tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12701436661447583412024-02-19T20:36:37.529-08:00Recreational Fishing AllianceRantings, views and opinions by Jim Hutchinson, Jr. - Managing Director, Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA)HutchJrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00750880100084209954noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1270143666144758341.post-13365735475971625642014-08-07T05:58:00.001-07:002014-08-07T05:58:52.335-07:00PRIORITIES FOR THE SALTWATER LOCAVORE: ‘RECREATIONAL’ SUSTAINABILITY & ACCESS<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">In
a recent national essay, author Paul Greenberg called for the United States to
become a ‘fishier’ and ‘healthier’ nation.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">
</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">He goes on to cite a staggering fact, that the U.S. controls 2.8 billion
acres of ocean, yet nearly 90 percent of commercial seafood consumed by
Americans comes from abroad and a third of the fish caught by U.S. commercial
fishermen is shipped overseas.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">With
so much national attention placed on commercial seafood – that which is caught
and sold for market – it’s a shame that more emphasis isn’t placed on America’s
recreational fishermen, those who fish for personal, no-sale consumption. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">As
Mr. Greenberg pointed out, there is a ‘locavore’ movement in this country with many
Americans almost exclusively eating foods from their local foodshed and typically
harvested within 100 miles of home.
Locavores believe in sustainable harvest and may grow their own
vegetables, shop primarily in farmers markets, or even harvest their own fish
and game. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">The
American recreational fisherman or <i>saltwater
angler</i> is the historical embodiment of the 21<sup>st</sup> century
locavore. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">The
U.S. Department of Commerce, through its National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), is currently working on a National Saltwater Recreational Fisheries
Policy to help guide the agency’s future policy actions. While the term “recreational fishing” may
mean different things to different people, NMFS has mostly established that
recreational fishing includes non-commercial fishermen who fish from shore or on
private vessels; for-hire vessels like charter and head boats; the recreational
fishing industries themselves including bait and tackle manufacturers and
sellers; and those who fish for subsistence. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">It
is estimated that between 7 and 14 million Americans fish recreationally in
marine waters each year; a more concrete number cannot be established because
of inconsistencies with NMFS’ data collection deemed “fatally flawed” by the
National Academy of Sciences over 8 years ago.
When Congress reauthorized the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act in 2006, the law required NMFS to overhaul its system of
gathering recreational fishing data by a time-certain deadline of January 1, 2009. Five years later, that deadline still has not
been met. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">To
think that less than 2% of imported seafood in this country is inspected and
that as much as 30 percent is caught illegally is mind-boggling, and proves
that more emphasis must be placed on U.S. recreational fishing and the need to
fight for sustainable harvest by American citizens motivated by healthy,
sustainable food options, which in turn drive </span><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;">socioeconomic
benefits to our local communities. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">It
may be true that some anglers fish purely for sport, even releasing 100% of what
they catch. But when considering Mr.
Greenberg’s point that the average American consumes “a scant 15 pounds of
seafood a year,” it can be safely assumed that the average American saltwater
angler must consume two to three times that amount. While some groups and individuals may look
down on the consumptive angler as not sporting enough for their elite social clubs,
it’s time that the average American saltwater angler is given his/her due
respect in the federal fisheries discussion regarding sustainable harvest. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">Our
nation’s federal fisheries law is up for reauthorization in Congress. To truly reorient ourselves toward the sea as
many feel we must, more emphasis must be placed at both the local and federal
level on protecting our recreational fishermen and all those citizens who fall
under its federal definition. Too much
of the national spotlight in recent years has been shined on the ongoing battle
between environmental organizations and commercial fishing interests – the
mainstream media must share part of the blame with members of Congress for
failing to recognize the socioeconomic contributions of recreational fishermen
to both our seaside communities and the overall health of our coasts. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">As
Congress gets set to reauthorize Magnuson Stevens while the Commerce Department
moves forward with creation of a first-ever National Saltwater Recreational
Fisheries Policy, let’s hope that fixing this particular imbalance will indeed become
a national priority on behalf of the millions of locavores who enjoy open,
sustainable access to our natural public resources. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">While
environmental organizations cite an <i>abundance</i>
of fish in the ocean as evidence that Magnuson Stevens is working just fine,
denying American citizens of sustainable access to abundant stocks as means to
that end is proof that our federal fisheries law is actually failing the American
people who fish for sport, recreation and food.
<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">What the typical U.S. locavore angler wants is ‘sustainable fisheries.’ By definition, <i>sustainable fisheries</i>
are fish stocks accessed by fishermen. </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Regrettably, </span><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: x-large;">abundant fish stocks</i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> don’t actually require the presence of
fishermen to be defined.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> </span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
HutchJrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00750880100084209954noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1270143666144758341.post-57063367957525185092014-07-16T05:32:00.000-07:002014-07-16T05:34:43.387-07:00ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: ANOTHER ‘ABUNDANCE’ OF CRAP<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">There’s
a new buzzword circulating throughout the recreational fishing community of
late; a word that’s actively being embraced by many saltwater anglers because
of its simple, seemingly straightforward connotation that gives those who speak
it a sense of ample warmth and coziness. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">That
word is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><strong>abundance.</strong></i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">Recently,
the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) </span></span><a href="http://joinrfa.org/2014/06/61614-noaa-asking-for-angler-input-on-new-policy/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">issued a bulletin</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;"> encouraging saltwater anglers
and industry representatives to participate in an ongoing national saltwater
recreational fisheries policy discussion with NOAA Fisheries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At the same time, members of the environmental
business community have tried to keep anglers away from the active discussion,
calling the NOAA meetings “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">a lot of
wasted time and effort</i>,” while supporting an end to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“liberal size, season and bag limits”</i> as if U.S. recreational
anglers somehow were hoping for even more restrictive seasons on cod, haddock,
summer flounder, black sea bass, and red snapper. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">These
individuals who work for the environmental organizations – whether salaried
directly by Pew Environment Group and Environmental Defense Fund, or simply working
via one of their heavily funded offshoots – are running a ‘name game’ against
individual anglers, urging them to pay no attention to the man behind the
curtain but instead to listen to the words of the great and mighty wizard of
environmental oddity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">“<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The last thing you want to do attend one of those irritating meetings</i>,”
is what one Environmental Defense Fund advisor and regional fishery management
council member advises his followers, explaining that the political process of
open dialog is “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">too much like work</i>.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, this full-time environmental grant
administrator and anti-industry leader is telling his loyal subjects to just
