Countdown to elimination of keeping all fish in US coastal waters
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/...ons/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.
How you can help, or why should you even bother?
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.
I can't do it without your help
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/...ons/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:
Lubchenko appointed NOAA head in April 2009
Focus on Focus Earth: EPA and NOAA Interviews
By David DeFranza
Washington, DC, USA | Fri Apr 03, 2009 08:00 AM ET
http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tv/...ackson-epa.jpg
Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
READ MORE ABOUT:
Climate Change | Environmental Policy | Focus Earth Issues | Politics
Since taking office, Barack Obama has slowly worked to build a green cabinet. 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 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 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/...nterviews.html
Obama's acceptance speech and hypocracy
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 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/in...showtopic=7604
Fishermen make a large economic contribution to US economy
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/stories...fishstudy.html
Saltwater Recreational Fishermen Boon for Economy, Says NOAA
January 12, 2009
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...udy2_small.jpg
Angela Annino of Connecticut holds up an impressive striped bass, one of New England's most popular sport fish.
High resolution (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.
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/stories...udy1_small.jpg
John Bartlett and his father show off a pair of mahi mahi caught near Oahu, Hawaii.
High resolution (Credit: NOAA)
The Economic Contribution of Marine Angler Expenditures in the United States 2006 is available
online. A hardcopy of this report may be obtained by contacting
Scott Steinback via e-mail or by mail at the address below: