recreational fishery would have been two months while under the revised ABC it will probably be 12 months and you can see what a huge difference a small "scientific" error can make.

The problem that we face is that under the current MSA the science and scientists rule (don't forget that many of these "scientists" are on the PEW payroll) and the observations of people who are actually on the water are totally ignored. Read the letter I linked to above and you'll see that no one is asking for a worsening of the fisheries, all we are asking for is a little more common sense to be used in fishery management.

I have no passion for PEW (or for the environment for that matter......


George, I was referring to your passion for fishing and have a healthy respect for your point of view and opinions on how best to protect, impove and preserve it...

Flippity, Floppity, I still don't know what side of this fence I'm going to fall from.

We need better managed fisheries and science
We need better environmental controls
We need less hooks in the water from every group (yes, sucks but true).
We need less destructive commercial fishing.
We need better top to bottom management of the whole entire enchilada

We are very disorganized and spend more time battling each other than those trying take away our fisheries.
We are sitting ducks unless we do something about it but there has never been a unifying voice for saltwater recs up and down both coasts.
We don't have enough "We" where it counts.

John, Read the letter I linked to above. I doubt anyone here would disagree with that letter, and that's what the march is all about.