stay home and “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">take five or 10 minutes
tops, to submit a note about how you want the recreational fishing policy,
first and foremost, to emphasize managing for abundance.</i>”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;"><strong>So,
what is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">abundance</i> exactly?</strong><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">Actually,
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Oceans of Abundance</i> was originally an
‘action agenda’ developed by Environmental Defense Fund, Marine Conservation
Biology Institute, and the World Wildlife Fund, with financial support from the
Walton Family Foundation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>According to the
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Oceans of Abundance</i> final report, to
achieve a certain level of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">abundance</i>
in U.S. fisheries, the Environmental Defense Fund coalition group says “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">President Obama should ensure that all
federal fishery management plans are evaluated for catch shares by 2012, and
that at least 50% of federal fishery management plans feature catch share management
by 2016</i>.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">Furthermore,
Environmental Defense Fund states in their <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Oceans
of Abundance</i> final report that “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the
U.S. Congress should ease bottlenecks in order to achieve the President’s goal
by passing legislation to require that catch shares be considered in all
fishery management plans by 2012.</i>”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">In
other words, Environmental Defense Fund and its lobbyists, advisors, funding
recipients, general minions and peculiar bedfellows simply want saltwater
anglers from every walk of life to ask NOAA Fisheries for a policy directive
that would consider placing all fishery management plans in the United States
under a catch share program designed to ‘cap’ fishing participation and ‘trade’
access rights amongst individuals hand-selected to own the resource. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">That
means fish tags, auction houses, and state-run access lotteries as our future
of recreational fishing, all in the name of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">abundance</i>!<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">You
can view the document for yourself at </span></span><a href="http://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/oceans-of-abundance.pdf"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">http://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/oceans-of-abundance.pdf</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;"> - it’s part of the entire
Environmental Defense Fund catch share movement that has led to the funding of
groups like the Gulf of Mexico Reef Shareholders Alliance and the Charter
Fishermen’s Association, as well as the recent lawsuit to enforce a nine-day
red snapper season upon recreational anglers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Thanks to Environmental Defense Fund, catch share champion Dr. Jane Lubchenco
was appointed to NOAA Fisheries during President Obama’s first term, and we are
now facing new sector separation mechanisms to divide the recreational fishing
community into bits and pieces because of the insidious appointments of ideologues
posing as fishermen to regional fisheries councils in the United States.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">In
other words, asking for <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">abundance</i> is
another way of saying ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">please, take away
my right to fish</i>.’ <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">I
know it sounds good when presented by well-spoken, hip conservationists who
claim to be friend to both fish and fisherman.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Ripping a page from the 21<sup>st</sup> century progressive’s handbook,
these angling elite tear into the fishing industry, demonizing those who earn
profit in some way, shape or form from the harvest of fish, while pledging to build
our oceans to levels of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">abundance</i>
never seen in our lifetime on behalf of the ‘99’ percenters who apparently struggle
to catch even a single fish in these dire environmental times. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">Anyone
who has spent significant time on the water during the past 30 or 40 years will
freely admit that the environmental movement of the 1970’s and the enactment of
federal fisheries laws during that decade have led to many success stories in
coastal fisheries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And while mostly
cyclical, the fishing (when we’re allowed by law) today and overall state of
our coastal waters is far better in 2014 than it was during the second part of
the 20<sup>th</sup> century, but that matters little to the environmental
hipsters masquerading as nuts and bolts fishermen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">The
soothsayers of the conservation movement readily admit that “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">we have to comply with federal fisheries law
anyway</i>,” which makes the entire <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">abundance</i>
argument that much more ridiculous.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Fact
is, the federal fisheries law (Magnuson Stevens Act) was originally enacted in
1976 </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">to
ensure <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fishery resources</i> were managed
for the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to
providing food production and recreational opportunities here in the United
States.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>B</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">y law, those two words – FISHERY and RESOURCES –
have very specific meanings when it comes to managing our federal fisheries for
continuing sustainability.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">By
NOAA Fisheries’ legal definition, resources are “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">a natural source of wealth and revenue</i>,” including “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">anything that has value; living and
nonliving components of nature such as fish, oil, water, and air</i>.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At the same time, NOAA says “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">a fishery is an activity leading to
harvesting of fish</i>.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As much as the
progressives would like you to believe that ‘fish’ should have no economic value,
the fact that they DO have intrinsic worth by law is precisely the reason why
they’ve been protected and conserved with such vigor and tenacity during the
past 38 years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">By
the very basic tenets of the Magnuson Stevens Act, our nation’s fishery
resources are managed under something called Optimum Yield, which is defined as
“<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the harvest level for a species that
achieves the greatest overall benefits, including economic, social, and
biological considerations</i>.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Optimum
Yield is the annual ‘yield’ of harvest which in turn provides for the </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">greatest
overall benefit to the nation in terms of the wealth, revenue and continued
sustainability of our nation’s fisheries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Economic, social and biological in turns means fish, fishermen and the
fishing industry (coincidentally, much in line with the stated mission of the </span></span><a href="http://www.joinrfa.org/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">Recreational Fishing Alliance</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: large;">). <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">Under
those very definitions, rebuilding fish stocks while denying fishermen access
is actually a violation of the federal law originally intended to foster robust
coastal fishing opportunities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And
asking NOAA Fisheries to manage our recreational fishing community for <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">abundance</i> in turn is asking for
something which in turn violates federal law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">The
‘fish first’ conservationists are talking a good game and leading some folks to
believe that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">oceans of abundance</i> will
punish greedy business owners while leaving more fish in the ocean to catch,
but it’s really just a ploy to build support for reduced fishing participation
through shortened seasons and bag limits. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><strong><span style="font-size: large;">“<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">It's all psychological</i>,” says Mayor Vaughn in Jaws, “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">You yell ‘barracuda,’ everybody says, ‘Huh?
