March on washington Feb. 24th, 2010

[numbskull]

Mr Logan, like most of us is missing the point. The environmental issue that attracts Pew's attention ONLY EXISTS because of the actions of Mr. Logan and his like minded friends. Furthermore, no international lobby group will have any long term success dictating terms in a democracy unless they have represent a valid concern supported by a significant portion of the public.

The truth, like it or not, is that if we or the Aussies want to continue fishing, we need to reduce our impact on the fishery while we do so. The majority of people in the US and Australia, informed or not, will favor "protection of the environment" over the "right" to fish. Just as many people (informed or not) feel logging in national forests or drilling in wildlife refugees harms them in some vague way that makes them uncomfortable, most of the public feel the same about depleting the ocean of fish.

It does not matter if they are hypocritical about it (buying fish, generating pollution, and consuming lumber). When the issue is presented in the terms of "damaging the environment" people in a democracy feel uncomfortable and responsible so they vote to change it......impact be damned.

There are too many fishermen killing too many fish. If we continue down the same path we are heading for mandated closed areas and judical (rather than legislative) fishery managment. Which will indeed help fish populations to recover and improve fishing in the limited areas remaining. Think of the Boston Harbor clean up. Wasn't that driven by the CLF (and I believe Pew trusts)? How did that work out for fishermen? And what about the cod and haddock fishery? Does anyone think there would be any inshore fishery for either anymore without judicial action driven by environmental groups? Wake up people.

We have no one to blame but ourselves. Denying the problem and refusing to make sacrifices now (and in the past) is suicidal. Marching on Washington is a gesture, not a solution. WE are the problem, not the Pew trust.

[scottw]

a little closer to home...

01/01/10 at 10:17 PM


The Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) charges that the Government has already acknowledged that data collection methods used to justify red snapper closures were not intended to be used for such purposes.
NOAA/NMFS, in conjunction with Pew Charity, is, under provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), so very quick to close down fisheries. However, NOAA continues to ignore requirements of MSA to eliminate all inconsistencies within the data collection process.
Mister Bob Bryant, President / CEO of Actuarial Systems Group ,explains why, (January issue of Woods'n Water, page 123), trust in NMFS is 'At an all-time low.' NMFS should use extreme caution in relying on what he, and we, call, "Highly suspect data."
Per this data expert, "Anecdotal evidence from across the Gulf of Mexico and up ,and down the East Cost from North Carolina to Florida indicate that red snapper and grouper in both these regions are in a strong rebound. On many reef complexes it is almost impossible to get a bait past red snapper to other species." Nothing new to us. I see it every time I visit the Middle Grounds.
East Coast Fisheries (SFA) Chairman, Mister James G. Hull Jr., (Woods'nWater, January, page 63): "All recreational fishermen, sport fishermen, commercial and average citizens of this country will no longer have local fisheries resources available to them because of the Pew Charity, which is now in charge of managing our nations fisheries." Pew Charity is an independent nonprofit charitable trust beneficiary of seven individual charitable funds.
Pew, (info @ pewtrusts.org.), was established in 1948. Pew is vigorously campaigning to protect what it calls ,"Overfished species." Pew, in the words of Captain Bob Zales, "Is the primary enviro group working to destroy fishing and boating."Mister Hull continues: "This is just the first installment of many more installments of your ocean resources being given to the Pew Charity. This has nothing to do with valid science and is totally a political decision." As Pew Charity spokesman Joshua Richards says, "It's not about science, it's about politics."
Mister Bob Jones, SFA, "I cannot support an agency decision that needlessly puts people out of work and who will not listen to scientists not on the government teat or serving on the hand-picked SSC Committee. I hope you keep an eye on the Pew Charity because there isn't a charitable bone in that corporate body.