Issues with Mass Senate Bill 529 - MPAs

[JohnR]

TC - thanks for the heads up....


I received a copy of a letter sent by Mike Bucko of Bucko's B&T in Fall River. I have his permission to post it here:

Copy of letter I sent below: Please if there is a time to become active and voice your options it is NOW.

Thank you,



Lauren.Coughlin@state.ma.us
07/13/2005
Senator Pamela Resor
Representative Frank Smizik
Chairs, Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, & Agriculture
Room 473F, State House
Boston, MA02133

Re: S529, An Act Relative to ComprehensiveOcean Resources Management


Dear Chairs Resor and Smizik:

As owner and operator of Bucko’s Parts+Tackle in Fall River, Massachusetts and a recreational fisherman, I must express my strong opposition to S529 as currently written. While I am supportive of the overall goals of this legislation, I believe the sections of the bill that address the issue of no-fishing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) require substantial revisions before I can offer my support.

No-fishing MPAs are very controversial and would undoubtedly cause great social and economic harm in the coastal communities of Massachusetts.

The sections of S529 that address a process for how Massachusetts will determine where and under which conditions the marine waters of the Commonwealth could be closed to all fishing activities are in need of substantial revision. As currently written, I believe these sections of S529 leave the 1 million recreational anglers of Massachusetts vulnerable to the establishment of no-fishing zones based on political, philosophical, and profit-driven desires rather than science and necessity.



My concern is operating a tackle business in Massachusetts. If this bill is passed as written then Massachusetts water could become laboratory experiment for environmental groups. I believe no-take fishing zone does no good unless tried with a Marine Management Plan such as ASMFC. It does no good to protect part of the ocean so that you can over fish another part. Massachusetts most recent economic data form 2001 is as follows:



Massachusetts

Saltwater fishermen 1,017,535 – MRFSS-2004 Data



Economic Output $888,486,177 - 2001 Data

Retail Sales $225,328,262

Jobs 8,169

Sales and Motor Fuel Tax 29,055,826

State income Taxes 10,605,484

Federal Income Taxes 38,887,196

I respectfully request that the sponsors of the legislation and members of the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture meet with representatives of the recreational fishing community to draft substitute language that establishes an unambiguous, science-based process for the consideration and possible implementation of no-fishing MPAs.

I wish to reemphasize that I appreciate the efforts of the sponsors of S529 and the members of the committee to improve how Massachusetts' manages our oceans. I will strongly consider supporting S529 if my concerns are met.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Michael J Bucko

191 Stafford Rd
Fall River Ma 02724
508-674-7900

[Bass Babe]

JohnR, Perhaps the most logical way of managing MPAs would be to base them on sound science and common sense. But the inherent "problem" in fisheries management remains -- it is not simply based on science and what is rational. There are human dimensions -- ethics and values, politics, economics, etc. This is easily evidenced in many government environmental protection lapses, like the snail darter at Tellico Dam. But I think that things like that provide balance and tend to everyone's beliefs. Little bit of preservation, smidgen of management, dollop of destruction. It's a shame that some people do not believe that science provides the answers, that we should be stewards of the environment, that we should practice sustainable use, etc. But that's the way the cookie crumbles, and who are we to say that we are right and that it should be done our way? It would be just as unfair to the PETA freaks or the capitalists if we always got our way. Everyone has to have a turn.

Also, a stumbling block for provisional fishing closures is enforcement and research, which all comes down to funding. It's probably easier for officials to bar all fishing activitiy, rather than check every person fishing to see what they are fishing for and what kind of gear they are using. And how intensive would the research need to be, to figure out if the closures have had the desired results and if fish habitat and populations have grown enough? That's quite a bit to invest when NMFS could just say to people, "go fish elsewhere".

As for the "L" word, I just don't think it will happen. But if for some reason it does, I'll go with it. The money will hopefully go to better management, better research, and better enforcement. Access may be restricted, but life isn't fair; we know that.

I guess my whole point is that I'm defending the management and the scientists. We all know what would be the best choices ecologically, but that's not all we're hired to consider. We work for the government, which is a democratic entity. Not all measures are what we would personally choose. Writing policy that is not always ecologically sound does not occur because we don't know or don't care. It's simply the bane of being a public servant, serving the varied interests of the public.

[JohnR]

I am somewhat defending the management and the scientists. I am in favor of MPAs when they are based in science and when there are clearly necessary, with clearly defineable, pre-determined milestones that will automatically be triggered when the goal is met followed by measured and sustainable management practices. I do not feel that areas should be permanatly closed to the public, especially those that would be addressed at a state level which means areas from the high tide mark to the EEZ at three miles. If science says we must close the Cape Cod Canal to achieve a certain goal, then we close the canal, but it is done for scientific reasons and once the goal has been met it is reopened.

What I feel is wrong is that many of the people appointed to these commissions want to close permenantly areas to fishing. This is not a user access or allocation issue, and it is no longer a fishery management "tool" but a tool of denial. A usergroup denial tool. That is not based on science but based on policy and often policy of usergroups that chose to deny access or resources to other usergroups. That is where I feel it is wrong...

This is one main reason I support the RFA and other clubs work on the Freedom to Fish initiative, it allows for MPAs to be used as a tool when science determines it is necessary but not to be used as a tool of policy. Major difference between the two. And if science is used correctly in conjunction with effective fisheries management, MPAs will not be needed to create or maintain a sustainable fishery.

And yes, a license is coming to a state near you, unfortunately politicians have a habit to pickpocket the funds and entities that are supposed to be supported by those licenses. Mitt tried to pull a fast one and got caught with his hands in the cookie jar, this is the only reason some funds were restored - he got caught...

[Sweetwater]

Can anyone tell me where I can find the exact wording of the proposed legislation?

Thanks!

[fishermom]

Thanks John...........we all need to come together for this issue. I had posted it yesterday on "conservation issues and notices"......obviously the wrong place to post it considering the urgency. As far as the exact wording, it should be sent out soon and it will indeed be forward to all...........there is strength in numbers, even if it's only an e-mail........they need to know how we feel !!!!!! Fight for what you want. If you can attend the hearing on Monday, please do................

[Squid kids Dad]

E/mail sent...Come on everyone!!!

[Sweetwater]

I crafted (for what it's worth) my own letter after reading the text of the legislation, and sent it off to the powers that be. You can find proposed legislation at:

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/st00/st00529.htm

It is time to get involved with the Freedom to Fish (F2F) act and work diligently to make sure that we meet two goals. 1) ensure that we recreational fisherman maintain our access and 2) preserve and maintain the fragile marine ecosystem that we all rely on.

GET INVOLVED!

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Sweetwater

Can anyone tell me where I can find the exact wording of the proposed legislation?

Thanks!

Ok, here is a Word format of the doc and a PDF

[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.