Issues with Mass Senate Bill 529 - MPAs

[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

[TwitchellCreek]

JohnR - Please edit your first post. The email address has two dots (..):

Lauren..Coughlin@state.ma.us

-to-

Lauren.Coughlin@state.ma.us


Thanks for throwing a nice template out there. If you do not agree w/ S529, send the letter. It's almost too easy.

[JohnR]

TC - thanks for the heads up....


I received a copy of a letter sent by Mike Bucko of Bucko's B&T in Fall River. I have his permission to post it here:

Copy of letter I sent below: Please if there is a time to become active and voice your options it is NOW.

Thank you,



Lauren.Coughlin@state.ma.us
07/13/2005
Senator Pamela Resor
Representative Frank Smizik
Chairs, Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, & Agriculture
Room 473F, State House
Boston, MA02133

Re: S529, An Act Relative to ComprehensiveOcean Resources Management


Dear Chairs Resor and Smizik:

As owner and operator of Bucko’s Parts+Tackle in Fall River, 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.



My concern is operating a tackle business in Massachusetts. If this bill is passed as written then Massachusetts water could become laboratory experiment for environmental groups. I believe no-take fishing zone does no good unless tried with a Marine Management Plan such as ASMFC. It does no good to protect part of the ocean so that you can over fish another part. Massachusetts most recent economic data form 2001 is as follows:



Massachusetts

Saltwater fishermen 1,017,535 – MRFSS-2004 Data



Economic Output $888,486,177 - 2001 Data

Retail Sales $225,328,262

Jobs 8,169

Sales and Motor Fuel Tax 29,055,826

State income Taxes 10,605,484

Federal Income Taxes 38,887,196

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.

Sincerely,
Michael J Bucko

191 Stafford Rd
Fall River Ma 02724
508-674-7900

[Bass Babe]

JohnR, Perhaps the most logical way of managing MPAs would be to base them on sound science and common sense. But the inherent "problem" in fisheries management remains -- it is not simply based on science and what is rational. There are human dimensions -- ethics and values, politics, economics, etc. This is easily evidenced in many government environmental protection lapses, like the snail darter at Tellico Dam. But I think that things like that provide balance and tend to everyone's beliefs. Little bit of preservation, smidgen of management, dollop of destruction. It's a shame that some people do not believe that science provides the answers, that we should be stewards of the environment, that we should practice sustainable use, etc. But that's the way the cookie crumbles, and who are we to say that we are right and that it should be done our way? It would be just as unfair to the PETA freaks or the capitalists if we always got our way. Everyone has to have a turn.

Also, a stumbling block for provisional fishing closures is enforcement and research, which all comes down to funding. It's probably easier for officials to bar all fishing activitiy, rather than check every person fishing to see what they are fishing for and what kind of gear they are using. And how intensive would the research need to be, to figure out if the closures have had the desired results and if fish habitat and populations have grown enough? That's quite a bit to invest when NMFS could just say to people, "go fish elsewhere".

As for the "L" word, I just don't think it will happen. But if for some reason it does, I'll go with it. The money will hopefully go to better management, better research, and better enforcement. Access may be restricted, but life isn't fair; we know that.

I guess my whole point is that I'm defending the management and the scientists. We all know what would be the best choices ecologically, but that's not all we're hired to consider. We work for the government, which is a democratic entity. Not all measures are what we would personally choose. Writing policy that is not always ecologically sound does not occur because we don't know or don't care. It's simply the bane of being a public servant, serving the varied interests of the public.

[JohnR]

I am somewhat defending the management and the scientists. I am in favor of MPAs when they are based in science and when there are clearly necessary, with clearly defineable, pre-determined milestones that will automatically be triggered when the goal is met followed by measured and sustainable management practices. I do not feel that areas should be permanatly closed to the public, especially those that would be addressed at a state level which means areas from the high tide mark to the EEZ at three miles. If science says we must close the Cape Cod Canal to achieve a certain goal, then we close the canal, but it is done for scientific reasons and once the goal has been met it is reopened.

What I feel is wrong is that many of the people appointed to these commissions want to close permenantly areas to fishing. This is not a user access or allocation issue, and it is no longer a fishery management "tool" but a tool of denial. A usergroup denial tool. That is not based on science but based on policy and often policy of usergroups that chose to deny access or resources to other usergroups. That is where I feel it is wrong...

This is one main reason I support the RFA and other clubs work on the Freedom to Fish initiative, it allows for MPAs to be used as a tool when science determines it is necessary but not to be used as a tool of policy. Major difference between the two. And if science is used correctly in conjunction with effective fisheries management, MPAs will not be needed to create or maintain a sustainable fishery.

And yes, a license is coming to a state near you, unfortunately politicians have a habit to pickpocket the funds and entities that are supposed to be supported by those licenses. Mitt tried to pull a fast one and got caught with his hands in the cookie jar, this is the only reason some funds were restored - he got caught...

[Sweetwater]

Can anyone tell me where I can find the exact wording of the proposed legislation?

Thanks!