Handguns
Subscribe
Home› Conservation Front
harbison
Posts: 5,772 Admiral
Legacy to the Amereican People!
harbison
Posts: 5,772 Admiral
Boy, the Gulf Council sure thinks a lot of me:
Message text rejected. Message rejected as spam by Content Filtering.
Legacy to the American people:
This is getting deep, and dangerous:
In 1954. the US Congress passed the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act, a multi-million dollar superfund created to promote and market domestic seafood. In 2010, the Department of Commerce, (NOAA is now under the Dept. of Commerce,) received $113,400,000 from the Department of Agriculture. As mandated by law Commerce was obliged to spend at least 60% of this sum, $68,000,000 on "fishing industry projects." Ever wonder where monies for the promotion, implementation, of shares/separation comes from? In addition to organizations such as EDF, PEW, PACKARD FOUNDATION, etc. NOAA shifted $104,600,000 into operations. It takes a great deal of money to push (buy) shares/separation on the American peoples. Only $8,000,000 was distributed through competitive grants to congressionally mandated fishing projects. NOAA has been reallocating funds from research into administration of the catch shares programs, this means less money for stock assessments. NOAA, Lubchenco at work.
Dr, Jane (catch shares) Lubchenco is now head of NOAA. Dear Jane has a long history of interactions, money received, from the so called, "Environmental" groups.
PEW FELLOW: $150,000
MOORE FOUNDATION: (and PEW Oceans Commission member) $5,500,000
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE FOUNDATION (EDF) Vice-chair: $10,400,000
GORDON & BETTY MOORE FOUNDATION: $13,700,000
The list goes on & on. Lubchenco took many of her associates, backers, with her. To name just a few:
Monica Medina, former Senior Officer, PEW Environmental Group
Justin Kennedy, former Senior Public Affairs Officer at PEW Trust and Director of Communications for the PEW Commission
Lois Schiffer, former Vice President for Public Policy at the national Audubon Society
Clearly, Lubchenco has surrounded herself with so called, "Environmentalist."
Catch shares, the Government sponsored privatization of a National Resource, a billion dollar take-over of what was once our fishery, our heritage, is Lubchenco's legacy to PEW, EDF, etc. Her legacy to the American people, buy a share to catch & keep a fish. Simply put...No share, No fish! Catch Shares...fishing for only the rich.
(Thanks to Steven L. Rebuck & Captain James Wisner for contributing information used in this report) We need more men like them. Like them and our own Captain Buddy, MotherOcean Charters: "A good place to learn about what is really going on is check out the Gloucester Times. They have a writer that stays on top of what is going on and writes articles almost daily on these issues. What is very interesting is how the towns of Gloucester and New Bedford are the leaders in a law suit to stop catch shares. Wonder why two cities would back stopping catch shares if they did not know what a bad impact it will have on them?" Captain Buddy
Bob Harbison, Florida Native Life-long Recreational Fisherman
Message text rejected. Message rejected as spam by Content Filtering.
Legacy to the American people:
This is getting deep, and dangerous:
In 1954. the US Congress passed the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act, a multi-million dollar superfund created to promote and market domestic seafood. In 2010, the Department of Commerce, (NOAA is now under the Dept. of Commerce,) received $113,400,000 from the Department of Agriculture. As mandated by law Commerce was obliged to spend at least 60% of this sum, $68,000,000 on "fishing industry projects." Ever wonder where monies for the promotion, implementation, of shares/separation comes from? In addition to organizations such as EDF, PEW, PACKARD FOUNDATION, etc. NOAA shifted $104,600,000 into operations. It takes a great deal of money to push (buy) shares/separation on the American peoples. Only $8,000,000 was distributed through competitive grants to congressionally mandated fishing projects. NOAA has been reallocating funds from research into administration of the catch shares programs, this means less money for stock assessments. NOAA, Lubchenco at work.
Dr, Jane (catch shares) Lubchenco is now head of NOAA. Dear Jane has a long history of interactions, money received, from the so called, "Environmental" groups.
PEW FELLOW: $150,000
MOORE FOUNDATION: (and PEW Oceans Commission member) $5,500,000
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE FOUNDATION (EDF) Vice-chair: $10,400,000
GORDON & BETTY MOORE FOUNDATION: $13,700,000
The list goes on & on. Lubchenco took many of her associates, backers, with her. To name just a few:
Monica Medina, former Senior Officer, PEW Environmental Group
Justin Kennedy, former Senior Public Affairs Officer at PEW Trust and Director of Communications for the PEW Commission
Lois Schiffer, former Vice President for Public Policy at the national Audubon Society
Clearly, Lubchenco has surrounded herself with so called, "Environmentalist."
