F2F - We need your help

[thefishingfreak]

point me to the roadblock please {link?}


rip kinningham, had a great letter in saltwater sportsman magazine about this.
{something allong the lines of why don't we:the "rec's" and they, the "groups" get together and "shut down" the bank to dragging"?
no more dragging "nets"
no more comm's in "the santuary"
ever!

[Bleedem Quick]

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.

[flatts1]

Bleedem wrote:
"F2F has absolutely no impact on the regulation of marine closures in federal waters. "

True. The Mass bill will not affect SW bank and this was noted in the OTW response. This link was posted earlier in this thread and I suggest that you read it in full because it explains a lot.

See: http://www.msba.net/f2f/otw_on_f2f.htm
(also see the excerpt below).

However, it important to demonstrate that these groups have active campaigns to shut down some of your favorite fishing destinations in offshore waters as well as inshore waters.

Excerpt from MF2FC response:

Would it surprise you to learn that CLF also has a paid member of its staff, Priscilla Brooks, sitting on the Stellwagen Bank Advisory Council and the Ma Ocean Management Task Force? She has also been among the leading voices against S.2043. In fact the Rhode Island version of F2F became law this past year despite her best efforts to defeat it.

As I mentioned earlier S.2043 only applies to state waters. This means that it will have no bearing on closures within Stellwagen Bank (that’s H.R. 2890’s job). Although, it really makes no difference where state waters end and federal waters begin. These are simply man made lines on a man made map. Basically speaking, if there is a spot worth fishing, then these ENGOs want to see it closed.

More on the point of coastal closures, CLF has authored a 140-page study titled Conservation Coast to Coast. In this study, CLF asserts…

"…Massachusetts’ role in marine protected areas is disappointing. Yet it could be the region’s leader if it chose."

So what does it mean when CLF says that Massachusetts could be an MPA "leader"? It is no exaggeration that the areas listed in this document literally include every square inch of the Massachusetts coastline from the New Hampshire border to Cape Cod & the Islands. Here are just a few specific locations that CLF would like to see considered closed.

- Billingsgate Island Sanctuary
- Boston Harbor Islands State Park
- Scusset Beach State Reservation
- Waquoit Bay Inner Cape Cod Bay

It is also important to note that the hope is that the state bills like S2043 will help build momentum for the Federal version that WILL affect federal waters like Stellwagen Bank.

Bleedem, also regarding your response "So, nobody is in fact currently advocating a Level 1 closure of 800 square miles of the Bank?" which was in response to me saying that the Level 1 closures in Amendment 13 were not being adopted.

The reason why they are not on the table at the moment (not final at all yet until May), is again because groups like MSBA showed up at the Amenedment 13 hearings to voice the concerns of the veryday recreational angler who can't keep track of all these threats to their beloved pasttime. The point of S2043 is to avoid these, buried, back door, attempts at arbitrary closures. It seems every time we turn around there is some government agency or so-called conservation group trying to sneak these closures in. This is why we need the protection that the Freedom to Fish provides (state and fed).

The following is an excerpt of MSBA testimony given at the Amendment 13 hearing on September 15th in Hyannis, MA.

Source:
http://www.nefmc.org/nemulti/a13_pub...ma_summary.pdf

Bleedem, were you there? Did you get involved? Interestingly, I didn't hear any testimony in Hyannis from anyone by the name of "Bleedem". Clearly, you have no interest in supporting S.2043 and that is certainly your right. I am only responding here in order to clarify some of your statements.

Mike Flaherty

[Bleedem Quick]

Thanks for the clarification.

As I now understand it we need F2F to stop Amendment 13 from closing Stellwagen. Except nobody is currently threatening to close Stellwagen ("threatening" here means legislation or rules are pending). Also, F2F as a state house bill has no impact on Stellwagen.

So we need F2F to keep Waquoit from being closed. Well, where's the pending rule that would close Waquoit or Black's Creek?

We need F2F as a symbol, to encourage the thus-far failed federal F2F. Novel, interesting, but you've had supporters posting maps of 842 square miles of imminent closure.

I have read your links in full, including the Bill Heough editorial you react against on your site. He accuses you of hysteria. I concur.

[gotta run, more later]

[thefishingfreak]

{originaly posted by thefishingfreak on 2-11-04}
the mass. freedom to fish act has no bearing on stellwagen anyway. only state waters

gotta run, going to montreal for the weekend, oui'-oui'

[Bleedem Quick]

Have fun in Montreal.

I think I'm done in this thread. JohnR guessed correctly that I came over here to have fun and push some buttons, but you guys turned out to be pretty cool.

I'm still not joining Mass Bass, though.