Quote:
Basic Patrick wrote:
"...I can say that it is not as bad for rec fishers as it was"
|
The final bill that was opposed last year appears to be almost a carbon copy as this year's. Although I agree that very early on before the final bill, things didn't look so good for fishermen and I'm glad that O'leary was very flexible in that regard.
Quote:
MakoMike wrote:
"What's to object to, it seems to exclude from its provisions any effect on fishing?"
|
MakoMike, Last year when O'leary had any and all MPA language removed, some opponents didn't think that went far enough because it was "silent" on the issue. To them, that still left the door open. So they insisted that verbiage be inserted that absolutely no MPAs could be created.
But I agree with you, this bill seems relatively hands off when it comes to fishing (as it was last year too).
Personally, I am still a bit concerned that this bill gives so much power to a single person - the Secretary of Environmental Affairs - could be good or bad depending on who is in.
One last thing. For all of the demonizing that opponents did toward the environmental groups involved, isn't it a little wierd that the folks who seemed to make out the best in this bill were actually the commercial fishermen?
Quote:
Quoting directly from S.2346
(emphasis mine)
(2) There shall be an ocean science advisory council to assist the secretary in developing a baseline assessment, subject to clause (1) of the subsection (e), and any other scientific information necessary for the development of an ocean management plan. This council shall consist of 9 members, to be appointed by the secretary: 3 scientists from academic institutions, at least 1 of which shall be from the School of Marine Science and Technology at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth; 3 scientists from private nonprofit organizations, including 1 scientist designated by the Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership; and 3 scientists from government agencies with demonstrated technical training and experience in the fields of marine ecology, geology, biology, ichthyology, mammalogy, oceanography or other related ocean science disciplines, at least 1 of which shall be from the Division of Marine Fisheries. The secretary shall serve as coordinator of the council. The council shall meet at such times as the secretary shall set, but no less than once every 3 months to assist the secretary in compiling any scientific information necessary for the development of an ocean management plan.
|
As you may or may not know, the commercial industry in MA relies heavily on a certain professor from UMASS Dartmouth to advocate for them at the microphone during meetings of the New England Fishery Managment Council. Sometimes that is good, as when he was instrumental in demonstrating that there were more scallops in the water than the government assesments claimed. On the other hand, he also went to bat to urge the Council to delay needed adjustments to get groundfish rebuilding goals back on track so that yet another 11th hour industry proposal could be analyzed. I don't know about you, but DELAY has been a hallmark of the NEFMC and we don't need any more.
You'll also note above, in addition, that the Massachusetts Fisherman's Partnership gets their own scientist on the advisory panel -
in writing. MFP is an umbrella group for some 17 commercial fishing groups.
Now that, my friends, is what I call clout.
For all of the talk and fear of multi-million dollar foundation-funded enviro groups influencing the outcome of this bill, why isn't there a scientist listed
in writing from The Ocean Conservancy or The Conservation Law Foundation, or The Audobon Society? Hell, why isn't there even one listed from the RFA or CCA?
Oh well. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Anyway, that's my .02.
Could have been a lot worse but the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Best,
Mike F.
Hybrid Mode
