Issues with Mass Senate Bill 529 - MPAs

[BasicPatrick]

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

[Bass Babe]

JohnR, I agree with you quite a bit. Permanent closures are ridiculous. And I'm leery about closures in state waters, because what can be used for good can also be used for evil. But, for example, what can you do when over 90% of eelgrass habitat is gone from the Narragansett Bay, and the areas that need protection are in state waters? Darned if you do; darned if you don't.

Patrick, I have never geared my research towards a certain outcome -- not even in high school chemistry -- and I know that I never will. I can't be the only person who wouldn't compromise her scientific morals. If research is biased, why should it be used to support a closure and to reopen an area later? How do we know which studies are directed or not? I already understand what an MPA is, and methods of implementation, but I will look up that paper you suggested.

There are alot of "shoulds" in fisheries management, and they're all subjective. Policy and regulations can never make everyone happy.

[BasicPatrick]

BassBabe I do not know you and until your last post did not know that you were a scientist. I have for the last three years been defending recreational fishermen's rights from a full court press to institute what I beleive are arbitrary no fishing zones or level 1 MPA's in a variety of venues. Unfortunately the science used in the MPA arguement tends to be directed by organizations that have published goals of instituting no fishing zones prior to the science they are using today being completed.

(At a hearing in the MA state house last year, a so called neutral scientist testifieds as follows...I am John Smith and I work at the Woods hole Oceanogrphic Institute. I am not speaking for the Institute here today but as an individual....then this scientist goes on to preach about no fishing zones etc etc...Public records later showed that the study this so called neutral scientisrt was promoting and was what he was working on was funded by a group that has a public policy to close 5% of all State Waters in MA. It also is suspected that the gentlemen was paid to testify as a consultant...it this ethical...I do not think so...)

I have another...The National MPA Center has a scientist that receivved her doctorate just about a year ago...this "Doctor of Science" has done nothing for work but shop her pro MPA presentation around the country...this presentation comes from her graduate work and disertation...in other words she has done nothing but pro MPA work since at least graduate school...this "doctor" was hired to speak at a New England Fisheries Management Council MPA Workshop...at that workshop she did her presentation...in the presentation she gave stats that showed level 1 no fishing zones resulted in a 400% increase in fish species inside the MPA...Under questioning she was asked questions about the MPA's that were used in the study she was quoting in her presentation...it turns out that she was comparing a Level 1 MPA from a third world country where dynamite fishing was ceased and never had any fisheries management to the waters off MA that just happen to be the MOST regulated waters in the world. She could not give answers to well thought questions and became flustered as reasonable points were made that her comparisons were a stretch...

My point is this...science must be paid for and there is no way that any science funded by groups with a pre determined purpose of agendA SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT...there is not perfect answer however I only think that govermnment agencies should be doing the science used and that fisheries managers need to set up strict guidelines as I mentioned earlier that set up protections to prevent political and financial influences on our rights to use the ocean...

[Bass Babe]

Patrick, Wow, "John Smith" is giving WHOI a bad name. I'd like to find him and him. So many great and reputable scientists and studies have come from there. Grrrr. What's that National MPA Center woman's doctorate in, and what school did she get it thru? Doctor of Flaming Unscientific Advocacy from the University of Phoenix Online or something? Crikey. I totally agree that fair and unbiased science should always be used to support regulations, and I think that what you're doing is quite admirable. It will be hard to keep politics and economics out of fisheries management, however. These days, us kiddies are taught that it's all part of the "policy stew", and that social values should be taken into account. The organic acts of many natural resource management agencies are vague and provide for the consideration of ecological as well as financial, political, and ethical concerns. Even the NEPA of 1969, which is very pro-environment compared to many laws, includes provisions for social and economic needs of humans. We may have to overhaul our entire system of natural resource policy and administration...? Ain't gonna be my job.