Countdown to elimination of keeping all fish in US coastal waters

[DarkSkies]

OK I know that this sounds like another "sky is falling" kind of post. :kooky: Many of you aren't in a position to see the things I and others involved in supporting our fishing rights are involved in.

You aren't able to see the big picture because many of the closures and restrictions in other areas don't involve you personally. I understand part of that, we only want to expend effort where we feel it will make a difference.

However, big changes will be put out there in the next 4 years which will affect the way we fish. I learned from the SSFFF meeting that ranting about it on the internet, or going to a meeting or 2, is sometimes not enough.

I received news that Dr Jane Lubchenko was appointed head of the NOAA in early 2009. Why is this significant? Because part of her education and grants she received while getting her doctorate were funded by the PEW Trust.

As such, it's my contention, and the belief of many others, that she cannot be objective in her job if she is beholden to PEW interests, and therefore is not a friend to fishermen. http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/images/icons/icon13.gif

I, and others, believe that her ultimate agenda is to shut or restrict fishing for many species we fish for. She already did this for red snapper, which will have a severe economic impact on those (tackle shops, coffee shops, marinas, etc) who depend on the fishermen in Southern states.

[DarkSkies]

I want to set up a timeline of all decisions she has had input on, ie, restricting or closing fishing in any area, whether it's your area or not.

If it occurred anywhere in the US or its commonwealths, I want to hear about it and get it documented there. Once we have this timeline, I hope to find a fishing group such as StripersForever, etc, who will have the funds to present this data to the right politicians and try to raise some hell. :clapping::clapping:

I learned from the tireless efforts of the SSFFF that even a setback is not a loss. If we are not pro-active in preserving our fishing rights, they will slowly be taken away. :learn:

And why is this possible?

IMO because of fishermen apathy, ineffectiveness of splintered fishermen groups who fail to unite to fight one common adversary, and the formidable financial power of the PEW Trust and its ancillary organizations, which I hope to bring to light in this thread.

[DarkSkies]

I would never be able to research all this by myself. I'm asking for help here from anyone who can offer it.

All you have to do is a google search for "Dr Lubchenko closures", "fishing closures by Dr Lubchenko", "Dr Lubchenko restricts fishing".

C&P the article, the date it was printed, and please cite the source by copying the link at the top of the article's page as well.

That's all I'm asking, and I really do need your help. :thumbsup:

You can make comments if you want, but it's not necessary. We need to build a database of her closures here.

She is one of the most dangerous figures to American Sportsmen today. What makes her so dangerous is that no one seems to care about the extent of her ties with the PEW trust.

Let me explain it to you this way: If you knew of a police officer that was on the vice squad doing drug busts, would you feel comfortable if he had family in the drug business that he advised every time there was a raid?
Absolutely not, there would be an unquestionable conflict of interest. Well, I maintain there is a conflict of interest with Dr Lubchenko and the alleged, or non-visible ties she has with the PEW trust.

There is no way she can be objective dealng with issues concerning American Sportsmen when there is even the APPEARANCE of this conflict, whether real or imagined.

There is no other solution for her to step down from her position. We as concerned Sportsmen and fishermen should begin to learn all we can for ourselves, and push for her eventual replacement.

If she is not replaced we could lose many more of our fishing rights.

You may disagree with me, as this is only my opinion. However, many angler groups have been holding this opinion for some time now. It's only a matter of time before the rules are changed to reflect what Dr Lubchenko and those favorable to her agenda, want them to reflect.

Rules that are not based in science, but put out to reflect a narrow minded agenda to keep us from fishing. http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/images/icons/icon13.gif

You heard it here first people. Don't let your rights be taken away. We deserve to fish, it's NOT a privelege. :2flip:

[DarkSkies]

The one who cites the most cases where Dr Lubchenko restricted fishing, or closed fishing down,wins a plug, to be chosen Mar 1, 2010.

Please C&P the whole article if you want to help, people, and remember to C&P the link where you got it from. Thanks for all the help! :thumbsup::thumbsup:

[DarkSkies]

Focus on Focus Earth: EPA and NOAA Interviews





[/URL]
By David DeFranza (http://planetgreen.discovery.com/accounts/persona.html?member=116611931)
Washington, DC, USA | Fri Apr 03, 2009 08:00 AM ET
http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tv/focus-earth/images/2009-04/lisa-jackson-epa.jpg
Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP



READ MORE ABOUT:
Climate Change (http://planetgreen.discovery.com/climate-change/) | Environmental Policy (http://planetgreen.discovery.com/environmental-policy/) | Focus Earth Issues (http://planetgreen.discovery.com/focus-earth-issues/) | Politics (http://planetgreen.discovery.com/politics/)



Since taking office, Barack Obama has slowly worked to build a green cabinet (http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tv/focus-earth/obama-green-team.html). These advisers, it's hoped, will help shape a new green-collar economy, plan the United States' strategy to combat climate change, and lead the country to a more responsible energy future. With so many positions, departments, and agencies coming together to for this green team, it is easy to lose track of who's who. This week, Focus Earth sits down with the newly appointed heads of two agencies leading the green charge.
The first is Dr. Jane Lubchenko, now head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Prior to this appointment, Dr. Lubchenko worked as a research scientist and professor at the University of Oregon. Her research focuses on interactions between ecological communities, mapping biodiversity on costal shores, and interactions between biogeochemistry and the ecology of seashores.

Her proposed agenda (http://blogs.zdnet.com/green/?p=3441) includes halting over-fishing, protecting ocean habitats, and establishing a National Climate Service.

The second green-team member is Lisa Jackson, now head of the Environmental Protection Agency. Over the course of her long career in environmental protection and management, she has worked for the EPA and served as New Jersey Commissioner of Environmental Protection. In New Jersey, she led pollution compliance sweeps in two of the states most notoriously unpatrolled cities. Jackson also generated some controversy (http://www.grist.org/article/The-Lisa-of-our-concerns) among the state's toxic-site cleanup workers, who claim she suppressed science to achieve political ends.
Don't miss interviews with Jane Lubchenko and Lisa Jackson on Focus Earth: G20 and EPA and NOAA Interviews (http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tv/focus-earth/focus-earth-g20-noaa.html).


[URL]http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tv/focus-earth/epa-noaa-interviews.html

[njdiver]

Here are some starting points:

http://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/hotnews/

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/bulletins/fishery_bulletins.htm

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Newsroom/Current/Index.cfm

http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/

http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/

[DarkSkies]

Thanks, NJdiver. :thumbsup: I wanted people to realize that if you begin searching, you will see 3 specific closures that Dr Lubchenko has been involved in.

