Quote:
the "groups" get together and "shut down" the bank to dragging"? no more dragging "nets"
no more comm's in "the santuary"
ever!
|
You sure you're not one o' them PETA types?
OK, your serious question is where do I see the roadblock to gear restrictions, etc. in F2F, and do I have a link. I have no direct links, the only opposition to SB 2043 that I find online is the CLF's and they do seem to want to close a large chunk of the bank to everything but whale watching and I'm sure it will occur to them that it's not nice to scare the whales.
So, the rest of this post is going to be a little bit legalistic, which can be boring. Also, I'm not a lawyer, which means this could be malpractice. But we are talking about a law, which makes this necessary.
Also, doing this research led me to something startling, which is at the end of this post. (No, please don't skip ahead. Stay with me.)
The bill, already quoted here verbatim, has phrases like "shall not be closed" and "best scientific information".
Amendment 13, also discussed here, describes various levels of "closure", from level 3 restrictions on types of fishing to full-blown level 1 shut the barn door closures. The language of the senate bill seems to imply that gear, season, and other limits are alternatives to "closure", so it becomes important to know what that word means.
Laws and contracts generally have a section of defined terms in which any ambiguity is clarified. Like, "'barn door' shall mean any permananent or temporary appurtenance upon an opening in any barn which can be closed or opened to facilitate or hinder the ingress or egress of any animal".
SB 2043 amends section five of chapter 130, chapter 130 has a list of definitions here:
http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/130-1.htm, which does not define closure.
So, what does section 5, the part that's to be amended say? It turns out to be a section called "Jurisdictional Boundaries", and it covers the way in which freshwater (DFW) and saltwater (DMF) are divided between the regulatory groups. It's here:
http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/130-5.htm.
And that's where it hit me! Jurisdiction!
Why didn't I notice this earlier? The CLF and probably some other people really do want full closures in Stellwagen. But the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary is in fact a national marine sanctuary. The entire area under discussion is in federal, not state, waters.
F2F has absolutely no impact on the regulation of marine closures in federal waters.
I think. Opinions from actual lawyers or better-informed amateurs are welcome.
Threaded Mode