On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 17:21:36 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 21:13:22 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On 3 Jun 2005 13:18:23 -0700, wrote:

While the following press release is primarily addressing commercial
fishing, the phrase "large areas cold be declared off limits to
trawling and other activities" may have some repercussions for sports
fishermen:

Media Advisory

Contact: Kathleen Goldstein, Environmental Defense, 202-841-0295

Pacific Fishery Management Council to Address Critical Fishery
Management Issues

~~ snippage ~~

Is the Pacific Fishery Management Council the agency charged with
regulating, controlling and establishing fisheries quotas or is this
council an invention of the Environmental Defense Fund?

Just for the record, I would buy the Pursuit. I think Grady White,
while a very good boat, is way over priced.

Later,

Tom

Wrong thread Tom. ;-)

Yep...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 17:21:36 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 21:13:22 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On 3 Jun 2005 13:18:23 -0700, wrote:

While the following press release is primarily addressing commercial
fishing, the phrase "large areas cold be declared off limits to
trawling and other activities" may have some repercussions for sports
fishermen:

Media Advisory

Contact: Kathleen Goldstein, Environmental Defense, 202-841-0295

Pacific Fishery Management Council to Address Critical Fishery
Management Issues

~~ snippage ~~

Is the Pacific Fishery Management Council the agency charged with
regulating, controlling and establishing fisheries quotas or is this
council an invention of the Environmental Defense Fund?

Just for the record, I would buy the Pursuit. I think Grady White,
while a very good boat, is way over priced.

Later,

Tom

Wrong thread Tom. ;-)

Yep...


Yep. ;-)

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 22:00:36 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

No the PFMC is a Federal appointed board.

Thanks.

We had an incident up here last year with Ocean Conservancy in which
they set up an official sounding "board" at URI ostensibly to collect
"public comments" on MPAs and it turned out that the board was a
fishing (no pun intended) expedition to find out what the objections
were and custom tailor their extreme agenda with regard to MPAs.

As a representative of a state club, myself and several others caught
on real fast and left the meeting along with a bunch of commercial
types who showed up. We all met outside the building and came to the
same conclusion - re above.

It would appear that this is legit although if the Environmental
Defense Fund is involved, you can be sure it's not going to do the
recreational fishery any good.

Later,

Tom

Group I belong to has a couple of people appointed to the Stakeholders
advisory board. We also, though out attorney, have thrown a large monkey
wrench in the MLPA workings here in Calif. There was no money for the
studies, etc. required by the MLPA's. A couple of enviro extremists stepped
up with money, and they only give money as the project moves along and seems
to be in their favor. We have threatened to sue, as this is the first case
of direct regulation via purchase in the states history.
Bill

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 22:00:36 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

No the PFMC is a Federal appointed board.

Thanks.

We had an incident up here last year with Ocean Conservancy in which
they set up an official sounding "board" at URI ostensibly to collect
"public comments" on MPAs and it turned out that the board was a
fishing (no pun intended) expedition to find out what the objections
were and custom tailor their extreme agenda with regard to MPAs.

As a representative of a state club, myself and several others caught
on real fast and left the meeting along with a bunch of commercial
types who showed up. We all met outside the building and came to the
same conclusion - re above.

It would appear that this is legit although if the Environmental
Defense Fund is involved, you can be sure it's not going to do the
recreational fishery any good.

Later,

Tom

om·i·nous (adj.
1.. Menacing; threatening: ominous black clouds; ominous rumblings of
discontent.
2.. Of or being an omen, especially an evil one.
Your subject made it sound like you were upset.


wrote in message
oups.com...
Why are you assuming that I'm upset?
Why are you personalizing my decision to share the factual information
about a fisheries management meeting with the NG?

Two facts: The meeting will take place when and where scheduled and the
agenda will be
as outlined. There is a potential for this to impact sport fishing.

As I expressed no personal opinion pro or con, it is silly of you to
say I'm "upset". Shadow somebody else for a change, why don't you?

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 02:25:14 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

Group I belong to has a couple of people appointed to the Stakeholders
advisory board. We also, though out attorney, have thrown a large monkey
wrench in the MLPA workings here in Calif. There was no money for the
studies, etc. required by the MLPA's. A couple of enviro extremists stepped
up with money, and they only give money as the project moves along and seems
to be in their favor. We have threatened to sue, as this is the first case
of direct regulation via purchase in the states history.

