PEW MPAs

[njdiver]

Protecting the Future of Fish

Depleted fish populations and coastal communities that depend on healthy fisheries need your help. During the past three years, more than 50,000 activists like you have helped us end and prevent overfishing of such iconic fish as red snapper and gag grouper. Now similar species that form large groups to reproduce need protections for prime habitat and spawning grounds to ensure their long-term sustainability.
It’s like getting good prenatal care: We take extra care of new moms to ensure a healthy start for the next generation.

Federal managers in the Southeast need to hear your support for sustainable fisheries. Please urge them to establish new protections for important spawning sites and critical habitats. (http://info.pewtrusts.org/site/R?i=sJIOSdgdJndeu9RL6kUJUQ)

Thanks for your help! Sign up to receive monthly updates on this and other important ocean conservation issues in the Southeast by clicking here (http://info.pewtrusts.org/site/R?i=_YIJZ5h-mPi0hznafgN2kA).

Sincerely,
Holly Binns
Director, Southeast Fish Conservation Campaign
Pew Environment Group


Protecting the Future of Fish

Many iconic snapper and grouper species in the Southeast U.S. are slow-growing, late-maturing, long-lived fish that can take decades to recover once depleted. Some form predictable, localized, seasonal spawning groups that are especially vulnerable to overfishing. With the help of more than 50,000 people like you, our Southeast Fish Conservation Campaign has helped end and prevent overfishing of hundreds of species from Texas to Florida to North Carolina and off the coasts of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Now we need your help to ensure their long-term sustainability by protecting critical habitat and spawning grounds.

Please sign the petition below, urging fishery managers in the U.S. South Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico to establish new protections for spawning grounds and critical habitat for these species.



Amendment 14 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan (http://www.safmc.net/LinkClick.aspx?link=415&tabid=609)

http://www.safmc.net/MPAInformationPage/tabid/469/Default.aspx (http://www.safmc.net/MPAInformationPage/tabid/469/Default.aspx)

[DarkSkies]

Thanks for posting this, NJ Diver.
Folks don't know how insidious and sneaky the PEW and PEW financed groups are.

Conservation is an admirable goal. We try to show folks that here, in the Catch and Release thread...
http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/showthread.php?5854-Catch-and-release-thread
(http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/showthread.php?5854-Catch-and-release-thread)

There are some instances where folks are doing things in the name of conservation.,,,,
They have seminars/symposiums with impressive sounding names....
They rally fishermen for a supposedly benign cause that is supposed to benefit them,,,,

Meanwhile, they have the ultimate goal of reducing overall numbers of participatiion in fishing.....

In some ways, I agree that changes need to be made,,,,, more folks than ever before are fishing.... but to have an elite group of scientists and extreme environmentalists, decide who should, and should not, fish....is so wrong to me, it might as well be Hitler in charge.....I know these feelings are strong, and I just want to convey this info to folks so they become aware...


It's no secret where I stand on PEW and PEW supported groups., because I don't like the subterfuge they go through to gain fishermens' attention.....

[DarkSkies]

So as always, I thank NJ Diver for being on the forefront of what is happning in fisheries and fisheries manageent for our area...which I'm assuming also translates to issues for Divers as well. :fishing:

And those of us who think this is boring.,.....remember that there are a lot of folks who would eventually like to see MPAs in NJ...and we need to thank folks like NJ Diver and others for their vigilance....:thumbsup:

[hookedonbass]

.... but to have an elite group of scientists and extreme environmentalists, decide who should, and should not, fish....is so wrong to me, it might as well be Hitler in charge.....I know these feelings are strong, and I just want to convey this info to folks so they become aware...

....

Umm dark skies, the head of the NOAA is dr kubchenko. She is just like Hitler so that is a good comparison. Thank you njdiver.

[DarkSkies]

Right you are hookedonbass. Thanks for pointing that out...


Clarification:
NJdiver generally posts these threads on several fishing sites to raise awareness of the issue. It seems today he posted this thread in several other places where they assumed he was "For" MPAs and promoting them....

just to be clear....

