Bleedem wrote:
"F2F has absolutely no impact on the regulation of marine closures in federal waters. "
True. The Mass bill will not affect SW bank and this was noted in the OTW response. This link was posted earlier in this thread and I suggest that you read it in full because it explains a lot.
See:
http://www.msba.net/f2f/otw_on_f2f.htm
(also see the excerpt below).
However, it important to demonstrate that these groups have active campaigns to shut down some of your favorite fishing destinations in offshore waters as well as inshore waters.
Excerpt from MF2FC response:
Quote:
Would it surprise you to learn that CLF also has a paid member of its staff, Priscilla Brooks, sitting on the Stellwagen Bank Advisory Council and the Ma Ocean Management Task Force? She has also been among the leading voices against S.2043. In fact the Rhode Island version of F2F became law this past year despite her best efforts to defeat it.
As I mentioned earlier S.2043 only applies to state waters. This means that it will have no bearing on closures within Stellwagen Bank (that’s H.R. 2890’s job). Although, it really makes no difference where state waters end and federal waters begin. These are simply man made lines on a man made map. Basically speaking, if there is a spot worth fishing, then these ENGOs want to see it closed.
More on the point of coastal closures, CLF has authored a 140-page study titled Conservation Coast to Coast. In this study, CLF asserts…
"…Massachusetts’ role in marine protected areas is disappointing. Yet it could be the region’s leader if it chose."
So what does it mean when CLF says that Massachusetts could be an MPA "leader"? It is no exaggeration that the areas listed in this document literally include every square inch of the Massachusetts coastline from the New Hampshire border to Cape Cod & the Islands. Here are just a few specific locations that CLF would like to see considered closed.
- Billingsgate Island Sanctuary
- Boston Harbor Islands State Park
- Scusset Beach State Reservation
- Waquoit Bay Inner Cape Cod Bay
|
It is also important to note that the hope is that the state bills like S2043 will help build momentum for the Federal version that WILL affect federal waters like Stellwagen Bank.
Bleedem, also regarding your response
"So, nobody is in fact currently advocating a Level 1 closure of 800 square miles of the Bank?" which was in response to me saying that the Level 1 closures in Amendment 13 were not being adopted.
The reason why they are not on the table at the moment (not final at all yet until May), is again because groups like MSBA showed up at the Amenedment 13 hearings to voice the concerns of the veryday recreational angler who can't keep track of all these threats to their beloved pasttime. The point of S2043 is to avoid these, buried, back door, attempts at arbitrary closures. It seems every time we turn around there is some government agency or so-called conservation group trying to sneak these closures in. This is why we need the protection that the Freedom to Fish provides (state and fed).
The following is an excerpt of MSBA testimony given at the Amendment 13 hearing on September 15th in Hyannis, MA.
Source:
http://www.nefmc.org/nemulti/a13_pub...ma_summary.pdf
Bleedem, were you there? Did you get involved? Interestingly, I didn't hear any testimony in Hyannis from anyone by the name of "Bleedem". Clearly, you have no interest in supporting S.2043 and that is certainly your right. I am only responding here in order to clarify some of your statements.
Mike Flaherty