What?’ You yell ‘shark,’ we've got a panic on our hands on the Fourth of July</i>.”<o:p></o:p></span></strong></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">The
word ‘overfishing’ is like that word shark, or cancer…they’re terms that strike
fear into the hearts of men.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Abundance?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Heck, that’s like
asking to cuddle a puppy, or for another slice of apple pie for crying out loud
– and who’s opposed to cuddly puppies?!?!<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">As
a saltwater angler, before you go sending an email to NOAA Fisheries in request
of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">abundance</i> just because some well-heeled
light tackle and fly guy suggested you do so, consider this scenario.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the summer flounder fishery, the
commercial sector gets 60% of the annual harvest, while the recreational
community gets 40%.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If commercial folks
manage for ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">optimum yield</i>’ they’ll
use 100% of their quota; yet if the recreational community wants to manage for
‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">abundance</i>’ does that mean that we’ll
opt to use only 50% of our allotted quota in order to build fish stocks?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">Is
that what we expect of our regional council members in terms of a vote?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We have an increasing abundance of red
snapper in the Gulf of Mexico, yet saltwater anglers are incensed at the lack
of access while the shoreside businesses are collapsing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Pragmatically speaking, that means the
Magnuson Stevens is failing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">Of
course, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">abundance</i> in the recreational
sector should make the commercial guys pretty happy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By taking a deeper than required harvest cut
this season, it would mean more abundant fish stocks, so that next season our
combined quotas will be larger and the commercial fishermen can harvest more of
the fish (optimum yield), while I guess we would take yet another precautionary
cutback (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">abundance).</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">Here’s
the bottom line – managing for <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">abundance</i>
sounds wonderful.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Theoretically
speaking, in fisheries like tarpon, bonefish, permit, and even Atlantic marlin,
managing for <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">abundance</i> is fairly easy
considering the lack of commercial pressure in these fisheries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, in mixed-used stocks like snapper,
flounder, grouper and sea bass, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">abundance
</i>is simply a buzzword created by Environmental Defense Fund to manipulate
the conservation ethic of saltwater sportsmen; to once again steal that
conservation moniker in the name of grand theft fisheries which will only lead
to reduced angler access and a collapsed recreational fishing industry.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">Be
proud of the economic output that you provide this nation as a hardcore
saltwater angler; remind your member of Congress, as well as the guy down the
street, that when you fish it keeps people working.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Fish within the law, keep only that which you
plan to consume, and respect the resource - but don’t allow elite
conservationists to make you feel guilty about taking home a legal, sustainable
American fish for the dinner table.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">Beyond
everything else, don’t let some zealot put words in your mouth; tell the
federal government what <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">you</i> want as a
saltwater angler, not what someone else tells you to want.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">Don’t
buy into the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">abundance</i> of crap that these
sharks are selling; they smell blood in the water already, and now they’re looking
for the big kill!<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
HutchJrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00750880100084209954noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1270143666144758341.post-85028027959724191232014-06-03T11:14:00.004-07:002014-07-16T05:35:16.654-07:00EVEN ‘KEEPERS’ BEGIN TO STINK EVENTUALLY - BUREAUCRATIC NEGLECT PROMPTS HOUSE REFORM<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: large;">In
a recent </span><a href="http://www.rollcall.com/news/the_magnuson_act_its_a_keeper_commentary-232805-1.html"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">Roll Call</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;"> commentary (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Magnuson Act: It's a Keeper</i>), former NOAA Fisheries staffers
Eric Schwaab and Dr. William Hogarth boast of their accomplishments while
employed by the federal government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As to
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act) introduced
in 1976 and reauthorized again in 1996 and 2006, Mr. Scwaab and Mr. Hogarth
proudly praise their own work in implementing key changes in the federal
fisheries law. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">“As
former directors of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s
Fisheries Service, we were both fortunate to have been present and helped
implement these key bipartisan reforms to the Magnuson Act,” noted Mr. Schwaab
and Mr. Hogarth collectively, adding “these reforms have demonstrably improved
the health of our oceans, sustainability of our fish stocks and the viability
of many local fishing economies.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">Sadly,
since the 2006 reauthorization of the Magnuson Act, coastal communities have
been anything by economically viable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A
recent NOAA Fisheries socioeconomic study showed the number of saltwater
fishing trips has gone down every year since 2008, due in part to debilitating
cutbacks to recreational fishing seasons because of a broken federal fisheries
law; yet in a rather staggering government revelation, while fewer Americans
are legally allowed to access coastal fisheries, their data shows job growth in
the recreational fishing sector skyrocketed 18% from 2008 to 2011.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">This
of course is especially surprising when one considers that our federal
unemployment rate during the same timeframe jumped from 5.1% to 9.1%.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While NOAA Fisheries and U.S. Department of
Commerce statistics show that income and sales growth in the recreational
fishing industry somehow managed to spike 40% between 2010 and 2011 with fewer
actual customers, reports from actual business owners show a stark reality
that’s much more in line with our recessed national economic numbers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">That
is of course why members of Congress have convened numerous hearings in
Washington DC since the last reauthorization of the Magnuson Act in 2006,
hearing first-hand how fish populations are improving while the overall state
of the fishing community is in economic disarray.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Individual anglers and recreational fishing
industry leaders are appealing to Congress for assistance, despite the
double-talk from some double-dipping former bureaucrats.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">The
collapse of the American recreational fishing industry was no surprise. As
Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries in September of 2007, Dr. Hogarth
himself sent a widely circulated memo about the Magnuson Act in which he warned
that “based on the language included in the most recent reauthorization, 2010
will be a train wreck.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He was
right.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">And
under direct questioning by Congress a year earlier, Dr. Hogarth told members
of the House Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans that certain rebuilding
requirements in the law were “arbitrary,” and asked for some “flexibility” in
meeting some of deadlines.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However,
instead of helping steer the fishing industry clear of the “train wreck” and
ensuing economic devastation, Dr. Hogarth left NOAA Fisheries in 2009 to take
over as Director of the Florida Institute of Oceanography.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">In
addition to the restrictive regulatory controls written into the federal law at
the behest of environmental non-government organizations (ENGO’s), a comprehensive
data collection overhaul was mandated by Congress which called upon NOAA
Fisheries to implement a saltwater angler registry while making use of existing
data regularly compiled by the for-hire sector captains who run charter and party
boats.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Specific language in the Magnuson
Act relied upon a key 2006 study from the National Academy of Sciences by calling
upon NOAA Fisheries to implement a robust new recreational data collection
methodology as of January 1, 2009. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">After
Dr. Hogarth left this project in limbo, Mr. Schwaab took over as Assistant
Administrator of NOAA Fisheries in 2010.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In reporting on the delayed data collection rollout, Mr. Schwaab told a
national sportfishing publication in 2011, “while we would certainly have liked
to make this transition to the new approach more quickly, the process of new
survey design, angler registry development and transition to new methods
required more time.” Later in 2011, under questioning by the House Natural Resources
Committee, Mr. Schwaab described his agency’s handling of this particular project
as “suboptimal.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: large;">Of
course, “suboptimal” data collection is in turn what the Department of Commerce
uses today to measure the socioeconomics of the sportfishing industry, hence their
rose-colored view of recreational fishing as a ‘growth industry’ while anglers
are continually forced off the water due to draconian federal restrictions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perhaps the most quotable commentary ever
given by Mr. Schwaab though was in 2011 in a video interview produced by the
NOAA Ocean Media Center and posted at </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1Vm-EiKTqE"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">You Tube</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">
in which the Acting Administrator explains “we will be judged not by our words
but by our actions.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">Like
Dr. Hogarth, Mr. Schwaab skipped out of NOAA Fisheries before completing his
pledged tasks, taking over as Chief Conservation Officer at the National
Aquarium in Baltimore, MD just last year.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The new recreational data collection methodologies have still not been
implemented, with current NOAA Fisheries staffers readily acknowledging that
neither the national private angler registry nor coastwide vessel trip reports are
being actively integrated into the federal data collection efforts. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In 2006, the National Academy of Sciences
referred to this data specifically as “fatally flawed” – regrettably, it is
just as “flawed” today as it was during the tenures of Dr. Hogarth and Mr.