"The one thing about NJdiver's posts is that he sometimes puts this stuff up without a sentence or 2 explaining where he stands...
If you do a search on NJdiver's posts, you will see he's been involved in some of the same issues that we fishermen are fighting for..."pots off the reefs" etc, which in the end benefits anyone who fishes, or dives, on those reefs"

[DarkSkies]

"Remember this when you are exposed to certain groups that claim they are working "with" fishermen......and ask yourselves if the financing for any of these groups came from PEW, or PEW interests (there are many organizations under PEW, a good deal of them entirely opposed to what we as fishermen want)

If MPA's ever get up and running in NJ, we will not be able to fight to get rid of them....it will be too late then.
the time to fight, and feel offended, :eek:
and use that anger to do everything possible to stop these people, is NOW
:mad:

Don't let it happen in NJ...
NJDiver, us fishermen, land based and boat based, will all suffer if it does..... and this is something that we will never be able to "fix" if it does happen..."

[skinner]

PEW = Pussilinanimous Environmental Weirdos!

[bababooey]

njd thanks for posting,

[CharlieTuna]

I searched the site and found some links to how bad the pew is.

MPAS
http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/showthread.php?1990-Marine-protection-act-could-reel-in-fishing-lines&highlight=pew+trust


http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/showthread.php?5147-MPA-closures-FEDS-TO-60-MILLION-AMERICAN-ANGLERS&highlight=Pew+trust

[CharlieTuna]

More
http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/showthread.php?1527-PEW-Trust-and-other-sneaky-groups&highlight=PEW+trust

[clamchucker]

This is real folks.
Take a look at the following article where the Obama administration proposes setting up each area into its own little group and wants to give us more levels of bureaucracy.



http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=50880

Zoning the ocean
by Audrey Hudson (http://stripersandanglers.com/search.php?author_name=Audrey+Hudson)
04/17/2012

304 (http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/#comments)
Comments (http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/#comments)

President Barack Obama has an ambitious plan for Washington bureaucrats to take command of the oceans—and with it control over much of the nation’s energy, fisheries, even recreation in a move described by lawmakers as the ultimate power grab to zone the seas.

The massive undertaking also includes control over key inland waterways and rivers that reach hundreds of miles upstream, and began with little fanfare when Obama signed an executive order in 2010 to protect the aquatic environment.

“This one to me could be the sleeping power grab that Americans will wake up to one day and wonder what the heck hit them,” said Rep. Bill Flores (R –Texas).

“This is pure administrative fiat,” said Sen. David Vitter (R –La.). “It’s very troubling.”

“This is purely a unilateral administrative action with no real congressional input or oversight,” Vitter said. “I think it clearly threatens to have a big impact on a lot of industry, starting with energy, oil and gas, and fishing.”

But in his zeal to curb sea sprawl, lawmakers say the president’s executive order also gives Washington officialdom unprecedented reach to control land use as well.

“The order says they shall develop a scheme for oversight of oceans and all the sources thereof,” Flores said. “So you could have a snowflake land on Pikes Peak and ultimately it’s going to wind up in the water, so as a result they could regulate on every square inch of U.S. soil.”

Impacts on industry, consumers

The effects of Obama’s far-reaching policy would be felt by numerous industries including wind farms and other renewable energy undertakings, ports, shipping vessels, and other marine commerce, and upstream it would also affect mining, timber, even farming.

It will impact consumers directly through rules addressing recreational uses such as fishing and boating, and restricting the multiple use development of the ocean’s resources would also increase the cost of fuel and food, lawmakers say.

The idea to create a policy to oversee multiple uses of the ocean originated during the Bush administration, but after push back from within the ranks, including Vitter, the idea was dropped.

Critics of this revised plan say it is more narrowly focused, and that the Obama administration is taking their marching orders from environmental groups who want to move away from a multiple-use ocean policy to a no-use policy.

“If you look at the catalyst for the entire initiative, it comes from the playbook of environmental groups that think the ocean ought to be controlled by the federal government,” Flores said.

Added Vitter: “This (Obama) administration is more aggressive and left-leaning, and they are going whole hog. I think it’s clearly a threat, and in terms of negatively impacting jobs, it’s a very, very big threat.”

