March on washington Feb. 24th, 2010

[MakoMike]

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

[trapperpierre]

.........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...

[JohnR]

What is being "advanced" in this march?

[MakoMike]

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.

[MakoMike]

“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.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

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.

[BasicPatrick]

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

[numbskull]

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.

[scottw]

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

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by numbskull

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.

[numbskull]

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.

[scottw]

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.

[BasicPatrick]

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.

[numbskull]

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.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by numbskull

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.

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?

[numbskull]

[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?

[MakoMike]

[QUOTE=numbskull;737096]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

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?

[numbskull]

[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?

[afterhours]

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....

[scottw]

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/e...ts/dfo_adm.pdf and National Marine Fisheries Service NMFS Commercial Fishery Landings Data ).



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

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

[numbskull]

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.

[scottw]

"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
Did environmentalists screw up with the Marine Life Protection Act? | News & Culture in The North Bay

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

[zimmy]

No thanks, count me out.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

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.

[sokinwet]

"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?

[numbskull]

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.

[numbskull]

Here is an interview with the head of PEW by Sport Fishing Magazine http://www.sportfishingmag.com/speci...19-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.

[scottw]

Interview: Pew talks to Sport Fishing - Saltwater Fishing Forums

you should also read through the comments...

[sokinwet]

"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!

[numbskull]

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.