That's not such a big deal, right? :huh:

The 3 closures were instituted in the last 2 months. Wait till the end of her appointment term, I'm sure she'll rack up dozens more. She's just warming up to put her anti-fisherman agenda across the board, and now has the power to do so.

We have none of that power, even though her decisions affect many thousands of fishermen, and hundreds of thousands of people who economically depend on fishermen spending their money in their shops, gas stations, diners, etc.

ANY decision or article you can find that mentions anything negative or where it appears there was a bias, would be acceptable here.

MY agenda is to try to let everyone see that she cannot function in her position as a person who is even considering the interest of fishermen. I maintain that her ties to the PEW trust and other environmental groups are so strong that she cannot make these decisions without an ethical conflict of interest.

I already strongly believe this to be true, but realize many fishermen may not be aware of the connections. So it's one of my missions here to raise awareness of that.

Whether all fishermen just accept these decisions like lambs being led to the slaughter, that's up to them. ;)

[njdiver]

http://www.app.com/graphics/mastlogo.gif

December 10, 2009

Feds push catch share programs for regional fisheries

By KIRK MOORE
STAFF WRITER

The federal government is pushing its regional fisheries councils to adopt catch share programs that assign virtual ownership of annual quotas to fishermen - a concept pioneered in the New Jersey surf clam fishery, and since then adopted in a dozen more with varying success.

American and global experience with catch shares clearly show "they can help restore the health of ecosystems and set fisheries on a path to profitability,'' Jane Lubchenco, administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said today in a telephone briefing with reporters.

But Lubchenco acknowledged catch shares "are not a panacea'' and won't prevent some job losses, as in the beleagured New England groundfish industry.

"The goal is not to sustain the level of fishing that's happening now'' but to ultimately have "better jobs and more secure jobs'' in rebuilt fisheries, said Lubchenco, whose agency today released its draft policy on catch shares.

NOAA is strongly encouraging but not requiring its eight regional councils to move ahead on using catch share programs where they would help rebuild depleted fish stocks and restore fishing communities.

Among its provisions, the policy provides for councils in the future to institute royalties - fees that fishermen would pay as part of their catch shares, to fund fisheries-related science and management. NOAA officials liken that to the royalties paid for minerals mining or cutting timber on public lands.

"That decision is entirely within the councils...there's dozens of different ways to design that,'' said Mark Holliday, executive director of the agency's catch shares task force.

Structuring catch shares will be up to the councils with NOAA guidance, and they can design systems and assign shares in ways to prevent a few individuals or companies from amassing most of the fishing quota, Holliday said.

That's a major concern among trawler captains from New Jersey to Maine, who fear that fleet consolidation could eventually force out small family businesses if they cannot obtain enough quota. Consolidation came rapidly after a similar individual transferable quota system began in 1990 for the surf clam business, which within a few years came to be dominated by a few large companies that control boats and processing facilties.

http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200991210073

[CharlieTuna]

http://www.app.com/graphics/mastlogo.gif

December 10, 2009

Feds push catch share programs for regional fisheries

By KIRK MOORE
STAFF WRITER

The federal government is pushing its regional fisheries councils to adopt catch share programs that assign virtual ownership of annual quotas to fishermen - a concept pioneered in the New Jersey surf clam fishery, and since then adopted in a dozen more with varying success.


But Lubchenco acknowledged catch shares "are not a panacea'' and won't prevent some job losses, as in the beleagured New England groundfish industry.

"The goal is not to sustain the level of fishing that's happening now'' but to ultimately have "better jobs and more secure jobs'' in rebuilt fisheries, said Lubchenco, whose agency today released its draft policy on catch shares.


That's a major concern among trawler captains from New Jersey to Maine, who fear that fleet consolidation could eventually force out small family businesses if they cannot obtain enough quota. Consolidation came rapidly after a similar individual transferable quota system began in 1990 for the surf clam business, which within a few years came to be dominated by a few large companies that control boats and processing facilties.

http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200991210073

I didn't understand if you were for or against catch shares by posting this article? :huh: As a recreational fisherman, sure I would be happy if all commercial fishing was eliminated.
How about the families that have been fishing for generations, though? That's the one main thing that prevents me from rallying for complete commercial closure.
All they have done by catch shares it take the control out of the hands of thousands of commercial fishermen who have been fishing for generations and put it in the hands of a few greedy factory or corporate owners who are able to "pay to play" and pay the increased tariffs to fish.
I don't see how this is any different than Omega protein corp, which probably accounts for 50% of all bunker caught and processed in the US, a big factory conglomerate controlled by powerful interests, and I'm sure a handsome contributor to certain Congesssmen in its district.
That would be like taking all the employees of NOAA, selling the NOAA to McDonalds or Walmart, and then telling them they have no choice but to work for McDonalds or Walmart now, take it or leave it.
I don't see where that is a better plan, njdiver. Can you explain your reasoning a little more to us?

[njdiver]

I didn't understand if you were for or against catch shares by posting this article? :huh:

I don't see where that is a better plan, njdiver. Can you explain your reasoning a little more to us?

In answer:


I would never be able to research all this by myself. I'm asking for help here from anyone who can offer it.

[njdiver]

NOAA Encourages Use of Catch Shares to End Overfishing,
Rebuild Fisheries and Fishing Communities


NOAA released today for public comment a draft national policy encouraging the use of catch shares, a fishery management tool that aims to end overfishing and rebuild and sustain fishing jobs and fishing communities. In doing so, NOAA recognized that catch shares are not a panacea or one-size-fits-all solution, but are a proven way to promote sustainable fishing when designed properly at the fishing community level.

(Snip)


“From Florida to Alaska, catch share programs help fishing communities provide good jobs while rebuilding and sustaining healthy fisheries and ocean ecosystems,” said Dr. Jane Lubchenco, under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “Although this is a national policy, our emphasis is on local consideration and design of catch shares that take into consideration commercial and recreational fishing interests.”


(Snip)


http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mediacenter/docs/catchshare_policy_dec09.pdf

[CharlieTuna]

NOAA Encourages Use of Catch Shares to End Overfishing,




Rebuild Fisheries and Fishing Communities


“Although this is a national policy, our emphasis is on local consideration and design of catch shares that take into consideration commercial and recreational fishing interests.”