Schwaab.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">In
addition to leaving projects incomplete and in total disarray, Mr. Schwaab and
Dr. Hogarth share another similar distinction with regard to their present
employers; both the Florida Institute of Oceanography and the National Aquarium
in Baltimore are heavily funded by philanthropic endowments, charitable
donations and ENGO grants. While neither of these former bureaucrats has to
answer to coastal anglers or industry leaders ever again, they do have to be
mindful of the wants and wishes of their wealthy benefactors in their new roles
as non-profit mercenaries. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">Sadly,
many of these financial gift-givers are the same ones trying to influence
Congress away from listening to the pleas from the recreational fishing
community regarding federal fisheries reform.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">Dr.
William Hogarth and Mr. Eric Schwaab had plenty of time to be judged by their
actions while in position of authority within the Department of Commerce; respectfully,
they gave up the relevancy of their words related to federal fisheries once
they walked away from their shovels and axes along that unfinished stretch of
railroad track, allowing the “train wreck” to occur while they were out
searching for greener pastures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">These
are the actions that anglers will remember most when it comes to judging
accountability inside our federal government; and the only words our
recreational fishing industry care to hear right now are from members of
Congress, in terms of honest pledges to fix a broken federal law and to hold
NOAA Fisheries to a certain standard of responsibility to the fish, the
fishermen and the recreational fishing industry.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">On
May 29th, 2014, the House Natural Resources Committee voted 24-17 to move H.R.
4742, the aptly titled Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing
Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act” to the floor of the House for a
vote.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In his opening statement on the
need to reform the Magnuson Stevens Act in Congress, committee Chairman Doc
Hastings (R-WA) said “One of the key messages the Committee has heard is that
while the 2006/2007 amendments to the Act were good, those requirements have
been hard to achieve in some regions without significant economic pain and that
some level of flexibility is necessary.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">“The
goal of HR 4742 is to strengthen and improve the Act through common sense
reforms that increase management flexibility based on science, ensure greater
government transparency, promote responsible fishing and prevent overfishing,
improve fish data collection, and provide predictability and certainty for
American jobs and local communities whose economic livelihoods depend on
fishing,” Chairman Hastings added. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: large;">Anyone
who watched the hearing (</span><a href="http://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=381117"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">click here to watch</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;"> the archived version of the
hearing) easily recognized the common theme among both democrats and
republicans; that the abject failure by NOAA Fisheries and the Department of
Commerce to meet certain statistical requirements under the present law was
forcing undue socioeconomic hardship on coastal fishing communities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Further, the wanton destruction of essential
fish habitat by the Department of Interior outside of the Commerce Department’s
jurisdiction had made a mockery of the government accountability process,
forcing Congress to write new laws to get the government off its ass.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">In
other words, without congressional intervention, government lifers like Mr.
Schwaab and Dr. Hogarth would never get around to getting their work done.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="font-size: large;">“It
is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for
his actions” – that concept should apply to current and former bureaucrats as
well, pensioned or otherwise.</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
HutchJrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00750880100084209954noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1270143666144758341.post-24825015317995561952013-07-08T15:15:00.003-07:002013-07-08T15:15:22.865-07:00THE REASON WHY BAIT GETS HARDER & HARDER TO FIND...<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQaHIDYuWW6PNGydGeFeGsdr-0K4xL7_VmaS55yk_GYi2KndJ9byzeccAbM6-5i6UOId8C2OOgRfHOLZyyQR5oOS-VadmztLVSGXnpnCB3H7AN6tRvzst9jIMcP5a4Pzegm3tfAzdxbDs/s1600/900x900px-LL-f6053bff_bunker.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="408" nya="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQaHIDYuWW6PNGydGeFeGsdr-0K4xL7_VmaS55yk_GYi2KndJ9byzeccAbM6-5i6UOId8C2OOgRfHOLZyyQR5oOS-VadmztLVSGXnpnCB3H7AN6tRvzst9jIMcP5a4Pzegm3tfAzdxbDs/s640/900x900px-LL-f6053bff_bunker.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">With 85% of the coastwide quota of Atlantic menhaden now essentially memorialized for the reduction industry <br />
out of Reed$ville, VA (sorry for the earlier typo folks), local bait harvesters along much of the Atlantic states<br />
may be scrambling to meet demand in the coming months. Gotta wonder what the fall 'chunkin' season is <br />
gonna look like if those fractional TACs are met before 2013 is out! </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
HutchJrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00750880100084209954noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1270143666144758341.post-19361289276676762662013-06-21T10:37:00.001-07:002013-06-21T10:38:50.624-07:00SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE: How 'Gas & Oil' Industry Helps Create Coastal Dead Zones<div style="text-align: justify;">
Scientists are expecting a very large "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico and a smaller than average hypoxic level in the Chesapeake Bay this year. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
“<em>Surprise, surprise, surprise</em>,” is how Gomer Pyle would’ve put it. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The report from the <a href="http://www.thefishingwire.com/story/291524">National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)</a> forecasts the 2013 hypoxic "dead" zone in the Gulf of Mexico will be between 7,286 and 8,561 square miles, placing it among the 10 largest ever recorded (an area the size of the entire state of New Jersey). Hypoxic (very low oxygen) and anoxic (no oxygen) zones are caused by excessive nutrient pollution, often from human activities such as agriculture, which results in insufficient oxygen to support most marine life in near-bottom waters. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
“…<em>the growing dead zones in the Chesapeake Bay are the direct result of inadequate water filtration — a job that was once carried out by menhaden</em>,” noted author Paul Greenberg, while Jim Uphoff at the Maryland Department of Natural Resources said of menhaden, “<em>they are filter feeders that consume phytoplankton, thus controlling the growth of algae in coastal waters. As the population of menhaden declines, algal blooms have proliferated, transforming some inshore waters into dead zones</em>.”</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Imagine, a single adult bunker filtering as much as 2 million gallons of water a year, essentially inputting bad water and outputting clean water by ridding 4 to 6 gallons of algae from the water in a single minute. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
SHAZAM!</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It should be of no surprise to anyone that the biggest dead zones in coastal U.S. waters are at the mouth of the Mississippi and in a small region of the Chesapeake, right where factory menhaden reduction operations by the publicly-traded resource degradation outfit known as Omega Protein (stock symbol OME) are based. Omega’s manufacturing facilities, the ports where hundreds of millions of pounds of menhaden are offloaded for processing into livestock feed and fish meal, are located in the Gulf towns of Abbeville and Cameron in Louisiana and Moss Point in Mississippi, as well as at Reedsville, Virginia on the Chesapeake Bay. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Omega Protein traces its origins to <strong>Zapata Oil</strong>, founded in 1953 by future-U.S. President George H. W. Bush and business partners John Overbey, Hugh Liedtke, Bill Liedtke, and Thomas J. Devine. Overbey was a ‘landman’ skilled in scouting oil fields and obtaining drilling rights cheaply, while Bush and Devine were oil-wildcatting associates who performed oil exploration drillings. Their joint activities culminated in the establishment of Zapata Oil through an initial $1 million investment provided by the Liedtke brothers, Bush's father Prescott Bush and his maternal grandfather, along with an inner-circle of wealthy oil tycoons. Hugh Liedtke was named president, with Bush was vice president. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A 1975 internal CIA memo noted how Zapata was founded through Bush's joint efforts with Devine, a CIA staffer who had resigned his agency position that same year to go into private business, but who continued to work for the CIA under commercial cover. Devine would later accompany Bush to Vietnam in late 1967 as a "<em>cleared and witting commercial asset</em>" of the agency. (Read more about Zapata <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapata_Corporation">here at Wikipedia</a>.)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In 1997, Zapata Protein would go public in seeking additional investors, changing its official name to <strong>Omega Protein</strong> in 2002. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
