Amending Magnuson-Stevens

FV Miss Mary

Proposal could reverse progress in rebuilding fish populations

WASHINGTON, Jan. 29, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- As Congress starts to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the principal law governing U.S. fishery management, commercial and recreational fishermen will join a representative from a coalition of national conservation groups to discuss the changes needed to strengthen the law and build upon recent progress in rebuilding fish populations, ending overfishing, and sustaining coastal economies.

U.S. Representative Doc Hastings, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, recently circulated a proposal to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Act. If enacted, it would repeat failed policies of the past that drove the collapse of many important U.S. fisheries in the 1980s and early 1990s. On Tuesday, February 4, the House Natural Resources Committee will hold a hearing on this proposal.

A question-and-answer session will follow brief opening remarks by the speakers.

WHAT:
Phone briefing on reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Act

WHEN:
Friday, January 31, at 1 p.m. EST

WHO:

Lee Crockett – director of U.S. oceans, The Pew Charitable Trusts (moderator)
George Geiger – three-term member and former chair, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and owner/operator of Chances Are fishing charters
Zeke Grader – executive director, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
Captain Patrick Paquette – a recreational fishing community leader

CALL LOGISTICS:
Number: 800.351.6807
Passcode: fish

Groups involved in the conservation coalition include: Conservation Law Foundation, Earthjustice, the Marine Fish Conservation Network, Natural Resources Defense Council, Ocean Conservancy, and The Pew Charitable Trusts.

This briefing is for credentialed media only. An audio file of this call will be posted to www.PewEnvironment.org.

CONTACT: Dave Bard, 202.486.4426

SOURCE The Pew Charitable Trusts

http://news.yahoo.com/tele-briefing-congress-begin-updating-nation-39-primary-185400482.html;_ylt=AwrBEiK1r.pSnFcAxtnQtDMD

Tom Hilton

Just goes to show how the enviros had stacked the deck with the 2007 Reauthorization - they don't want it changed.

testerman28

Tom can I bring up a huge issue that I think I would really like your opinion on..

The Indian River here in south florida is going to hell in a handbag really quick. there are people who have been doing water samples and working on really trying to do something good to try to bring this to light but even as they take the time to go to speak for whats right and being a scientist they get met with bogus EIS reports that 'everything is just great'.. you know this and so does the average American man or Woman if they look and some are actually just looking out their back door.
we have issues with people trying to install space x , dredging for cruise ships (while a beach front or interior hotel has to worry about staying afloat) and by the way the hotel actually pays taxes and has families that depend on them..
our federal government and the lobbyist all want to expand, get bigger and I ask everyone "at the cost of what?"
so at the same meeting to fix the damns and levees or to ask them for help to make it where we don't totally kill off all our fish and polute everything we have and lay down blacktop and concrete.. the leaders decided to just say no..
in return though lobbyist stood up and asked for more fracking and it was approved..
what are your thoughts about the people who are trying to do something good and just? Or are they just nut job enviros to conservationist who have no clue?
Just seems that some people always try to ridicule the ones that get in the way.. much like most of the posts they make..

Tom Hilton

I'm all for people who are trying to good and just - The Environmental Defense Fund is not in that category. Lots of dishonesty in how they present their case, by creating/funding front groups (Charter Fisherman's Association, Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholder's Alliance, Gulf Fisherman's Association, Cape Cod Commercial Hook and Line Association, etc.), to push a profit-grab agenda in the name of "accountability" and conservation.

In reality, it's ALL about creating revenue streams from the exploitation of our Public Trust Resources for the personal profit of private individuals / corporations, while the nation and the fisheries receive nothing in return. Teddy Roosevelt is turning in his grave right now.

cpr

So, is it a good thing for rec fishermen to Amend Magnuson-Stevens? From what I see the system has been corrupted and needs to be fixed.

testerman28

seems that everyone on the side 'you' "dislike" apparently fall into a category of "I hate them all..!"..
**** note: ..and I am not only asking Tom alone..
are you really sure that 'all of them' are total 'nut jobs' and really have no rights or idea's other than your own?

Conservation and respect will only come to those that will work on solving it for 'all the people' and 'long term' don't you think? I am not always right but i work hard, I respect what I have and I listen to what others are trying to say and look at what people do.
I also don't wear a shirt for anyone and I say whats on my mind. I do believe You, Miss Mary, Gary, Capt E and many more are very smart and very influential on a bunch of fisheries issues. All the people included fed and state employees and the average person that reads this are still waiting for the dust to settle and see where we stand .. anyway have a great day and thanks for the 'good stuff' that you all bring to the table..