(Snip)


http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mediacenter/docs/catchshare_policy_dec09.pdf


To me, she is talking out of her ***. With all due respect to you njdiver, and dark, I don't understand one of these instances where she has actually helped fishermen. This is just political doublespeak to me. We all have our different opinions here and that's ok. I am not trying to argue, just understand it better. I am too used to hearing politicians make promises and then not delivering. It seems like more of the same here, just my .02.

[plugginpete]

There definitely seem to be an agenda imo. Anything that is thought to be interfering with the environment or causing global warming will be attacked, and restrictions made. Fishing should be something we are allowed to do. The Pilgrims were not restricted from fishing when they came here on the Mayflower. We came to America to get rid of tyranny, and now we have it all over again in the form of leftist extreme environmentalists who dole out these regulations "for our own good?" :don't know why:




Science Returns to the White House

In announcing four top science advisers Saturday, President-elect Barack Obama set lofty goals for an open and honest scientific process and dialogue in his new administration.

"The truth is that promoting science isn't just about providing resources — it's about protecting free and open inquiry," Obama said in his weekly radio address. "It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It's about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it's inconvenient — especially when it's inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us. That will be my goal as President of the United States — and I could not have a better team to guide me in this work."

The statements are in direct contrast to how many scientists viewed George W. Bush's treatment of science.

Many top researchers interviewed by LiveScience early this year said Bush's White House operated based on morality-based politics that they said ignored scientific evidence, distorted facts and led to outright censorship of reports and scientists. Echoing the sentiments of 21 researchers from different fields interviewed, Alan W. Harris, senior research scientist at the Space Science Institute at La Canada, Calif., accused the White House of "systematic suppression of scientific evidence that does not support administration plans."



An opinion -

"Don't bet on it. While you're at it, read the first response to this biased article. It's a real breath of fresh air and exposed Jane Lubchenko, one of the scientists who is supposed to help Obama see the the Global Warming "light":

"Lubchenko's work at OSU was highlighted by her leadership in the firing of our State Climatologist George Taylor, who freely and openly inquired into the myriad inconsistencies of global warming "science." Another highlight was her "deadzone prophecies" which were also highly profitable due to their apocalyptic scare tactics. Local commercial fishermen observed accurately that it was a perfectly normal ocean life-cycle that had been documented for more than 150 years."

Scare tactics? Yep. Scaring people for fun and profit with junk science. Dark Ages here we come. "


posted 21 December 2008, 2:15 pm ET
BobZybach (http://www.livescience.com/common/community/profile.php?u=1033754) wrote:

"The Global Warming contingent that Obama has appointed hardly represents the "free and open inquiry" that he promises. As another reader has observed, Global Warming "science" is the only one in which "proof" is achieved by voting.

Lubchenko's work at OSU was highlighted by her leadership in the firing of our State Climatologist, George Taylor, who freely and openly inquired into the myriad inconsistencies of Global Warming "science."

Another highlight was her "Dead Zone" prophecies, which were also highly profitable due to their apocalyptic scare tactics. Local commerical fishermen observed, accurately, that it was a perfectly normal ocean life-cycle that had been documented for more than 150 years. No matter -- the call is out for draconian measures, including massive "ocean reserves" that (if adopted) will cripple Oregon's marine fisheries in the same manner that "scientific" reserves have crippled our (and the US) timber industry.

The Global Warmers are mostly liberal Democrats -- note Lubchenko's condescending remarks regarding President Bush and the "Republicans" -- who have profited immensely via the Global Warming scare. Remember, they claim "consensus" in their "science." Consensus, as another reminder, is the antithesis of "free and open inquiry." Debate requires at least two sides, not just one.

These appointments will prove wonderful for University professors seeking money for Global Warming "studies" that further unfounded fears and consensus. Ask George Taylor about the "free and open inquiry" part. So far, it's a sham.

(I hope to be proven wrong on this. I hope that Obama really does understand and support scientific debate and challenges.)




http://www.koreabridge.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7604

[clamchucker]

In 2006 fishermen contributed $36 billion to the economy. The folks at NOAA need to be aware of this economic power. Dr. Lubchenko should keep up to date with the publications her office puts out. It might make her at least have the appearance of being fair.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090112_fishstudy.html


Saltwater Recreational Fishermen Boon for Economy, Says NOAA

January 12, 2009
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/images/fishstudy2_small.jpg
Angela Annino of Connecticut holds up an impressive striped bass, one of New England's most popular sport fish.
High resolution (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/images/fishstudy2.jpg)[/URL] (Credit: NOAA)

Recreational saltwater anglers pumped more than $31 billion into the U.S. economy in 2006, with Florida, Texas, California, Louisiana, and North Carolina receiving the largest share according to a new study issued by NOAA’s Fisheries Service (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/images/cod.jpg).
At the national level, saltwater anglers are estimated to have spent $5.8 billion on trip-based expenses, such as ice, bait, and fuel, and another $25.6 billion on fishing equipment and durable goods like fishing rods, fishing tackle, and boats.
The top five coastal recreational fishing states are: Florida ($16.7 billion), Texas ($3.2 billion), California ($3.0 billion), Louisiana ($2.9 billion), and North Carolina ($2.0 billion).
In addition to quantifying angler expenditures, this study examines how these expenditures circulated through each state’s economy and the national economy using a regional assessment. The $31.4 billion in total U.S. expenditures in 2006 contributed $82.3 billion in total sales, $39.1 billion to gross national product, $24 billion in personal income, and supported nearly 534,000 jobs.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/images/fishstudy1_small.jpg
John Bartlett and his father show off a pair of mahi mahi caught near Oahu, Hawaii.
High resolution (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/images/fishstudy1.jpg) (Credit: NOAA)


The Economic Contribution of Marine Angler Expenditures in the United States 2006 is available [URL="http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/index.html"]online (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/images/cod.jpg). A hardcopy of this report may be obtained by contacting Scott Steinback (%20scott.steinback@noaa.gov) via e-mail or by mail at the address below:

[nitestrikes]

I googled them Dark, here you go. You were on the money how dangerous this lady is, I see a scary future out there --
1. Seabass


Sea bass fishing banned in federal waters Written by Daniel Nee Friday, 20 November 2009 16:49


Disaster struck the fleet on a sunny day this season. It was announced Sept. 30 that the recreational sea bass fishery in federal waters would be closed for six months beginning Oct. 5. The decision came after data from the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistical Survey – a rudimentary data collections process that consists of phone surveys and dockside interviews – indicated recreational anglers may have exceeded their quota by 84 to 225 percent. The survey – which has been deemed “fatally flawed by the National Research Council – noted big overages in March and June 2009, months when weather prevented the vast majority of anglers from fishing. But while the survey and long-standing faulty legislation are largely to blame for the closure, anglers should also question the Obama administration’s handling of recreational fishing policies since his inauguration last January.