Blocking new oil, gas production

The ocean policy has already impacted oil and gas development in the Mid and South Atlantic, where more environmental analysis is now required to determine whether new studies must also be conducted to determine its safety, according to Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar.

Jack Belcher, managing director of the Ocean Policy Coalition that represents numerous industries affected by Obama’s initiative including oil companies, says Salazar’s action is one example of how the administration is already blocking new production “on a policy that hasn’t even been developed yet.”

Still in its draft form, the plan released in January contains vague goals that call for more than 150 milestones to be accomplished by next year that will determine how the ecosystem is managed.

“Right now, we can only speculate on the impacts,” Belcher said. “But all of a sudden, there’s a new authority creating a new plan that may not allow oil and gas leasing or development in (some) areas.”

“But what we are worried about, and already seeing, is it’s being used as a tool to say we’re not going to do something, or delay it,” Belcher said. “It creates another layer of bureaucracy and another opportunity for litigation. We see this as an opportunity to tie things up in complete uncertainty.”

Belcher said his members are not opposed to having a process in place to manage all of the industries that depend on the ocean, but that they are already operating under numerous and sometimes onerous regulations that guide energy development, the shipping of goods, wind farm construction, and commercial fishing.

“It isn’t just chaos on the high seas, but this ocean policy takes the assumption that it is,” Belcher said. “We’re fearful that (Obama’s policy) will result in a more draconian system.”

The regulatory uncertainty created by the draft plan for industries and its employees that depend on the ocean has prompted numerous Republican senators to ask for congressional oversight hearings.

“In these tough economic times, it would be unfortunate if Congress chose to ignore responsibility for limiting bureaucratic hurdles to prosperity,” the lawmakers said in a March 20 letter. The letter was signed by Sens. Vitter, Marco Rubio of Florida, Mike Lee of Utah, John Barrasso of Wyoming, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, Mike Crapo of Idaho and John Cornyn of Texas.

The ocean policy has been a sleeper issue with very little media coverage, but now that it is starting to affect industries such as gas and oil production, lawmakers say congressional hearings are needed to take a broader look at its impact and consider public input from all of the stakeholders, not just environmentalists.

“This has largely been completely under the radar,” Vitter said. “And that is exactly the way the administration and their environmental allies want to do it—announce the administrative fiat is complete and that we have this new way of life that nobody knew was coming.”

House Republicans are fighting back by tightening the purse strings they control and hope that by cutting off funding to implement the policy, and putting a stop to officials they believe are siphoning money away from other programs, they can block it from going forward.

Rep. Hal Rogers (R -Ky.), who heads the powerful House Appropriations Committee, has been asked to put a stop to the administration’s “cloaked funding” by Rep. Doc Hastings (R–Wash.), chairman of the House Resources Committee.

“The Obama administration continues to move forward with zoning the oceans through implementation of the president’s National Ocean Policy without requesting funding specifically for this broad initiative and without answering basic questions about how funds are currently being diverted from other missions to fund this initiative,” Hastings said in an April 2 letter to Rogers.

Although critics of the plan say it will create an unprecedented aquatic zoning commission, the administration has repeatedly denied it.

Administration’s defense

Nancy Sutley, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and co-chair of the newly created National Ocean Council in charge of the new policy, said the plan “has been mischaracterized as ‘ocean zoning.’”

“The National Ocean Policy does not create any new regulations,” added Jane Lubchenco, undersecretary of Commerce for oceans and atmosphere. “It is a planning process, it’s not zoning.”

Calls to CEQ, which oversees the policy, were not returned.

However, critics point to an Interior Department memo that says the plan “has emerged as a new paradigm and planning strategy for coordinating all marine and coastal activities and facility constructions within the context of a national zoning plan.”

Additionally, former Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Thad Allen, a member of the Ocean Policy Task Force, told OnEarth Magazine in May, 2010, the plan is “basically taking the notion of urban planning and putting it into the water column, as well as the estuary systems that connect it to everything that impacts ocean ecosystems.”