Tom Hilton

Fact of the matter is that EDF has exerted undue influence on our fisheries management for far too long. They used to boast on their websites that "Their Oceans Team was instrumental in CRAFTING and PASSING the changes to the Magnuson", but took that verbage down after I pointed out that illustrated the very real undue influence here.

They do not have the "right" to claim ownership of what we ALL own - our Public Trust Resources - period.

Long Gone

Its my understanding that part of the reauthorization would amend some of the overly stiff mandates that caused closures and unreasonable restrictions where none were needed. It would remain a strong protector of US fisheries but fix flawed parts inappropriately slipped in the previous reauthorization such as unreasonable rebuilding time frames, and immediate catch limits in which there is not enough data to set such limits. Theres many cases of its damage. Hogfish closure in the Gulf this year was one, as were limits that were pulled from thin air on such species as wahoo and dolphin in the south Atlantic neither of which is in any trouble at all as managed. A yellowtail snapper closure in the SA that SAFMC backed of the day before it went into effect is another example.The list of unfairness to fishermen caused by bad parts slipped in by NGOs and their Washington lobbyists on the last reauthorization is a mile long.

Proposed parts of the new reauthorization would allow some flexibility ie: common sense to be figured in in such cases. Of course groups like The Pew prefer to shut down and close every fishery they can no matter how neccesary or reasonable and they will call up thier army of eco-computer people in non-coastal states to bombard the govt with misinformed emails fighting to keep it this way regardless of how wrong it is. There is however a large contingient of congressman, sportmens groups, reasonable organizations, and even many at NMFS that agree there needs to be some limited leeway when the data is light rather than shut it all down and figure it out years later. The Pew eco-activists will spin it as some blank check that allows overfishing but thats simply not what it is.
And George Gieger has a charter business? Good lord. What fisherman would get on a boat with someone so dedicated to closing the oceans to fishermen? I had hoped Id heard that last of that name forever.

Last Chance

US Representative Don Hastings, Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee has some very good ideas for the rewrite of the MSA but the Enviro's are against all of them. They want the MSA to stay as it is and continue to hurt fishermen. I used my press pass and was able to ask a question in this dog and pony show today. As soon as I asked it, it was answered straight out of the EDF playbook. The other enviro's were able to ask 3 or 4 questions each but when their saw I was not on their side it was over for me. The one question was it. I thought we may have Capt Patrick Paquette on our side but he showed his real colors. He showed he was enviro back so the entire panel was enviro backed speakers. How is that fair not to even have one person on the panel not having ties to one of the enviro groups. If this kind of thing continues the enviro's are going to put and end to fishing as we know it now. It is going to turn into a fishery for the rich and the average fisherman will be completely out of it or a tag program will be started. It will be a lottery and only a few lucky fishermen will get tags. If we do go to tags for recreational fishermen then the only fair way would be for all the fishermen must have tags from the lottery no matter if you are in a private boat, charter boat or headboats. The data would be accountable for everyone so we would now not need a sector separation everyone will be equal.

Tom Hilton

That's their M.O., to astroturf the issues bring in people who are supposedly representing recreational fishermen when all they are are puppets for the enviro money machine. These captains such as Patrick Paquette and all of the others with The Charter Fisherman's Association, Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholder's Alliance, Gulf Fishermen's Association, et al are simply independent contractors being paid by the enviro corporations to provide a front that supposedly represents the interests of the Gulf fishermen when they absolutely DO NOT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message (e.g. political, advertising, or public relations) to give the appearance of it coming from a disinterested, grassroots participant. Astroturfing is intended to give the statements the credibility of an independent entity by withholding information about the source's financial connection.

On the Internet, astroturfers use software to mask their identity. Sometimes one individual operates over many personas to give the impression of widespread support for their client's agenda.[1][2] Some studies suggest astroturfing can alter public viewpoints and create enough doubt to inhibit action.

Long Gone

In case there is any question why George Geiger was selected....

http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/sites/democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/files/content/files/2011-07-26_hrg_FWOIA_Geigertest.pdf

Synopsis: Until the fishing is as good as he found it in the 70s when he moved to Florida, it should all be shut down.