Issues with Mass Senate Bill 529 - MPAs

[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!

[ZuluHotel]

Originally Posted by 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!

Unfortunately, the version of the bill on mass.gov is NOT the bill as it currently reads. In fact, that version bearss no resemblance to the current S529. I have a mark-up of the bill that I will e-mail to anyone who needs the real thing. Just shoot me an e-mail: zharvey@thefisherman.com.

Zach Harvey

[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.

[BasicPatrick]

BassBabe I do not know you and until your last post did not know that you were a scientist. I have for the last three years been defending recreational fishermen's rights from a full court press to institute what I beleive are arbitrary no fishing zones or level 1 MPA's in a variety of venues. Unfortunately the science used in the MPA arguement tends to be directed by organizations that have published goals of instituting no fishing zones prior to the science they are using today being completed.

(At a hearing in the MA state house last year, a so called neutral scientist testifieds as follows...I am John Smith and I work at the Woods hole Oceanogrphic Institute. I am not speaking for the Institute here today but as an individual....then this scientist goes on to preach about no fishing zones etc etc...Public records later showed that the study this so called neutral scientisrt was promoting and was what he was working on was funded by a group that has a public policy to close 5% of all State Waters in MA. It also is suspected that the gentlemen was paid to testify as a consultant...it this ethical...I do not think so...)

I have another...The National MPA Center has a scientist that receivved her doctorate just about a year ago...this "Doctor of Science" has done nothing for work but shop her pro MPA presentation around the country...this presentation comes from her graduate work and disertation...in other words she has done nothing but pro MPA work since at least graduate school...this "doctor" was hired to speak at a New England Fisheries Management Council MPA Workshop...at that workshop she did her presentation...in the presentation she gave stats that showed level 1 no fishing zones resulted in a 400% increase in fish species inside the MPA...Under questioning she was asked questions about the MPA's that were used in the study she was quoting in her presentation...it turns out that she was comparing a Level 1 MPA from a third world country where dynamite fishing was ceased and never had any fisheries management to the waters off MA that just happen to be the MOST regulated waters in the world. She could not give answers to well thought questions and became flustered as reasonable points were made that her comparisons were a stretch...

My point is this...science must be paid for and there is no way that any science funded by groups with a pre determined purpose of agendA SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT...there is not perfect answer however I only think that govermnment agencies should be doing the science used and that fisheries managers need to set up strict guidelines as I mentioned earlier that set up protections to prevent political and financial influences on our rights to use the ocean...