sandy

The National Marine Fisheries Service wants to implement the "Interim Rule" which would make all of the waters south of New England, from Long Island to deep into the Georges Bank, a no take zone for a year leading up to the imposition of catch shares. Expect delays.
The NMFS reports into NOAA the new head of which is Jane Lubchenco, a Pew Fellow who worked on the infamous, later discredited, Boris Worms faith based "scientific" report, now refered to as the "Jellyfish Report" which predicted empty seas by 2048, except for jellyfish.
During her confirmation hearings Pew announced a push for "tighter" Mid-Atlantic fishing regs, which to Pew means no fishing. Coincidence? Nah! In California Pew pushed through MPAs which they said covered "only" 20% of the surface area but which was 80% of the prime fishing areas. Out by Catalina Island they got an MPA around the islands to protect a seabass. They then got all groundfishing prohibited because seabass could be a bycatch. They then got trolling prohibited because boats could stop and groundfish. Pew preaches conservation then delivers prohibition.
You can catch up on this mean green on noreast.com. On the top click on Community, then Discussion Boards, then Fisheries Management.
Unless you no longer wish to fish you better get emails off to you state and federal elected officials soon, very soon. At her confirmation hearing she said she would put the squeeze on and she is not the type to waste any time.
It isvery easy to get to your congressmen(women). Go to www.congress.org. On the left under My Elected Officials enter your zip code and all your federal and state officials are listed along with their websites to enter your requests.

Crate Dropper

If I'm not mistaken, I think Pew Charitable Trust is funded by SHELL OIL, so what do you think is going to happen when they stop us from fishing?

sandy

Pew was founded and funded by the children of the founder of Sun Oil Co. Like, say the Ford Foundation once it is up and running it is easy to lose control. It is said the elder Henry Ford was dismayed with it even before he died. In many cases it is the children who are the trusteess and often they are clueless and idle and wander off leaving control to others who then rule by devine right. Have you noticed the high percentage of foundations that were founded by wealthy capitalists and are now run by left leaning socialists? Pew has billions in assets and budgets in the hundreds of millions mostly directed at closing the oceans to all fishing. And they are doing a good job at being successful.

Soundbounder

Yes, and it was started by the children of Sun Oil Company founder Joseph Pew.

http://www.pewtrusts.org/default.aspx

Soundbounder

Have you noticed how many people toss the word "socialist" around?
Joseph McCarthy would be proud of you.

sandy

Soundbounder,
How kind of you to squeeze me into 120 record setting posts in the 24 days you've blessed us with your presence. Wow, you've hung in there despite the five page pounding you took in The Bilge for your stance against the war on terrorism. What a guy!
But you've got to pay more attention to what others say. Crate Dropper said above if not mistaken Pew was funded by Shell Oil. You replied, yes it was started by the Sun Oil founder. You've got to listen, can you say "listen"?
I said has it been noticed how many foundations are run by socialists. You then asked if I noticed how many people toss the word socialist around? Obviously you have read little about foundations and less on current events. You do however go out of your way to defend socialists.
You need to read some history. Joseph McCarthy was a strong anti-communist and a bit nutty, like strong pro-socialists. Why, as you say, he would like me is, well, nutty.
Soundbounder please don't bleed all over THT but do many of us a favor and go pound sand.

gratefuldiver

>sandy wrote: Soundbounder please don't bleed all over THT but do many >of us a favor and go pound sand.


LOL. Sounds like somebody's got their panties in a bunch.

IMO, they need to start seriously implementing no take zones all over the US. The Florida Keys National Marine Sactuary has less than 1% of its area off limits to fishing due to pressure from anglers. What kind of marine "sanctuary" is that? Less than 1%. What a joke.
The fact is that no take zones are an important and successful way to replenish fish populations and keep them healthy.

Bring on the no take zones!

http://floridakeys.noaa.gov/tortugas...lease3499.html

Halfswede

Soundbounder, you are behaving like the perfect little Saul Alinsky disciple. Otherwise known as a useful idiot.

Getting a little sensitive with the Socialist tag? Are we? Pew, Ford, Peta, Soros, Daily Kos, Code Pink, liberals, socialists, marxists. They are all the same people with the same objectives. They are to relentlessly and eventually–piece by piece, bit by bit, bum rush by bum rush take freedom and liberty away from the individual and place him or her firmly under the boot of the bureaucrat and the elitist. Their final aims are to completely eliminate fishing entirely! If you don't see that by the literature all these groups have printed and the bills they are trying to pass either federally or state by state then you are either cleverly ignoring them or you are the useful idiot Lenin so adored. Furthermore, The OBAMINATION is their most well trained mule in history!

I will fight them every step of the way in any way I can. Fishing and Freedom Forever.


2005 Mckee Craft Freedom24
Twin 200 Etecs

sandy

gratefuldiver,
I have nothing against No Take Zones where it is factually called for and contains a firm sunset clause. That is not the case here. The only major fishery that was endangered here were the cod. Tough conservation has enabled them to bounce back in truely amazing numbers. There are no facts to back up an Interim Rule, and a no take zone may well prove to be every thing else but interim once it is in and the hagglers take over. And Pew, once it gets its head in sureley will promise "only a little bit in."
Your link to the Fla. MPA was curiously interesting. It refered to three no takes and then 18 and four something or others that were not defined further. It spends a lot of wordage on lobsters. When it came to the major point - fish, they got less attention but there was a comparison to a long-term baseline. The santuary was established 7/'97 and the report dated 3/4/'99, long term only if you were hanging by your thumbs. While I can't disagree that a 1% closure is a joke, closing all 2800 square miles would be a comedy of errors.
The Scripps Institute of Oceanography did a regular study of a real long-term no take zone that was established just outside their door in 1971. By 2006 they concluded it had mixed results. (Google P. Edward Pranell). They went on to say it "was found that BLANKET statements about the need for marine reserves is groundless."
I am a big believer in conservation but I strongly object to those, like Pew, who would continuously try to throw a blanket over the truth, and their fans who find solace in that blanket and promote it.

Venture34

I have no opinion on this yet - all I know is the pelagic fishing South of LI sucks compared to what it was years ago. There used to be enough bait to bring the pelagics from the shelf into the flats just south of montauk. Now - no shot. You gotta run 65 miles or so.

I would happily forego some type of fishing for a year or two if it improved the situation. It SEEMS like the draggers just pound the sht out of the area.

crazyclammer

i prefer the term...MOONBATS

gratefuldiver

If they would close 50% of the area, then that would be fair to both sides. Fat chance.