March on washington Feb. 24th, 2010

[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

[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.

[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.