OCEAN ‘WILDCATTING’ & EPA VIOLATIONS</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
During 2013 alone, the OME stock price has ranged from a low of $6.32 a share on January 7, to a recent high of $11.03 on May 21. <a href="http://seekingalpha.com/article/1484341-omega-protein-why-ebitda-is-set-to-be-cut-in-half?source=email_rt_article_readmore">One investor called the near-doubling of the OME stock</a> as coming entirely as a result of fish meal supply reductions in Peru following extreme government restrictions there on the anchovy catch. After finding that "<em>the Peruvian anchovy is in danger of extinction</em>," Peru’s President Ollanta Humala cut anchovy production there by 68%, opening a new international market for Omega’s ground-up fish meal product. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Using spotter planes to find the menhaden, high-powered vacuums to suck out acres upon acres of fish from the water, and large factory ships to ‘reduce’ the oily baitfish to meal, Omega Protein essentially functions to take as much menhaden from areas of the Chesapeake and Gulf of Mexico as is technological possible, leaving these waters devoid of a natural “water filtration” while lining the pockets of their investors. What’s left behind are hungry striped bass, weakfish and crabs whose primary source of protein is ultimately turned to fish meal for Peruvian aquaculture facilities (and others around the world), and vast hypoxic "dead" zones where algae and phytoplankton chokes the oxygen from the water.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In addition to its wanton destruction of a vital ecosystem stock, Omega Protein Corporation has also come under fire for other environmental issues in recent years. On June 4th of this year, OME pleaded guilty to a pair of Clean Water Act violations stemming from bilge water discharge practices at its Reedville, VA facility, requiring the company to pay a $5.5 million fine, be placed on a three year term of probation, and implement an environmental compliance program. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In addition to the $5.5 million fine, the Chesapeake operation was required to make a $2 million payment to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to fund projects in Virginia related to the protection of the environmental health of the Chesapeake Bay. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
OME has always claimed to be a champion of the environment, and when you search for Omega Protein at Google or Bing you’ll find the company boasting of its “sustainability,” claiming to be “<em>committed to protecting the environment and menhaden fishery that provide us with our livelihood</em>.” The livelihood of Omega’s workforce has always been used by their corporate leaders in defending the company’s ability to degrade our local waters of menhaden. In December for example, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) opted to reduce the total allowable catch of menhaden by 20% beginning in 2013, a move that Omega’s Ben Landry called "big blow for the blue-collar workers in the Northern Neck of Virginia, as well as up and down the East Coast."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
According to the <a href="http://articles.dailypress.com/2012-12-15/news/dp-nws-menhaden-vote-folo-20121215_1_menhaden-omega-protein-limit">Daily Press of Hampton Roads, VA</a>, “<em>Omega employs 300 workers in its reduction facility in Reedville, where menhaden are ground and boiled down into fertilizer, food for pets and livestock and dietary supplements. Thousands of other jobs depend on the industry, including fishermen in Omega's eight-vessel fleet</em>.”</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"<em>Well have to run some numbers</em>," Landry told the Daily Press last winter, adding "<em>I can assure you it's probably going to cost the fleet at least one vessel, and that results in (lost) jobs directly there</em>."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, surprise, surprise, on May 20th of this year, one day before OME’s stock surged to its highest point of 2013, the company announced the launch of new two state-of-the-art fishing vessels at the Reedville facility. At 196 feet and 184 feet long, these are the first new vessels christened by Omega in more than 20 years. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
CHEAP FOREIGN LABOR</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In terms of the Omega employees, while they claim to have a staff of 300 in Reedville alone, the company has historically be able to utilize foreign (largely Mexican) H2B Visa workers for temporary employment during the fishing season, although according to its 10-K the company's initial application for 2013 was denied by the U.S. Department of Labor. As of the filing of Omega's 10-Q on May 7 Omega's re-application had not yet been approved, and the company had already "<em>embarked on a program to complement its workforce with non H2B Visa domestic workers</em>." </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While Omega hadn’t disclosed the dollar amount of its utilization of the program in 2012, according to a Freedom of Information Act request Omega Protein received 695 H2B visas for foreign workers in 2006 and 2007 at $12,000 per worker for the season. Landry said of the visa program, "<em>the average laborer, a young man, blue collar worker, can make an extraordinary rate in the oil and gas industry [in the Gulf] and it was something we weren't able to keep up with</em>." </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Of course, it’s funny that Landry would differentiate himself and his corporation from the “<em>oil and gas indu</em>stry” in the Gulf of Mexico, given the fact the company’s history is built upon oil and gas revenues going back to Bush, Liedtke, and Devine. There is very little difference between the owner/investor of a Gulf oil rig and that of a 196-foot factory reduction ship, they both function the same. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The good news is that the large-scale commercial menhaden fishery - the ‘reduction’ industry - has been gradually phased out of all Atlantic States except Virginia. And while the overall 20% reduction in overall allowable harvest of menhaden voted by ASMFC sounds like a good deal for the fish and the ecosystem, it’s really a hollow victory for the resource given that Virginia has represented on average about 34% of Omega’s overall catch over the past five years. Coastwide, the total allowable catch now is 20% less than the average catch from 2009 to 2011, but the decision has also granted Omega 85% of the entire coastwide harvest. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Given that all state waters except Virginia are now closed down for the menhaden reduction industry, it’s expected that the Chesapeake will continue to be hit hard in the future by factory ships. In turn, the expected 8% loss in Omega Protein’s overall sales volume thanks to the Virginia restrictions will now have to offset somewhere if investors are going to continue to flock towards OME stock. That means an increase in overall harvest can be expected in the Gulf of Mexico, where there are no similar cap restrictions on the amount of menhaden which the reduction industry may harvest. Omega and its spinsters will say that increased harvest leads to increased employment. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, where the Louisiana unemployment rate was 3.7% in 2006-2007, topping 6.5% in Mississippi during the same period, Omega’s manufacturing facilities in that region had utilized close to 600 of those low-paid foreign workers through the company’s H2B visa program. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While Jim Nabors’ boyhood home of Sylacauga, Alabama is a good 250 miles from the mouth of Mobile Bay on the Gulf of Mexico, I’m sure that his beloved Gomer Pyle could’ve surmised this hypocrisy quite well in just three, simple words:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<em>“Shame, shame, shame…”</em></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<strong><em>One final point which many find interesting - where groups like the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) were pushing ASMFC and federal officials to go after Omega’s Chesapeake Bay operations, while calling for an outright ban on the reduction industry there, environmental activists working under the Pew Charitable Trusts umbrella pushed for the coastwide bunker cap which was approved back in December. </em></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong><br /><em></em></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong><em>With Pew’s billion-dollar coffers, one might think that a crushing blow to Omega’s heart was within reach in 2012. However, with Pew’s activist support, Omega Protein’s 85% share of the Atlantic Coastal menhaden harvest was memorialized, with local bait harvesters taking the lion’s share of the overall harvest limit on a state-by-state basis. </em></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong><br /><em></em></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong><em>Pew Charitable Trusts of course was founded by J. Howard Pew, Mary Ethel Pew, Joseph N. Pew, Jr., and Mabel Pew Myrin—the adult sons and daughters of Sun Oil Company (SUNOCO) founder <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_N._Pew">Joseph N. Pew</a> and his wife, Mary Anderson Pew. If you’d like to get in touch with SUNOCO INC, feel free to write them at 1308 N US Highway 83 in <u>ZAPATA</u>, TX 78076.</em></strong></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />HutchJrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00750880100084209954noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1270143666144758341.post-21914425227894351122013-06-04T09:03:00.001-07:002013-06-04T09:03:20.945-07:00RED LOBSTER & OLIVE GARDEN GO ANTI-ANGLER – Corporate Owners Officially Ask Gulf Council To Take Red Snapper Away From Recreational Sector<div style="text-align: justify;">
