F2F - We need your help

[JohnR]

Actually - here is the text as it stands on the Senate Bill 2043 - F2F:

AN ACT RELATIVE TO PRESERVING FISHING RIGHTS IN THE COMMONWEALTH
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

SECTION 1. Chapter 130 of the General Laws as appearing in the 2000 Official Edition is hereby amended by inserting after section 5 the following section:

Section 5A. The marine waters of the commonwealth shall not be closed to fishing unless (i) there is a clear indication that fishing is the cause of a specific conservation problem and that less severe conservation measures, including but not limited to gear restrictions, minimum size requirements, bag limits, or seasonal closures will not provide for the adequate conservation of the affected stocks of fish; (ii) the closed area regulation includes specific measurable criteria to determine the conservation benefit of the closed area on the affected stocks of fish and provides a timetable of periodic review of the continued need for the closed area at least once every 3 years; (iii) the closed area is no larger that that which is supported by the best available scientific information as determined by the division of marine fisheries; and (iv) provisions are made to reopen the closed area to fishing whenever the basis for closure no longer exist.

http://www.state.ma.us/legis/bills/st02043.htm

So I paraphrased a little

OK - in this particular bill this is the Mass State version of the proposed Federal Bill. The idea of the Mass version is to preven the creation of an inshore "no fishing zone". So when - for grins and giggles we'll say Black's creek in Quincy is closed permenantly as it is a vital habitat to the Smelt Fishery and destructive gear (Shakespeare Ugly Sticks) are destroying the Smelt Habitat, you are no longer able to fish for eary season schoolie stripers there because the entire area has been permanatly closed by whatever "comittee" based on recommendations by the "Wolly Beach National Sanctuary Assn". Other methods could have been used in place of a no fishing zone instead of closing the habitat. Yeh, I'm being a little tounge in cheek here with my example but... On a serious note, this is happening on a STATE basis elsewhere in the nation, like the Channel Islands in California. For comparison, say it was determined that you can no longer fish around Nantucket? For a semi apples to apples comparison.

So as a concerned angler, I'm willing to allow a closure of an area for fishing when it serves a need - recovery of a species, and when other methods like season, gear restrictions, bag limits, and the like WON'T bring back the stock. So if it is necessary to CLOSE an area as that is the only solution - I'll go along with it. However, once that only solution of a closure has brought about a recovery and the milestones and triggers have been met, I expect the area to reopen.

Ooops - gotta run