Catch shares, the Government sponsored privatization of a National Resource, a billion dollar take-over of what was once our fishery, our heritage, is Lubchenco's legacy to PEW, EDF, etc. Her legacy to the American people, buy a share to catch & keep a fish. Simply put...No share, No fish! Catch Shares...fishing for only the rich.
(Thanks to Steven L. Rebuck & Captain James Wisner for contributing information used in this report) We need more men like them. Like them and our own Captain Buddy, MotherOcean Charters: "A good place to learn about what is really going on is check out the Gloucester Times. They have a writer that stays on top of what is going on and writes articles almost daily on these issues. What is very interesting is how the towns of Gloucester and New Bedford are the leaders in a law suit to stop catch shares. Wonder why two cities would back stopping catch shares if they did not know what a bad impact it will have on them?" Captain Buddy
Bob Harbison, Florida Native Life-long Recreational Fisherman
Replies
The rec industry supports more jobs and beneifts by far than the commercial industry, which has been much better at selling itself for its profits to a few...
The commercial side has lobbyist, if we have even one it would be news to me. The commercial segment is much better organized, involved, ready to fight, than we are. Apathy is killing the recreational fisherman/woman. Ever stop to think why we are pushed around so easily? We can't even get 10% involved. Bob
Her financials likewise show no income generated as "bribes" as you and more your fish-house lawyer would like to suggest.
What you and Jimmy fail to realize, by ascribing greed as her driving motivation, and very wrongly so , is that academics (which she most assuredly is and not the profiteering ,mercenary you suggest ) are propelled more by philosophy than financial statements. And Ms. Lubchenco just like her counterparts in this administration is a true believer of the most dangerous kind. These guys so strongly believe that they are right, they will commit suicide to prove it.
Its this fanaticism combined with an absolute authority to govern, independently of concern and objections of the governed, which further propels their mission forward because they know that their positions are not sustainable and they have a very short window to establish and reinforce those philosophies by rule of law, to endure beyond their not at all too soon ended administration.
The problem we face is not Jane or Pew or EDF (which is the correct abbreviation) but who we, the governed,replace her with and what is to be done to undue the damage in the coming four years to ensure that this nonsense never happens again.
Our efforts are better spent on developing that plan than squandered hunting and re-hunting a witch with a short enough life span.
"Well Gary, the easiest way to look tall is to stand in a room full of short people." - Curtis Bostick
"All these forums, with barely any activity, are like a neglected old cemetery that no one visits anymore."- anonymouse
Gary, you are only half as paranoid as Hilton, it seems. You concede that Lubchenco is not in it for personal profit, then slam her as a suicidal zealot. It seems that there can be no legitimate difference of opinion with you guys. People either see it your way, or they're on the take, or fanatics, or both.
And in the meantime, people on this and other forums are quoting Buddy Vanderhoop and pasting articles from the Gloucester Times as if these people are friends of the recreational fishermen. They are not.
The good Lord hast blessed me with an uncanny ability to lucidly understand the patently obvious.
An area in which He obviously thought you did not merit His keen attention.
"Well Gary, the easiest way to look tall is to stand in a room full of short people." - Curtis Bostick
"All these forums, with barely any activity, are like a neglected old cemetery that no one visits anymore."- anonymouse
Catch Shares are indiscriminate whether you are a recreational or commercial fisherman - either way, the end result is less boats on the water and our fish stocks turned in into "Fish Stocks", as in commodities.
In this sense, the commercial and recreational interests are on the same side of the fence on this issue - whatever is happening with the commercial fishermen up in the NE or NW will be mirrored down here in the Gulf on the recreational side. Richards Gaines provides an invaluable perspective on what we can expect from Catch Shares when/if implemented on the recreational side down here.
The problem that I see here in the Gulf relative to commercial vs recreational, is a small group of EDF-funded commercial captains who represent the EDF-funded/created front called the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders Alliance who are pushing for Sector Separation / Catch Shares in the recreational sector. Remove the profit motive, and these guys would care less about what happens in the recreational side, but, having already experienced the $$ windfall from our federal government through the welfare/reparations program called IFQs, they want MORE MORE MORE free money!
Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
What a philosophy:
"NOAA shifted $104,600,000 into operations" Into Dear Jane's catch share budget, her legacy to EDF & PEW! PEW FELLOW: $150,000 (PEW invests absolutely nothing without expecting huge returns.)
MOORE FOUNDATION: (and PEW Oceans Commission member) $5,500,000
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE FOUNDATION (EDF) Vice-chair: $10,400,000
GORDON & BETTY MOORE FOUNDATION: $13,700,000
The list goes on & on. Dear Jane's, "Academics" is indeed a philosophy of, "financial statements," and "profiteering!" Bob H.
The notion that she is somehow "on the take", which is a running theme among Jimmy's many conspiracy theories is patently false. The reality is elegantly more simple.
Ms. Lubchenco is one of the authors of this fish distribution philosophy and has worked towards its implementation over the past 15 years.
She believes that it is the right thing to do. Even if there was no money involved, she and her fellow true believers would pursue it. That is what is so complex and dangerous about it; the economy of it is not as important to them as the social engineering by rule of law,which they have a only a matter of months to cast as much in stone to endure the next administrations change in management.
This in itself is not all that difficult to see. To me anyway.
"Well Gary, the easiest way to look tall is to stand in a room full of short people." - Curtis Bostick
"All these forums, with barely any activity, are like a neglected old cemetery that no one visits anymore."- anonymouse
"Well Gary, the easiest way to look tall is to stand in a room full of short people." - Curtis Bostick
"All these forums, with barely any activity, are like a neglected old cemetery that no one visits anymore."- anonymouse
If you think this is a Democratic/Republican issue, you are wrong. Much of what is going wrong in our fisheries today was implemented under George W's watch. I hope Obama gets defeated, don't get me wrong, but if you assume that the Republicans are any different when it comes to accepting $$$ from enviro.orgs and giving them something in return, you are mistaken.
Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
"Well Gary, the easiest way to look tall is to stand in a room full of short people." - Curtis Bostick
"All these forums, with barely any activity, are like a neglected old cemetery that no one visits anymore."- anonymouse
"Well Gary, the easiest way to look tall is to stand in a room full of short people." - Curtis Bostick
"All these forums, with barely any activity, are like a neglected old cemetery that no one visits anymore."- anonymouse
Brian
"her true genius is that she realized that the commercial stake holders ARE driven by personal financial gain and she has used that greed to gain support from that sector in support of her agenda"
Thank you sir; no one could have said it any better.
"She does, in fact, understand that she has a very limited amount of time to exert her influence in such a way to have a long lasting change in the way that fisheries are managed. That is why the harder we fight and the longer we postpone the implementation of her agenda the more likely we are to win the war"
Once again, very well said. Agreed 100%
By far the greater majority of recreational fishermen/women realize that very strict regulations are needed. This is in everyone's better interest. However, NOAA's prevailing attitude of 'If it swims, it's overfished' is completely un-called for, and is destroying a way of life for so many. Even our Northern friends have been devastated. The courageous peoples of the New England States & Alaska are also fighting catch shares.
As I have previously reported, I personally witnessed, and was part of, the great king fish 'slaughters' of the sixties. We devastated the population. It was nothing to catch 75-100 a trip. In recent years, due to proper management, the schools have come back very well.
We are not advocating a complete lack of control, as was the case in the sixties. However, properly managed, we who actually fish, know first hand that our fisheries are in much better shape than we are being lead to believe. Case in point American red snapper, gag grouper, and amber jack. Often, when targeting other species, it is impossible to get away from these 'endangered, way over-fished,' species.
Strict regulations, YES! But let's base them on current up-to-date real science! Bob H.
Why should you or anyone have a say in how a person earns a living? As long as it is legal? Why dont you lead by example and change your profession to another chosen by a third party?
Agreed to a point. NOAA's Dear Jane makes the law as she goes along.
Is NOAA law really, "Legal?" Is it in the best interest of the vast majority of the American people? Bob H.
Well said...and unfortunately, all too true.
No I dont think it is in the interest of most Americans. We have had many of our rights taken by this administration and its appointed marxists.
My point is people, mostly liberal, in this country could care less about the impact their agenda has on their fellow American. I am sick of these folks causing so many problems for the average American trying to feed their family. When they say they dont care about the guy, he can do sponge tours. Well, lets see how this guy responds to being told his occupation is not worthy and he needs to change his way of living becasue we said so.
"My point is people, mostly liberal, in this country could care less about the impact their agenda has on their fellow American." Agreed! Often too many of us tend to think only of our self. We tend to forget that we are, or should be, all in this together.
When they say they dont care about the guy, he can do sponge tours. Well, lets see how this guy responds to being told his occupation is not worthy and he needs to change his way of living because we said so. "We said so" does not take into account our, "fellow Americans." We, all fishermen, recreational/commercial are fighting a war, a war for our very existence. However, if the truth be known, we spend more time fighting among ourselves than we do fighting those who would take us off the water. We are far from being united. NOAA & company, backed by the environmental radical segment, is very united. We are so easily manipulated because: we are our own worst enemy! Bob H.
I think there are 2 points you are making. We cant unite with one who agrees with the extreme left and that is some of our fellow fisherman regardless of recreation or commercial. I am not easily manipulated and have core beliefs that are conservative. They are similar to the beliefs of our founding fathers. Conservation is without question neccessary and most of us agree on that. However, dictating to another based on ones agenda is unacceptable and will eventually strip ALL of their rights if allowed to go on un checked.