While the Gulf of Mexico red snapper population is getting healthier, the owners of Red Lobster and Olive Garden don't believe anglers should be given the opportunity to fish for them - despite a recent decision by NOAA Fisheries. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A week before reopening the season, federal regulators announced that the recreational season in federal waters for red snapper will be 17 to 34 days instead of 9 to 28 based on updated recreational landings data and new information from Louisiana and Texas according to a release from NOAA Fisheries. The recreational season is set to open on June 1 in federal waters, which begin 9 nautical miles off Florida and Texas and 3 nautical miles from the Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana coasts. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
NOAA Fisheries also raised the total allowed red snapper catch from 8 million to nearly 8.5 million pounds, with 51 percent allotted to the commercial sector and just 49 percent for recreational anglers. However, according to the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA), one national restaurant chain is not happy with that allocation between commercial and recreational red snapper fishermen, and has asked the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council) to consider giving anglers less fish. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Darden Restaurants, the corporate owners of Red Lobster, Olive Garden, LongHorn Steakhouse, Capital Grille, Bahama Breeze and Season 52 restaurant chains, has recommended "for consideration a review of the Gulf of Mexico recreational sector quota," which the corporation feels presently gives anglers too much of the overall red snapper quota at 49 percent. "This sector is allocated a very large portion of the red snapper quota, almost equal to that of the commercial sector; however, they do not have the same reporting requirements that the commercial sector." </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In a recent <a href="http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-fish-limits-stir-controversy-20130507,0,3529922.story">Sun Sentinel article</a> by Washington Bureau correspondent William Gibson, it was reported that Darden Restaurants supports stricter quotas on red snapper harvest in the Gulf of Mexico, evidenced by the 2012 letter to the Gulf Council in which Darden called for continuation of more restrictive red snapper quotas, while asking that "commercial fishers should be allotted more and recreational anglers less."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
RFA was able to track down the official letter to the Gulf Council at a website run by the Gulf of Mexico Reef Shareholders Alliance, a group of individual fishing quota owners in the Gulf whose organization is heavily funded by Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and other organizations who support programs giving full ownership of coastal fish stocks to select groups and individuals. <a href="http://joinrfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Darden_CouncilTestimony.pdf">In their official letter, Darden Restaurants</a> claims personal support for helping establish 'catch share' programs in the Gulf of Mexico, explaining how rigid time limits in place by law to rebuild fish stocks should actually be shortened to force recreational anglers to have fewer days to fish for iconic species like red snapper. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"Some stocks in the Gulf of Mexico, including red snapper, are not on target to be rebuilt in 10 years, as is mandated in the Magnuson-Stevens Act," the letter from Darden Restaurants reads, while also "calling for improved data collection and monitoring from recreational fishers and shorter rebuilding plans within 10 years" which they claim could lead to clearer benefits to the Gulf resource. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
RFA said that greenwashing efforts of organizations like EDF and Pew Environment Group has influenced several major corporations to turn their back on the angling public. In response, RFA is encouraging U.S. saltwater anglers to respond with a less than subtle message - take your business elsewhere! </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"If Olive Garden, Red Lobster and Capital Grille would like to deny anglers the opportunity to fish, then it's time to deny those restaurants the opportunity at our business," said RFA executive director Jim Donofrio. "If Darden Restaurant chain thinks that if anglers are denied the right to fish, that we'll simply dine out more at Red Lobster or Olive Garden, then I hope anglers are willing to send the message that shows them just how wrong that is." </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
RFA recently called on a <a href="http://www.outdoorhub.com/opinions/rfa-to-anglers-boycott-walmart/">nationwide boycott of Wal-Mart</a> because of similar corporate neglect for core customer values. "The Walton family uses their fortune to buy off friends who'll cover for their despicable business practices, whether it's corporate greenwashing with EDF, rebranding efforts through national trade association campaigns, or apparently by way of directed bribes to local officials in other countries," Donofrio said last August. "Don't just stop buying fishing tackle at Wal-Mart, stop supporting this company altogether and let's quit supporting complete buyouts and takeovers of local communities."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Through their contributions of over $36 million towards no-access marine reserves and catch share programs, RFA said the Walton family has turned their back on local fishing communities and even their own customers. "Shopping for fishing equipment at Wal-Mart is contributing directly to the demise of our sport, it's supporting lost fishing opportunities and decreased coastal access for all Americans," said Donofrio. In late May, <a href="http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/05/28/Walmart-pleads-guilty-to-violating-Clean-Water-Act/UPI-15581369777707/">Wal-Mart also pleaded guilty</a> to violating the Clean Water Act to the tune of over $110 million in federal fines. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
RFA said that environmental organizations today function more like corporate public relations firms for major retail business outlets like Wal-Mart, Olive Garden and Red Lobster who are often criticized at the local level. However, EDF recently has created turmoil inside even its own environmental ranks by providing support for oil giants Chevron and Shell who are pushing for hydraulic fracturing of shale rock to extract oil and natural gas. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"The recent national headlines showing how <a href="http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=environmental+defense+fund&qs=n&form=NWBQBN&pq=environmental+defense+fun&sc=8-25&sp=-1&sk=">EDF has ruined the environmental movement</a> by carrying the financial load for major corporations should be red flag in Congress where efforts to protect our small business owners have stalled in recent years by the so-called green movement," Donofrio said. "Darden Restaurants, like Wal-Mart, sees big green only for its shareholders, certainly not for the local constituents." </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
RFA noted how New York Times originally reported last year how EDF "does not accept contributions from Wal-Mart or other corporations it works for," though when confronted on the fact that the $1.3 billion Walton Family Foundation (started in 1987 by Wal-Mart founders' Sam and Helen Walton) has been underwriting EDF's effort to replace the nation's owner-operated fishing businesses with a catch shares model designed to cap the number of active fishermen by trading away ownership of the resource to those with the deepest pockets, the reporter responsible for the story conceded that in a rush to meet deadlines she never considered the relationship between the Walton family and Wal-Mart.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"I didn't think to check the EDF board for Walton family members, or Walton Family Foundation donations," said reporter Stephanie Clifford, adding "None of the third parties I'd spoken to had mentioned that connection, which isn't an excuse - I should have thought of it myself, but didn't." </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
RFA said groups like Pew and EDF have been given a free pass by the mainstream press in recent years, but Donofrio hopes that the current climate with journalists appearing to fall under intense, unethical and perhaps even illegal government scrutiny may be the tipping point that fishermen have longed hoped for in terms of open and responsible reporting. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"Pew recently sponsored their own fish summit in Washington DC designed to influence Congress towards adding more restrictive measures to our federal fisheries law, while EDF appears to be carrying the water for oil giants and Wall Street investors," Donofrio said. "This isn't conspiracy, it's a transparent culture of treachery and deceit within the environmental business community." </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"Saltwater anglers need to send a unified message to businesses like Wal-Mart, Red Lobster and Olive Garden, and turn your back on those who turn their back on us," Donofrio said. </div>
<br />
HutchJrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00750880100084209954noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1270143666144758341.post-53318776520272289052013-05-22T13:07:00.000-07:002013-05-22T13:40:09.775-07:00NO ONE IS EVER GETTING FIRED - So, The Beatings Will Continue Until Federal "Morals" Improve<div style="text-align: justify;">
Lois Lerner, the IRS official at the center of the current ethics storm in Washington over improper scrutiny of American political action organizations is invoking her Fifth Amendment rights today after being called to testify before a House Oversight Committee hearing. Her refusal to testify has led to some members of Congress to call for her removal from IRS duties and firing from her employment within the federal government. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Regrettably, as most members of Congress all well aware (yet probably don’t want you to know), government officials really don’t get fired. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Never gonna happen!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Take for example what happened in March of 2010, when the chairwoman of the House panel that oversees the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) called for the agency's director of law enforcement to step down in the wake of a scandal over heavy-handed fisheries enforcement. As reported in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/03/04/04greenwire-lawmakers-want-noaas-law-enforcement-chief-to-61023.html?pagewanted=all">New York Times</a> at the time, the House Oceans and Wildlife Subcommittee Chairwoman Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam) said that NOAA Law Enforcement Director Dale Jones should be relieved of his duties given the questions as to whether or not he tried to destroy documents to avoid an even more scathing report from the Commerce Department's top investigator.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"<em>As the top cop at NOAA and a longtime investigator himself, Dale Jones must be acutely aware that shredding documents during a federal investigation raises serious questions about his commitment to a full and fair look at all the facts</em>," Bordallo said at a subcommittee hearing. "<em>At a time when transparency and accountability in the way our government operates is of utmost importance, this type of behavior cannot be condoned, and Mr. Jones should step aside until the IG's investigation is completed</em>."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Commerce Department's inspector general had earlier released a report finding serious flaws in NOAA's fisheries enforcement and law enforcement operations, describing an unbalanced system that was heavy on criminal investigation resulting in a "dysfunctional relationship" between NOAA and the fishing industry. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Rep. Bordallo’s comments before the subcommittee had come in response to new allegations from the Commerce Department’s inspector general, Todd Zinser, that Jones had authorized the destruction of more than 100 files at law enforcement headquarters in Silver Spring, MD during the investigation.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<em>"It was not authorized by me, and when I informed NOAA leadership of what we found, they did not say they authorized it either</em>," Zinser said of the shredding. "<em>I was surprised by it. What came to my mind is, I wonder what the office of law enforcement would do if a fishing company they were investigating had done the same thing?"</em></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In response to the inspector general’s report, then NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco ordered an overhaul of her fisheries department’s enforcement system, outlining 10 program changes for NOAA’s general counsel and <a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/green/blog/bal-bmg-noaa-official-joining-national-aquarium-20130522,0,4466260.story">acting fisheries administrator, Eric Schwaab</a>. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Lubchenco also asked the department to immediately freeze all hirings of criminal investigators, institute higher-level reviews for enforcement decisions, improve data, develop an outreach strategy with fishermen and revise procedures and penalties to make sure they are consistent and clear, free from any ethical violations or bias.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Lawmakers were more dramatic in their call to action. Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) said Lubchenco should consider firing everyone in the law enforcement department, allowing them then to reapply for their positions, while the Times noted how other lawmakers advised Lubchenco to take special care not to let the issue slip. An earlier investigation 10 years earlier found similar abuses by NOAA fisheries enforcement personnel. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Senate Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee Chairwoman Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) encouraged Lubchenco to dig deeper to investigate the response, or lack thereof, to the last report. <em>“I think you'll find that the same issues why those recommendations were not implemented will be the same reasons why these won't be, as well</em>," Cantwell said. "<em>We don't want to do another report in a few years and find the same issues. These are cultural barriers in an organization that need to be broken down</em>.” </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well-said Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Begich, and Ms. Bordallo, kudos to you all. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As I’m sure any fisherman or American taxpayer must think at this point in the story, Dale Jones must be living his personal life somewhere, working in the private sector - a castoff from public service banished from public service for shredding documents during an official investigation. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, before you answer that, it does get better as you’ll read in the <a href="http://www.gloucestertimes.com/local/x1525012733/Probe-cites-wrongs-by-NOAA-prosecutors/print">Gloucester Times</a> of Massachusetts. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You see, not only was it the enforcement level, but a separate probe commissioned by the Department of Commerce concluded that the two NOAA attorneys (Charles Juliand and James MacDonald) who had extracted an excessive settlement from a commercial scallop fishing business owner in 2005 did the same thing years earlier to a pair of fish processors using coercive methods “<em>with an intention to intimidate</em>.” As reported in the Gloucester Times, a detailed narrative of how NOAA’s Gloucester-based enforcement and litigation attorneys Charles Juliand and James MacDonald improperly manipulated the system of fisheries enforcement law. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Following detailed reports back to the Commerce Department, there were formal Cabinet-level apologies to 11 businesses put in duress by wrongful actions of NOAA litigators and agents. Together, Swartwood’s two sets of case studies generated more than $2.3 million returned by the government to settle the penalty score with the fishing industry. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Obviously, with all the sequestration debate and budgetary woes in Washington DC, the paper-shredding cop and the money-grubbing attorneys responsible for these despicable government actions are gone, right? Surely the directive of leading members of Congress like Bordallo and Begich was met with swift action, the firings of Jones, Juliland and MacDonald? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Actually, no. Former NOAA Enforcement director Dale Jones was reassigned as a fisheries program specialist in the Office of Science and Technology, allowing him to keep his pay grade above the $150,000 a year mark. Juliland was reassigned to be senior councilor for natural resources where was last working on matters related to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, while MacDonald was made attorney advisor to the deputy general counsel at NOAA.