The administration, less than a year in office, has already enacted sweeping changes within the agencies that regulate recreational fisheries. In February, Jersey Shore Fishing was one of the first publications to report on the appointment of Jane Lubchenko, an environmentalist college professor, to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the federal agency which has oversight over the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Strongly backed both financially and on the grass-roots level by environmental groups – including the Pew Environmental Trust, which has fought to shut down recreational fisheries across the nation – the Obama administration has ushered in an era of increased anti-fishing sentiment at the NOAA.

Lubchenko, who in the past has personally served with the Pew group, has previously argued in favor of catch-shares, schemes which force commercial and recreational anglers to bid on small chunks of quota. The Pew group, which has systematically burrowed its way into the NOAA’s sphere of influence under the friendlier Lubchenko administration, has been pushing its own plan to ban fishing, namely Marine Protected Areas, or massive swaths of ocean that are off limits for fishing – period.

Directly affecting New Jersey anglers, Lubchenko’s administration decided to replace Ed Goldman – a recreational angler and member of the New Jersey Marine Fisheries Council – with a well-known environmentalist on the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Like Goldman, several other recreational fishing advocates were replaced on the commission with environmentalists.

The recent decision to close the offshore sea bass fishery based solely on phone survey data the National Records Council has deemed “fatally flawed” was the straw that broke the camel’s back for many in the recreational sector.

“Our new NOAA administrator has not only circumvented the management process and ignored the input from our industry, but it’s as if the administrator has turned her back entirely on the Bill of Rights and the 10th Amendment,” said Jim Donofrio, director of the New Gretna-based Recreational Fishing Alliance.

While the lines in the fight to save recreational fishing as we know it are undeniably partisan – Democrats have been supported by the environmental lobby to a much larger extent than Republicans – that is not always the case on a local level. Congressmen Frank Pallone [D-6] and John Adler [D-3] both penned a scathing letter to James Balsinger, Acting Assistant Administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service, in the wake of the recent sea bass closure.

“We can all agree that sustainable fisheries are the most important goal,” wrote the pair. “However, to continue this assault on recreational fisheries with minimal results is not acceptable.”

But while individual elected officials may stray from overall party sentiment, the charge from the Obama administration has been starkly anti-fishing.

‘All The President’s Czars’

The Obama administration has taken its share of heat over the President’s use of so-called “czars” to oversee legislative and cultural initiatives over the past year. Controversies, such as racially-charged statements by ‘Green Jobs’ czar Van Jones (who was eventually forced to resign) and a scenario where ‘Safe Schools’ czar Kevin Jennings allegedly condoned statutory rape while employed as a teacher, have swirled since the appointments of many of these figures who have the President’s ear. That’s why it’s disturbing to discover that fishing and ocean policy may soon have its own council of “czars” promoting environmental policies.

The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force was quietly formed in June by the President and will be packed with “policy-level officials” from a number of federal agencies, including the Department of the Interior and even Homeland Security. One of the agency’s areas of oversight will be “effective marine and coastal spatial planning,” a discrete title for a task force that could involve limiting areas where fishing is allowed.

“President Obama’s vision for a sustainable and comprehensive strategy for our oceans is vital to the wise management of these critical resources,” said Associate Deputy Secretary of the Interior Laura Davis in a statement. “With 1.7 billion acres in the Outer Continental Shelf -- including management responsibilities for offshore renewable and conventional energy resources, 35,000 miles of coastline, and millions of acres of marine-based parks, refuges and national monuments – the Department of Interior and its agencies are front and center in the effort to build the coordinated national ocean policy that our country needs.”

Some anglers fear the “strategy” referenced by Davis is one which will shut them out of accessing their sport.

On the heels of the task force formation came the nomination confirmation of Cass Sunstein as czar of Information and Regulatory affairs. Sunstein, a Harvard law professor, will head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which is tasked with the issuance of Presidential regulatory principles and the review of draft Presidential regulations, such as executive orders. Sunstein, widely criticized as a radical animal rights activist who has argued that eating meat should be outlawed, hunting should be outlawed and animals should have the right to sue in court with human representation, has been panned as a clear anti-fishing choice for the office.

For now, anglers should batten down the hatches and ready themselves for a fight. Support for Pallone’s Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act is needed, as well as increased RFA membership, according to Donofrio of the RFA. Anglers, when all is said and done, need to speak with one voice – and maintain their right to fish. •
http://www.jerseyshorefishingmag.com/home/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=269:sea-bass-fishing-banned-federal-waters&catid=13:fisheriesmanagement&Itemid=27


Breaking this down into sound bytes---

1. The survey – which has been deemed “fatally flawed by the National Research Council – noted big overages in March and June 2009, months when weather prevented the vast majority of anglers from fishing.

2. Strongly backed both financially and on the grass-roots level by environmental groups – including the Pew Environmental Trust, which has fought to shut down recreational fisheries across the nation – the Obama administration has ushered in an era of increased anti-fishing sentiment at the NOAA.

3. Lubchenko, who in the past has personally served with the Pew group, has previously argued in favor of catch-shares, schemes which force commercial and recreational anglers to bid on small chunks of quota.

4. The Pew group, which has systematically burrowed its way into the NOAA’s sphere of influence under the friendlier Lubchenko administration, has been pushing its own plan to ban fishing, namely Marine Protected Areas, or massive swaths of ocean that are off limits for fishing – period.

5. Lubchenko’s administration decided to replace Ed Goldman – a recreational angler and member of the New Jersey Marine Fisheries Council – with a well-known environmentalist on the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Like Goldman, several other recreational fishing advocates were replaced on the commission with environmentalists.

6. The recent decision to close the offshore sea bass fishery based solely on phone survey data the National Records Council has deemed “fatally flawed” was the straw that broke the camel’s back for many in the recreational sector.

7. ... it’s as if the administrator has turned her back entirely on the Bill of Rights and the 10th Amendment,” said Jim Donofrio, director of the New Gretna-based Recreational Fishing Alliance.

