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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[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!

[DarkSkies]

Focus on Focus Earth: EPA and NOAA Interviews






By David DeFranza
Washington, DC, USA | Fri Apr 03, 2009 08:00 AM ET

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

[njdiver]

Here are some starting points:

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

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/bulletins/..._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. 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?

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]

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/art...D=200991210073

[CharlieTuna]

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/art...D=200991210073

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

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.

[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 i dont fish the clean water anyway and we all know most people are 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

[DarkSkies]

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

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


Post #70Jane 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/sea...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.

[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.