Issues with Mass Senate Bill 529 - MPAs

[JohnR]

Well, here it is again, MPA talk as part of a Mass Bill. There is an upcoming meeting next Monday. If you can contact your senator and let it be known that you do not support the provisions for the MPAs (assuming you don't support MPAs)...

From the RFA:

Attached is a letter drafted by Michael Doebley which details the RFA's concerns with S529 (also known as the O'Leary Bill) as currently written. The hearing for the bill will be on Monday, July 18th, at the State House, at 1 pm in Room 1-A. Letters sent from your organizations or individual members based on this one would be great. Also, please encourage members to attend the hearing if at all possible.

The letter:

Lauren.Coughlin@state.ma.us

INSERT DATE HERE

Senator Pamela Resor

Representative Frank Smizik

Chairs, Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, & Agriculture Room 473F
State House
Boston, MA 02133

Re: S526, An Act Relative to Comprehensive Ocean Resources Management



Dear Chairs Resor and Smizik:



As a resident of Massachusetts and a recreational fisherman, I must express my strong opposition to S529 as currently written. While I am supportive of the overall goals of this legislation, I believe the sections of the bill that address the issue of no-fishing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) require substantial revisions before I can offer my support.



No-fishing MPAs are very controversial and would undoubtedly cause great social and economic harm in the coastal communities of Massachusetts.



The sections of S529 that address a process for how Massachusetts will determine where and under which conditions the marine waters of the Commonwealth could be closed to all fishing activities are in need of substantial revision. As currently written, I believe these sections of S529 leave the 1 million recreational anglers of Massachusetts vulnerable to the establishment of no-fishing zones based on political, philosophical, and profit-driven desires rather than science and necessity.

I respectfully request that the sponsors of the legislation and members of the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture meet with representatives of the recreational fishing community to draft substitute language that establishes an unambiguous, science-based process for the consideration and possible implementation of no-fishing MPAs.

I wish to reemphasize that I appreciate the efforts of the sponsors of S529 and the members of the committee to improve how Massachusetts’ manages our oceans. I will strongly consider supporting S529 if my concerns are met.



Thank you for your consideration.

YOUR NAME

YOUR ADRESS

[Pt.JudeJoe]

This was sent by Steve Medieros ,pres.of RISAA ...


In a nutshell the bill -
Calls for the establishment of no-fishing zones
Stacks an advisory panel with ant-fishing groups
Calls for the establishment of a license. From the bill's exact language:
"(n) The secretary of environmental affairs, in consultation with the department of environmental protection, the department of conservation and recreation, and the division of marine fisheries, is hereby authorized and directed to examine the establishment or renegotiation of fees, licenses, permits, rents, leases and the adjustment or development of other revenue sources for the purposes of funding ocean resource enhancement or restoration through the Ocean Resources and Waterways Fund"


NOT COOL

[Bass Babe]

The idea behind MPAs is a good one -- save essential fish habitat, save fish. I'm sure they are science-based in the beginning, and only after protest from fishers and other stakeholders, are they shot down. If managers used only a science-based process for determining MPAs, there would probably be a whole heck of alot more. But who provides millions, if not billions of dollars a year in revenue to coastal communities and other associated businesses? Who provides funding for sport fish restoration activities through the Dingell-Johnson amendment (read: pays some managers' salaries)? Yep, it's us. We as anglers are so economically important, if not socially and politically, that I don't believe anyone would cut off our fishing rights unless it was a dire emergency for one or more species. Even then, it may not happen. And on a side note, can you imagine the nonexistent EPO in SoCo and the one EPO at the Cape trying to enforce saltwater fishing licenses? There's gotta be only a handful of them in New England, I swear.

[JohnR]

BassBabe - I agree that MPAs can be a good thing if applied based on science but they are not, they are applied based on policy and the policy makers are listening to those with clout that want to close entire areas.

For example, if an area has determined a significant deletion of say, ohh I dunno, spawning cod, by excessive trawling perhaps, then maybe shutting down that gear type to an area will work wonders. Maybe a combination of closing the gear type and the take of baitfish in the area is sicentifically smart to recover the stock in the area. But why shut out someone fishing the same area say for bass with hook & line? Or Tuna, or Porbeagles? Now the interesting thing is that marine management, if already doing their job, could make that happen under existing laws.

Now if it was truly scientifically necessary to close an area to all fishing (highly unlikely), there would need to be milestones incorporated at the time of closure that would automatically trigger the reopening, whether partial or complete.

That is what is wrong with the type of MPAs often proposed, a total and indefinite closure of an area as a policy as opposed scientifically met targets that would open or close an area based on scientific data.

The other scary stuff in this more recent documentation has the dreaded "L" word. These are prohibitive to many in the form of denying access to fishing.... AND giving the keys to control it to people that are not stakeholders...

[Canalman]

Letter sent.

If I had time today I'd write my own version of that letter, I must say though, whoever wrote that letter did a very good job

Please, everyone take the 5 minutes and send a copy of that letter as I did, I know it seems insignificant but... it can't hurt right??? The only way it can hurt is if you DON'T send it. You can't complain about it later (when it's too late) if you don't take action now.

-Dave

[reelecstasy]

exactly Dave........Letter sent already