8. The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force was quietly formed in June by the President and will be packed with “policy-level officials” from a number of federal agencies..One of the agency’s areas of oversight will be “effective marine and coastal spatial planning,” a discrete title for a task force that could involve limiting areas where fishing is allowed....Associate Deputy Secretary of the Interior Laura Davis in a statement... Some anglers fear the “strategy” referenced by Davis is one which will shut them out of accessing their sport.

9. On the heels of the task force formation came the nomination confirmation of Cass Sunstein as czar of Information and Regulatory affairs... Sunstein, widely criticized as a radical animal rights activist who has argued that eating meat should be outlawed, hunting should be outlawed and animals should have the right to sue in court with human representation, has been panned as a clear anti-fishing choice for the office.

[nitestrikes]

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/bulletins/pdfs/2009/FB09-030%20Red%20Snapper%20Closure.pdf
CLOSURE OF THE RED SNAPPER RECREATIONAL FISHERY
IN THE GULF OF MEXICO
NOAA Fisheries Service announces the recreational
fishing season for red snapper in federal waters of
the Gulf of Mexico. The recreational fishery will
open June 1, 2009, and will close 12:01 a.m. local
time August 15, 2009. The fishery will remain
closed until June 1, 2010, the beginning of the 2010
federal recreational fishing season.
Fishermen are reminded that a person aboard a
vessel for which a federal charter vessel/headboat
permit for Gulf reef fish has been issued, must also
abide by these closure provisions in state waters for
the extent of the closure.
Closure of the recreational red snapper fishery in
federal waters complies with regulations
implemented under the Fishery Management Plan
for Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico. The
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act also requires NOAA
Fisheries Service close the recreational red snapper
fishery in federal waters when the quota is met or
projected to be met. NOAA Fisheries Service has
determined this action is necessary to prevent
overfishing and to keep the recreational fishery
from exceeding its quota during the 2009 fishing
year. A detailed summary of the quota closure
analysis can be found at: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/.
If you would like to receive these fishery bulletins
via e-mail as soon as they are published, e-mail us
at: SERO.Communications.Comments@noaa.gov.
You will also receive a copy of these bulletins
through the mail.


These are some comments from folks who fish in that area ---

Quote:
05/05/2009
have been spearfishing on a number of private spots lately and have never in my life seen so many snapper (outside of la oil rigs). I had to push a 20+lb'r out of the way last week swimming between me and a big sheepie i was after. One dive i saw at least 300 legal snapper, some extemely large. We were top water trolling and hooked upwith 2 snapper over 12 pounds, no need to vent before putting them back in the water.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 04/22/09
turned loose at least 60 "endangered" red snapper up to 15#. We fished from 60-100' of water, finnaly got on the triggers on the deeper stuff.

Quote:
04/22/09
we ended up fishig 2 wrecks south of dauphin island in 80-90' of water. Anyone that says the snapper population is "depleted" needs their head examined. 3 of us caught 18 snapper over 10 lbs with the biggest in the 18-20 lb category. A commercial fisherman pulled up to the first wreck and with 2 people on board literally loaded the boat with these big snapper. We decided to leave it to him and go try a spot where i had some luck in the previous years catching some grouper. Again, snapper to the hilt
"I'm no scientist, but I can give three first hand events (outside of the fact that we've been catching them like blue gill) that lead me to believe there is no shortage of Red Snapper.

1. I fished out of Orange Beach 3 weeks ago and there were literally hundreds of snapper on the surface of the wreck we fished. We were not chumming, there was no bait present and they weren't aggressively feeding. Just hanging out at the top of the water column in 100 ft for no reason. And they weren't the only snapper. We caught tons of them on the bottom as well.

2. Red snapper are being caught in both the Mobile and Pensacola bay

3. We were boarded on the same trip and the DNR guys even said that there are more snapper now than they've seen in a long time. Openly admitted the measurements are flawed and voiced their wish that Dr. Shipps arguments would get more credence with law makers. "

"Guys,
This is not a case of comms vs recs or rich vs poor or when the seasons are opened or closed or what the various catch limits are. Pew Fellows,such as Jane Lubchenko the NOAA head, want the oceans CLOSED to fishing. Fishing prohibited PERIOD. Not conservation but PROHIBITION. Pay attention! "


http://www.thehulltruth.com/sportfishing-forum/223080-red-snapper-closure-gulf-mexico.html

[nitestrikes]

Why not sign in and tell her what you really think of her. :2flip:

http://www.facebook.com/NOAA.Lubchenco

[nitestrikes]

http://www.watershedportal.org/news/news_html?ID=687

Commerce Secretary Releases $53.1 Million in Salmon Relief
Fish Sniffer Magazine - May 01, 2009
By Dan Bacher

“Salmon returns are expected to be near record lows again this year,” said Secretary Locke. “The extension of the disaster declaration will ensure that aid will be available to affected fisherman and their families to help offset the economic impact of the closure of the commercial fisheries.”

Representatives of commercial and recreational fishing groups were glad that the relief was released, but used the disaster declaration as a call to action to restore salmon populations.

“It’s fitting that the disaster declaration occurs on May Day, an international call of distress,” said Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations. “It is also fitting that May Day is International Workers Day – these funds will benefit working fishermen and women impacted by the salmon closures.”

NOAA fishery biologists continue to persist in their contention that the 2008 collapse was “triggered primarily by climatic conditions that produced little food in the ocean, compounded by too much reliance on fish produced in hatcheries instead of the wild,” as stated in a Department of Commerce press release.

“NOAA will continue to work with the states and our partners in the region on habitat and hatchery issues that may be contributing to the difficult fishery management problems that the Sacramento River system has been experiencing,” claimed Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator.

It is revealing that she didn’t say a word about increases in water exports and declining water quality– factors that a broad coalition of recreational fishing groups, commercial fishing groups, conservationists and independent scientists contend helped spur the salmon collapse. Although ocean conditions certainly played a role in the sudden decline, Lubchenco’s failure to mention water exports and declining water quality as factors to be addressed is very problematic.

Salmon advocates believe that Lubchenco and NOAA scientists, by chanting the “ocean conditions" mantra as the reason for the collapse, are continuing in the Bush administration tradition of avoiding any responsibility for the decline. However, this contention diverges dramatically with a rewritten draft “biological opinion” issued by the same agency in December. That report concluded that increases in Delta exports and the operation of Shasta Dam and other reservoirs pose “jeopardy” to the continued existence of imperiled Central Valley spring-run and winter-run salmon, Central Valley steelhead, green sturgeon and the southern resident killer whale population.