Rep. Don Young (R–Alaska) explained the new bureaucracy to his constituents during an April 3 Alaska field hearing as “a complicated bureaucratic scheme which includes a 27-member national ocean council; an 18-member governance coordinating committee; 10 national policies; nine regional planning bodies—each involving as many as 27 federal agencies as well as states and tribes; nine national priority objectives; nine strategic action plans; seven national goals for coastal marine spatial planning; and 12 guiding principles for coastal marine spatial planning.”

“Are you confused yet?” Young asked the crowd.

“The administration claims that this whole National Ocean Policy is nothing more than an attempt to coordinate federal agencies and make better permitting decisions,” Young said. “Forgive me if I am a little suspicious when the federal government—through an executive order—decides to create a new bureaucracy that will ‘help’ us plan where activities can or cannot take place in our waters and inland.”

Competing values

Environmental groups that support the president’s efforts include the Pew Charitable Trusts, which says that the fragile health of the oceans is being threatened by the increasing industrialization of the seas.

“If poorly planned or managed, drilling for oil and natural gas in federal waters, developing aquaculture and building wind, wave and tidal energy facilities all have the potential to damage America’s marine environment,” Pew said in a statement supporting the president’s policy.

But some believe bureaucratic interference on such a large scale is the real threat.

“The last thing we need is the federal government running the damn ocean and a bunch of bureaucrats running around trying to determine whether you can fish in one spot or another,” said Dan Kish, senior vice president for policy at the Institute for Energy Research.


Audrey Hudson, an award-winning investigative journalist, is a Congressional Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS. A native of Kentucky, Mrs. Hudson has worked inside the Beltway for nearly two decades -- on Capitol Hill as a Senate and House spokeswoman, and most recently at The Washington Times covering Congress, Homeland Security, and the Supreme Court. Follow Audrey on Twitter (http://twitter.com/#!/audreyhudson) and Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Audrey-Hudson/126243644121649).

[storminsteve]

This is why we need to get rid of osama.

[buckethead]

Thanks for posting that clamchucker. It just shows that we fishermen are on the bottom of the list as far as user groups they are concerned about. If we don't fight I see MPAs possible here in NJ. It's funny that 3 years there were threads here on this very same subject. I just did a search and found 4 of them. No one believed it was possible, and some folks were adamant that it would never happen and that the Obama administration would never do that to us fishermen. Fast forward to today and their words of denial are chilling.

[finchaser]

The piece of sh_t in the white house is totally for this in his plan to take over the US:2flip:

[cowherder]

No one believed it was possible, and some folks were adamant that it would never happen and that the Obama administration would never do that to us fishermen. Fast forward to today and their words of denial are chilling.

No one believed we would have a society where free welfare and unemployment let people not have jobs for 18 months either.

[williehookem]

I heard they were going to make part of gateway parks into a mpa. The area by the cross bay bridge. does anyone know if that is true or not? thanks

[buckethead]

I don't know about the NY side but do remember seeing in a thread here that parts of sandy hook were considered a partial mpa. I believe certain areas are closed to crabbing for that reason.

[njdiver]

http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/

[njdiver]

I heard they were going to make part of gateway parks into a mpa. The area by the cross bay bridge. does anyone know if that is true or not? thanks

http://www.nps.gov/gate/marine-protected-area.htm

[buckethead]

Thank you njdiver.

[surferman]

yes sir thanks much.

[DarkSkies]

Many folks don't have the time to pay attention to what goes on behind the scenes in political meetings. With the recent NJ MPA proposal meetings,
http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/showthread.php?10294-Sandy-Hook-Bay-National-Marine-Sanctuary
I thought this would be a good time to bring this thread started by NJdiver to the top. Many of you may not know the extent of time he puts into - trying to fight for diving access, fishing access, and access for all fishermen.

He has the tiresome job of posting these things on websites throughout the internet, trying to raise awareness. We all owe him thanks for his efforts.

If people were to see some of the underhanded things that are done, and see how some groups promote carefully orchestrated manipulations of the general public to get an agenda pushed, they would be amazed and outraged.

It's only from raising awareness, and getting involved, that we can affect changes for our future.
Thanks, njdiver, and thanks for reading, people. :thumbsup: