|
Ominous day for West Coast Fishing
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 What: The Pacific Fishery Management Council will meet to make crucial decisions on the future of several West Coast fisheries - salmon, groundfish, coastal pelagic species and highly migratory species. Large zones could be declared off-limits to trawling and other activities, and management reform that could result in huge economic and conservation benefits is on the line. When: June 12 - 17, 2005 Whe Crowne Plaza Mid Peninsula, 1221 Chess Drive, Foster City, California 94404, Phone: 800-227-6963 Major Management Decision: Groundfish Management The Council will vote on whether to proceed with the analysis of design options for an Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) program for the Pacific groundfish trawl fishery, culminating a two-year design process. On June 16, the Council will review the recommendations from a stakeholder advisory committee and, after receiving input from its advisory bodies and the public, determine whether to proceed by approving a range of IFQ alternatives for further technical analysis. This analysis is critical for the Council's development of a preferred alternative that best meets its conservation, economic social and management objectives for the fishery. Funding this analysis is essential to move forward and build on the valuable work that has already been accomplished. Environmental Defense calls for the Council to vote to continue the analysis for the groundfish IFQ program, because it will bring economic stability and ecological restoration to the fishery. The design alternatives that are before the Council include many that Environmental Defense has long advocated: 100 percent observer coverage on board fishing vessels and at dockside; Accumulation limits so that no entity can acquire an excessive share of the quota; Bycatch caps for each kind of gear and transferable individual bycatch quotas (to reward clean fishing techniques); A range of initial allocation provisions that recognize the contribution to and dependence upon the fishery by harvesters, processors and coastal communities; and Freely transferable, divisible shares to facilitate investment in the fishery by crew and other new entrants. These components will provide economic and community benefits while facilitating the recovery of the groundfish species and seafloor habitats, resulting in greater economic, social and regulatory stability. For more information and the meeting agenda, please go to http://www.pcouncil.org/events/2005/pfmc0605.html. The following spokespeople are available for comment: Johanna Thomas, Deputy Program Director, Oceans, Environmental Defense Rod Fujita, Marine Ecologist, Environmental Defense ### Environmental Defense, a leading national nonprofit organization, represents more than 400,000 members. Since 1967, Environmental Defense has linked science, economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships to create breakthrough solutions to the most serious environmental problems. www.environmentadefense.org www.oceansalive.org |
Overfishing has been reported as a problem globally for years. Why are you
upset now about a plan that addresses the problem in your back yard? |
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? |
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? I am not shadowing you Chuck. You posted a topic about an "ominous day" and I asked a question of you. When you use the term "ominous" you subtly insert your feelings on the topic. Chill out. |
|
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 |
"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. ;-) |
Hehe, "Stakeholder advisory committee", and who pray tell might they
be?? Care to take a wild guess. If it smells like a fish, Make it a dish! "If it smells like cologne, Leave it alone! UD http://community.webtv.net/capuglyda...inUglyDansJack |
No the PFMC is a Federal appointed board.
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... 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? Later, Tom |
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... 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? Later, Tom I have been out fishing on Lake Erie with a mass of walleye showing on the fish finder and close to some nets set up by commercial fishermen. We caught our limit and returned to the same spot the next day....no fish. We moved. No fish. We moved again...several times....no fish. Go figure. Try to take a boat ride from Huron to Cedar Point or Sandusky Bay without running into commercial nets in the water....they are everywhere. We need to limit the number of pounds of fish commercial fishermen harvest. If I recall Canada has not set up any such restrictions on commercial fishing in the Great Lakes and they are raping our Lake of fish. Without these restrictions we can kiss any sort of recreational fishing goodbye. So I welcome any studies and restrictions on fishing limits, most especially those aimed at commercial fishing operations. |
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... |
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:28 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com