The state and federal governments have thrown hundreds of millions of dollars at “salmon restoration” projects in the Cal-Fed program and other fiascos that have yielded little tangible results while salmon and steelhead populations, with the exception of the Butte Creek spring Chinook run, have declined.

“What the salmon need to recover is not more dollars,” quipped Grader, “but more water. Fish need water to swim.”

The Closures: Commercial salmon fishing in ocean waters off northern California and southern Oregon is closed for the second year in a row, due to the collapse of Sacramento River fall run chinook salmon. Recreational ocean salmon fishing is closed also with the exception of a 10-day season in late August and early September from the California-Oregon border to Horse Mountain. Salmon fishing is banned in all Central Valley rivers, including the Feather, American and Yuba rivers, with the exception of a season on the Sacramento River from Red Bluff to Knights Landing from November 16 through December 31. A synopsis of the final regulations is available online: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov




Some comments ---

1. I'm from Coos Bay, Oregon, and I don't feel that the discussion on marine fisheries reserves has been fair and scientific as Ms. Lubchenko notes. Most of the discussions cite information about marine reserves from climates such as South Africa and South America, and even southern California. These are climates very different from ORegon's even if they are scientific.



Currently, this discussion is seeking to shut down fishing on the coast, that many families rely on. I wonder how Ms. Lubchencko is going to encourage that scientists actually conduct science that is relevant and based on our particular coast rather than citing studies from far off geographies that don't really relate to the Oregon coast?

ozragreen — Fri July 10th 9:36a.m. (http://www.opb.org/thinkoutloud/shows/jane-lubchenco/#ozragreen-07-10-09-09-36)


2. For many years there has been a drive by wealthy Conservatives to financialize and privatize every resource that they can and buy them up as monopolies and this idea of "Catch Shares" will fit into their schemes perfectly. The inevitable result of "Catch Shares" will be that they will end up being bought up by Predatory Monopolistic Global Corporations, the small boat captains and owners will be put out of the fishing business and either hired as low wage deck hands on the boats they formerly owned or foreign workers will be imported to undercut American Fishermen and drive the wages down. Long time fishing families will lose their livelihoods and be reduced out of the middle class to poverty wages and competing with illegal Aliens to fight over the scraps of money offered by the Corporations.
Fishermen, be careful of what is being offered you.

Tom D Ford — Fri July 10th 9:38a.m. (http://www.opb.org/thinkoutloud/shows/jane-lubchenco/#tom-d-ford-07-10-09-09-38)

[Jackbass]

Why not sign in and tell her what you really think of her. :2flip:

http://www.facebook.com/NOAA.Lubchenco

I will be hammering that page on a regular basis. Just another set of decisions being made for us as a group. Make the decision call it law and then pretend it is conservation all the liberal moon bats ooh and aah and think you are a savior. When they live their lives based on flawed data and pretend environmental data used to support a handful of scientists and keep egg off of Al Gores face. That is really the inconvenient truth.

[plugaholic]

Dr. L seems to be generally agreeable to the rec fisherman in RI when they voiced their concerns. Of course like any other politician, we can only take it with a grain of salt. In order for us to trust her judgements, which I don't see happening, and she needs to show us consideration and respect.


Well, maybe that split was fine back in the 70s and 80s, but in
recent years, studies have shown the vast economic importance
of recreational fishing in the U.S., and we are at a point where
recreational fishing is JUSTAS VALUABLE as commercial fishing
and it's time those allocations need to be looked at. She agreed!
I also told her of RISAA's proposal to change the lines in
federal waters off the Rhode Island coast so that all of Block
Island and Long Island Sound is considered state waters. The
issue is important to both commercial and recreational anglers.
We had sent letters and copies of nautical charts to our federal
legislators, but no one had responded. She said that this was
probably not in NOAA's realm and would require federal
legislation, but took copies of the chart and details sheets to
have it looked into.
Next, Frank Blount told her about recreational anglers distrust
of MRFSS data. Dr. Lubchenko said that the new MRIP will help
to improve the data we get, but Frank told her that it will be
necessary to gain the trust of the rec fishing community in order
to get their support and make it work.
He also told her that another problem was the offshore sea
herring fleet and it's effect on river herring - the reason we were
here that day. These sentiments were echoed by Will Barbeau
who noted that pair-trawlers were indiscriminate in catching sea
herring and river herring.
Time restraints kept us from continuing to other topics, but it
was a very productive meeting. Dr. Lubchenko seemed genuinely
interested in what we had to say, and thanked us for taking the
time to meet with her.
In talking with Forbes Darby after the meeting, he told me
that Dr. Lubchenko has made this commitment to improve
NOAA's relationship with recreational fishing and said she held
a similar meeting a short time ago with rec anglers in California.
This anglers had concerns of large closed areas off their coast,
but otherwise expressed the same concerns we did.
What I'm most impressed with is the fact that 15 years ago,
recreational anglers had no voice, very little representation, and
as Rodney Dangerfield says, "no respect."
Look at us now! Times are changing!
Recreational Anglers

[Jackbass]

Why not sign in and tell her what you really think of her. :2flip:

http://www.facebook.com/NOAA.Lubchenco

I have been hammering that page. Many fisherman have it seems :don't know why::thumbsup:. Other than the fisherman it is just another moon bat parade. People following the pied piper to the promised land of green toxic energy solutions(cfc lamps loaded with mercury, hybrids what do we do with the fuel cells when the vehicle is no longer viable etc. etc.). Solar power 900 dollars per panel to generate 175W or two lightbulbs? These people are a joke. Te whole thing is a money grab.

[Jackbass]

Jane is a product of The Pew Trust an organization where she has done a ton of research and work this is straight from their website . A page dedicated to reduce overfishing in NE

The Pew Environment Group is leading a campaign to encourage the New England Fishery Management Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service to implement a new management system by January 2010. Called sector allocation, it operates on three simple premises:


It implements science-based catch limits to rebuild fish populations and prevent overfishing. (OK not so bad at this point)

It incorporates monitoring so fishermen and regulators know exactly how much fish is being caught, and as a result, fishing stops once catch limits have been reached. (Who is doing the monitoring again)

It establishes community-based, fishermen-run co-ops, called sectors. Each sector receives its own share of the annual catch. While respecting catch limits, the co-ops provide fishermen with the flexibility to set their own fishing guidelines so they can run their businesses more efficiently and profitably. (whose business is going to be more profitable?)


