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
|