Good luck with it.

I'm not against MPAs per se - in fact, I'm sort of for them in a
roaming, targeted sense. I wrote up a detailed revolving resource
protection plan - the short of it was that a series of MPAs would be
set up and rotate depending on ground stock levels and the health of
the general populations. It would be a five year least, ten year max
rotation for marked areas in which it would move on to the next
species or area.

It was actually pretty well received, but the whole study/idea never
got off the ground as the commercial interests killed the whole study.

Later,

Tom

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 02:16:31 -0400, "Real McCoy" email wrote:

om·i·nous (adj.
1.. Menacing; threatening: ominous black clouds; ominous rumblings of
discontent.
2.. Of or being an omen, especially an evil one.
Your subject made it sound like you were upset.

It's quite possible the Pacific Fishery Management Council meeting was
ominous for fishing folks in the area but Gould couldn't care less.

Jim H and Co sure try hard to find something about Gould to bitch
about. Do you guys have a bit of penis envy?

bb

bb wrote:


Jim H and Co sure try hard to find something about Gould to bitch
about. Do you guys have a bit of penis envy?

bb


Hee hee...if you were 'boatless' on a crappy polluted shallow lake, and
you were at odds with another poster who boats on probably the 2nd best
ocean cruising grounds on the continent...(after my home waters) ..would
that make you envious? HELL YES!

Basically the whole coast of California is an MPA. We in the North can not
fish in over 120' of depth for Rockcod and in the south it is 240'. 75% of
the Channel Islands are no take at all zones. No good science, just a lot
of we think crap.

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 02:25:14 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

Group I belong to has a couple of people appointed to the Stakeholders
advisory board. We also, though out attorney, have thrown a large monkey
wrench in the MLPA workings here in Calif. There was no money for the
studies, etc. required by the MLPA's. A couple of enviro extremists
stepped
up with money, and they only give money as the project moves along and
seems
to be in their favor. We have threatened to sue, as this is the first
case
of direct regulation via purchase in the states history.

Good luck with it.

I'm not against MPAs per se - in fact, I'm sort of for them in a
roaming, targeted sense. I wrote up a detailed revolving resource
protection plan - the short of it was that a series of MPAs would be
set up and rotate depending on ground stock levels and the health of
the general populations. It would be a five year least, ten year max
rotation for marked areas in which it would move on to the next
species or area.

It was actually pretty well received, but the whole study/idea never
got off the ground as the commercial interests killed the whole study.

Later,

Tom

And the rockfish are overfished for the live fish Asian market. Every
decent Asian Restaurant has a live fish tank. It is a cash business, so the
landings are under reported. And we are restricted to 2 hooks and 1 pole.
The commercials are tarketing the small 2-3# fish and drop traps in the Kelp
forest, and the rest are what are called stick fisherman. When longlines
were banned withing 200 miles if the coast, the fish and game told the
fisherman to cut the long line up into 100' lengths and each length has 3
treble hooks and a piece of rebar for a weight and a capped off piece of
3/4" pvc for the float (or stick) Even Kayak fishman are droping 50 sticks
in a small cove. Wipes out the population below breeding numbers. Like to
Party / head boats sith full loads fishing one small cove. The stick boats
are dropping 150 or so sticks. IS about all they can handle and keep the
fish alive.
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 02:25:14 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

Group I belong to has a couple of people appointed to the Stakeholders
advisory board. We also, though out attorney, have thrown a large monkey
wrench in the MLPA workings here in Calif. There was no money for the
studies, etc. required by the MLPA's. A couple of enviro extremists
stepped
up with money, and they only give money as the project moves along and
seems
to be in their favor. We have threatened to sue, as this is the first
case
of direct regulation via purchase in the states history.

Good luck with it.

I'm not against MPAs per se - in fact, I'm sort of for them in a
roaming, targeted sense. I wrote up a detailed revolving resource
protection plan - the short of it was that a series of MPAs would be
set up and rotate depending on ground stock levels and the health of
the general populations. It would be a five year least, ten year max
rotation for marked areas in which it would move on to the next
species or area.

It was actually pretty well received, but the whole study/idea never
got off the ground as the commercial interests killed the whole study.

Later,

Tom