The Pew Environment Group has partnered with two regionally based commercial fishing organizations, the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association and the Midcoast (Maine) Fishermen’s Association. Together, we are working to ensure that our shared goals are met: to end overfishing and protect the livelihood of fishermen while groundfish stocks are being rebuilt.



You guessed it the commercial fisherman whom she has already partnered with prior to taking the Reigns at the NOAA. The PEW trust has essentially recommended putting commercial fisherman in charge of fisheries management and making the decisions for the rest of the public based upon their interpretation of the stocks. Further more she is also entrusting them through the PEW proposal to shut themselves down when they have caught enough fish. How has that worked out in the past. We can't even count on the commercial fisherman to account for the fish that they do take currently never mind police themselves?

[gjb1969]

she can go to he!! and so can the comm guys i will still keep fish for me and my family if they want me come to the inner city and find me :laugh: i dont fish the clean water anyway and we all know most people are :scared:to come were i am at so i will fish till they put me in a box ( comm guys in charge of them selves what a joke ) we know how that will turn out we will get the blame for the fish stocks crashing just like now so its all bs so they all can go to he!! we the hook and line guys were there when the stocks crashed from over fishing we cryed foul not the comm guys :beatin::argue::2flip:

[DarkSkies]

Some of the NOAA reasoning before the Red snapper commentary period. That commentary period is closed now:

www.noaa.org (http://www.noaa.org)

"NOAA has published a proposed Interim Rule (74 FR 31906), to the Federal Register, for the which the public comment period ended on August 5, 2009. NOAA’s intent is to implement interim (emergency) management measures (which must be approved by the Secretary of Commerce, after review of the pubic comment period, which ended August 5, 2009, to be effective and in place by October 2009) to reduce alleged overfishing of red snapper in the South Atlantic, until the completion of Amendment 17A, which will include permanent measures to end the alleged overfishing of red snapper, both commercially and recreationally, by a complete closure of the harvest of red snapper for an undetermined period of time.

According to current data in the Sedar 15 Report, the closure of the red snapper fishery could be as long as of 25 to 35 years in order to rebuild the red snapper stocks to a sustainable level to prevent overfishing.

Although the comments you are making now are in regards to the one year emergency interim measures to be implemented, remember, it is the intention of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council to have permanent measures in place, before the interim rule expires (one year from October 2009), so there is no gap in the ability to keep the entire fishery closed for the harvest of red snapper.

Dr. Roy Crabtree, Regional Administrator with the National Marine Fishery Service Southeast Regional Office stated at the open public forum sessions in Wilmington N.C. (Dec 2008), Jekyll Island (March 2009), and Stuart (June 2009), that “this could be one of the greatest impacts to the fishing industry that any proposed rule or Amendment has had on any fishery since the development of Councils under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) to manage our nation’s fishery, but to what extent it will actually impact the people who rely on this species to make a living is completely unknown”.

At the present time, Dr. Crabtree stated that “necessary funding is not available to conduct updated economic studies (as required under the MSA) and the only solution to under funding of these projects is for the fishermen themselves to lobby their congressmen for additional funds to be provided to NOAA in order to address possible economic impacts from the closure of the red snapper fishery”.

It is very interesting to note that in the Draft Environmental Assessment, submitted to the Federal Register as part of the documents required to propose the use of an interim rule, NOAA states on page 91 of this document that “the relatively minor apparent importance of red snapper as a target species in the South Atlantic, as demonstrated by the low incidence of either target or catch effort…and ranking within bags or total harvest, suggests there is little reason to expect widespread reduction in fishing trips from historic levels, in lieu of continued fishing for other species, in the event of the imposition of a zero bag limit for red snapper”.

The use of the words “relatively minor apparent” and “suggests” do not seem to coincide with Dr. Crabtree’s former comments in regards to the possibility that this proposed complete closure could have one of the greatest impacts to the fishing industry the Council has ever seen in any of the 8 fishing regions in the United States. In addition, they do not seem to back-up the testimonies (also required under the MSA) given at these past meetings from virtually hundreds of fishermen (both recreational and commercial), along with other individuals associated with the red snapper fishing industry who may be impacted by a complete closure, all who stated that this proposed closure would be a complete devastation to many of their livelihoods.

In summary, if you do not comment in regards to the impending use of the interim rule for an immediate one year closure of the red snapper fishery, you may simply lose your privilege to harvest this species forever.

Do not forget that it is the intent of the Council to have Amendment 17A in place by the time the interim rule expires in October 2010 (if approved by the Secretary of Commerce), which will continue to prohibit the harvest of red snapper, both commercially and recreationally, most likely for a period of 25 to 35 years. In addition, as part of permanent measures (Amendment 17A) to end the alleged overfishing of red snapper, large areas of the South Atlantic will be closed to ALL BOTTOM fishing, to prevent by-catch mortality of the red snapper.

Some of these proposed alternatives include no bottom fishing 19 miles seaward of 81 degrees W if you are fishing off-shore of the Jacksonville, Florida area. That is just one example of what is being proposed as a permanent alternative under Amendment 17A. Now is the time to comment."

[DarkSkies]

She has a Facebook page. I thought it only fair to present her comments as well.


www.facebook.com (http://www.facebook.com)


http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/object2/1797/39/t138662048491_5615.jpg (http://www.facebook.com/NOAA.Lubchenco)Post #70Jane Lubchenco (http://www.facebook.com/NOAA.Lubchenco) wrote5 hours ago

Thank you to everyone who took the time to post a comment here on Facebook. I realize our determination that red snapper are overfished may seem to conflict with your observations of a dramatic increase in the number and size of red snapper in the last couple of years, so I can understand many of your negative reactions to the new temporary rule. I know that this is of little consolation, but please understand that we did not make this decision in haste – particularly in the face of hard economic times. And contrary to many of your opinions, NOAA has been using the very latest population assessment techniques and science to make decisions about the South Atlantic red snapper fishery.

As many of you already know, red snapper can live for more than 50 years, growing quickly during the first 10 years of life and reaching 20 inches total length by age three. Despite the large number of red snapper recently observed (and as many of you have also noted here) the population assessment, which uses data through 2006, indicates most landed red snapper were less than 10 years old. Data collected by anglers in 2009 further support these findings, and will most likely be used in the 2010 population assessment update. While there has been a dramatic increase in the number and size of young red snapper, the lack of older red snapper suggests the population is still depleted. Therefore, the increased catches anglers are experiencing suggest a great spawning year occurred around 2005 or 2006.

The news that so many young snapper live in South Atlantic waters is good news for the long term sustainability of this vital fishery. However, it is imperative that we address the age discrepancy between young and older fish now, or risk a return to previous, less robust, catch levels of five years ago. Our hope is that the temporary closure will allow the fishery to rebound quickly so we can work with the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council to open the fishery as soon as possible.

One recent example of this sort of success can be found in the Gulf of Mexico, where the red snapper fishery is currently showing great signs of rebuilding after earlier careful management decisions reduced fishing pressure. As a result, discussions with the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council this coming February may result in increased catch levels for Gulf of Mexico red snapper in 2010. Although the red snapper population in the Gulf is still a long way from making a full recovery, reducing fishing pressure has expedited the recovery process and continues to provide long-term benefits to the fish, as well as to those dependent upon it for business and recreation. As the species’ condition continues to improve, fishermen are reporting red snapper in areas where they haven’t been seen in many years, such as off of Tampa Bay, Fla., and southward.

NOAA is committed to rebuilding our fisheries and sustaining the way-of-life and quality-of-life fishing provides. However, this is not easy and not without controversy. And I am well aware that our decisions have consequences for individual fishermen, their families and communities. We must continue to work together if we are to achieve our shared goal of more fish in the sea.

Thank you.

[DarkSkies]

Another article on the effect of the red snapper shutdown:


http://www.nationalfisherman.com/search.asp?ItemID=1956&rcid=409&pcid=406&cid=409%0A%0A%0A%0A%0A

Bottoming out
Snapper and grouper fishermen are staring
into the abyss of a potential 35-year fishery closure
By Hoyt Childers
Skipper Brian Lloyd stood by his 35-foot reef boat, Charlotte Marie, at Safe Harbor Seafood in Mayport, Fla., pondered the scant options remaining if the snapper-grouper fishery closes, and voiced what troubles the sleep of many South Atlantic fishermen.
“I’m trying to support my family,” he said. “They have to allow us to do something.”
Nothing is certain until Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke approves it, but the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s Amendment 17A could close the entire South Atlantic EEZ to red snapper fishing as well as a portion of the EEZ — as much as 26,600 square miles — to fishing for all snapper and grouper species, for up to 35 years.
Amendment 17B will include additional restrictions on nine other species of snapper and grouper that are classified as overfished.
By the council’s analysis, net revenues for commercial fishermen in hardest hit Georgia and northeast Florida could plunge 71 percent.
It would be the end of bottomfishing, said Gerald Pack, owner of Safe Harbor Seafood. Besides the ruinous cost, the heritage link — the capacity of fishermen to pass knowledge and skills to their children — would be broken.
“If they shut it down for 35 years, who’s going to be left to teach them?” he asked.
Depending on how the council process unfolds, the final version of Amendment 17A could be in front of the commerce secretary in March, or perhaps not before May. In any case, fishermen are already under the yoke: On Dec. 3 (the day the White House hosted a “jobs forum”) NMFS implemented an interim 180-day red snapper fishing ban, effective Jan. 4.
In 2008, snapper-grouper provided about $14 million or approximately 24 percent of all South Atlantic finfish landings, based on the NMFS database.
For the sport and charter sectors, the council estimates a region-wide direct annual loss of $19.5 million.
Chuck Adams, a Florida Sea Grant economist and marine economics professor at the University of Florida in Gainesville, reckons effects would be long term and reach well beyond the dock.
“The cumulative losses over an extended long-term recovery period are obviously daunting… especially for coastal communities already reeling from an economic slowdown that has impacted coastal tourism and the demand for locally produced seafood products,” he said via e-mail.
“An 11 percent loss in revenue by a grouper boat may be just enough to push it over the financial edge during these volatile times. How many commercial vessels would be forced to tie up? What would be the impact on local seafood processors and markets as throughput is reduced and local markets lost?…
“Will the costs (both business and social) of imposing such stringent stock recovery strategies be offset by the benefits associated with the recovery of the red snapper stocks? National Standards 7 and 8 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act are there to ensure such questions are asked.”
U.S. Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), reflecting on a persistent recession that has seen markets contract and unemployment hit its highest level since 1983, said a shutdown “couldn’t come at a worse time. It would have a devastating effect.”
Mica, along with U.S. Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.) and 13 other House members, sponsored H.R. 3307 to stop the interim rule.
McIntyre said during a telephone interview that “the 180-day closure of the red snapper fishery is of great concern.” He said he supports protection of marine resources, but the cost to communities in the long-term Amendment 17A closures would be too severe, as well.
“The fishing industry is the backbone of many of our coastal towns in North Carolina,” he said. “It provides good jobs and a steady source of income for hundreds of fishermen in my district, and we have got to do everything we can to stop this attack on their livelihoods.”
The council was scheduled to consider but not finalize Amendment 17A during its Dec. 6-11 meeting in Atlantic Beach, N.C.
As that meeting began, the council had chosen a preferred red snapper rebuilding period — 15 to 35 years — but not a closed area. (Still unclear is when some fishing might be allowed as assessments show stocks beginning to recover.)
The smallest closure would ban snapper and grouper fishing in 8,100 square miles of ocean from the South Carolina-Georgia state line south to Melbourne, Fla., between water depths of 98 and 240 feet, and ban red snapper fishing throughout the EEZ.
The largest would ban snapper and grouper fishing in 26,600 square miles of ocean stretching from McClellanville, S.C., to Melbourne, and ban red snapper fishing in the EEZ.

[Jackbass]

Get Ready Boys You think this will stop with the SASMFC. They are shutting down Grouper and Red Snapper(plus 9 other species as part of 17B).

What is Next?

[hookedonbass]

The Pew Environment Group has partnered with two regionally based commercial fishing organizations, the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association and the Midcoast (Maine) Fishermen’s Association. Together, we are working to ensure that our shared goals are met: to end overfishing and protect the livelihood of fishermen while groundfish stocks are being rebuilt.



You guessed it the commercial fisherman whom she has already partnered with prior to taking the Reigns at the NOAA. The PEW trust has essentially recommended putting commercial fisherman in charge of fisheries management and making the decisions for the rest of the public based upon their interpretation of the stocks. Further more she is also entrusting them through the PEW proposal to shut themselves down when they have caught enough fish. How has that worked out in the past. We can't even count on the commercial fisherman to account for the fish that they do take currently never mind police themselves?


Pew paterned with commercials? Now that is a laugh. IMO the commercials are not accurately reporting what they are catching. This is the blind leading the blind.