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As for Ms. Lubchenco, she left NOAA earlier this year and was last seen over the weekend getting an honorary doctorate at Rutgers University where she was credited with personally credited with ending overfishing in the United States of America. Mr. Schwaab announced today that he too was leaving NOAA to take a post at the National Aquarium in Baltimore. The Secretaries of Commerce who held posts during the ongoing investigations into wrongdoings at NOAA Fisheries, including Gary Locke and John Bryson are gone, while the current ‘acting’ Commerce Secretary, Rebecca Blank, will be leaving the job at the end of this month to take over as chancellor at University of Wisconsin at Madison. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So who’s in charge over at NOAA Fisheries or the United States Department of Commerce? Good question, with no simple answers. You see, back during the presidential campaign in the fall, President Obama pledged to appoint a new Secretary of Business to oversee newly-consolidated government agencies, including the Small Business Administration. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"<em>We should have one Secretary of Business, instead of nine different departments that are dealing with things like giving loans to SBA or helping companies with exports</em>,” the president told MSNBC during a campaign interview. “<em>There should be a one-stop shop</em>.”</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the week leading up to the election, White House spokesman Jay Carney indicated to reporters that the streamlining proposal would be one of Obama’s first orders of business. <em>“The President will be engaging directly after the election in moving forward</em>,” he said, adding that he was “<em>very committed to that proposal</em>.”</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Six months later, there’s been no movement by the Obama administration on this new Department of Business. Meanwhile, the soon departure of the ‘acting’ Commerce Secretary Blank, following the previous departure of appointed Commerce Secretary Bryson last June, leaves a hole yet to be filled at the cabinet level. The President recently nominated Chicago billionaire Penny Pritzker for appointment to the head of the Commerce Department, though it’s expected to be a bumpy road ahead in the Senate considering the staunch opposition by labor unions unhappy about the Pritzker family’s running of Hyatt Hotels. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As for fishermen, the only ‘offshore’ action Pritzker seems aware of is the $53.6 million in income she received last year through an offshore trust in the Bahamas. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the interim, there will be a new ‘acting’ Commerce Secretary in place just after the Memorial Day Weekend, Cameron Forbes Kerry. In addition to being the younger brother of Secretary of State John Kerry, he’s also the General Counsel of the Department of Commerce and principal legal advisor to the Secretary of Commerce where he oversees the work of over 325 lawyers in 14 offices who provide legal advice to all components of the Department. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Cameron Kerry, coincidentally, is also the Commerce Department’s chief ethics officer – and he hails from Massachusetts.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Final question, who is it that said, “<em>We can't have the sort of hands-off, head-in-the-sand attitude that we've had over the last eight years and think somehow we're going to reverse some of these trends</em>?” If you said then Sen. Barack Obama in 2008 when campaigning for president, you would be correct. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, I would also accept as correct the answer, ‘whoever will be the 2016 republican challenger for president in 2016.”</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Any way you look at it, we lose. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And the person who should've really been fired for all of this burdensome, vindictive and abusive government power? Well, the American people renewed his 4-year contract in November of 2012...and that's a sad, sad fact. </div>
HutchJrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00750880100084209954noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1270143666144758341.post-15949519662660302702013-01-20T07:26:00.002-08:002013-01-28T16:31:06.319-08:00BARNEY FRANK’S WARNING TO CONGRESS - “Be Skeptical of Environmentalists”<div style="text-align: justify;">
One day out of office following his retirement, former Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) has already begun making new political waves. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On January 4th, 2013, <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/barney-frank-i-want-to-be-senator-85763.html?hp=f3" target="_blank">Politico reported</a> that the outgoing congressman had asked Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick to send him back to Washington as interim senator following the confirmation of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) as secretary of state. “I’ve told the governor I would now like, frankly, to do that,” Frank said in an interview broadcast on CNBC, explaining that the new fiscal cliff deal “means that February, March and April are going to be among the most important months in American financial history.”</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For our nation’s saltwater fishermen, the first quarter of 2013 could be one of the most important periods in fisheries management history as well, given the state of four different federal fisheries disasters declarations by the Commerce Department in 2012, a broken federal fisheries law (Magnuson Stevens Act) now up for reauthorization debate, and pending presidential appointments of critical angler interest, notably the Secretary of Commerce and a NOAA Administrator. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
ENVIRO’S LACK “VALUES”</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Fishermen have long blamed a radical new preservationist agenda for the problems experienced at the federal, regional and state level of government, a sentiment strongly echoed by Frank himself. In an interview with <a href="http://www.savingseafood.org/fishing-industry-alerts/as-he-leaves-congress-barney-frank-criticizes-some-environmentalists-urges-lawmakers-to-listen-to-fishermen-and-expresses-concern-for-the-future-of-2.html" target="_blank">Saving Seafood</a>, Rep. Frank criticized the policies of some environmental groups as overly rigid, and he urged lawmakers to listen to fishermen and ultimately called for elimination of the 10-year stock rebuilding requirement in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Frank also described outgoing NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco as "unfit for the job," noting her unwillingness to consider changes to the arbitrary 10-year requirement. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"Her instincts are to be disagreeing with people," Frank said of Lubchenco, a 2009 presidential appointee who will be replaced in 2012. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Frank said the fishing industry has made notable strides in recent years, explaining that there now exists an "east coast fishing alliance" composed of fishermen and industry advocates from the Canadian border to the Florida Keys, an alliance he called critical in coming years as the Magnuson-Stevens Act comes up for reauthorization by 2016. One of the key items of interest for Magnuson reauthorization according to Frank is that lawmakers should change the 10-year requirement, which he called "rigid," arbitrary and not based on independent science. "If you can reach the goal in 13 years instead of 10, and have much less of a negative impact on the working people of the economy, why not do it," he asked.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Frank said he's not willing to compromise on other environmental issues like global warming and clean air, but said the "reproductive rate of fish is a [subject] much less fit for absolutism than many environmentalists think."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"No matter what your connections might be, don't assume that the environmentalists are the right voices and the fishermen are simply greedy," Frank said explaining that environmentalists can be needlessly inflexible on certain issues, and sometimes lack a "hierarchy of values." </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
CUTTING OFF THE LEGS OF SPORTSMEN</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The environmental movement today – particular big money showroom environmental organizations like Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Pew Environment Group (PEW) and their beard group the Marine Fish Conservation Network – have certainly lost their way. Those fishermen (like members of the Recreational Fishing Alliance) who have stood up to question the management of our fisheries have put themselves under environmental non-government organization (ENGO) scrutiny and disdain as social media campaigns to malign the point of view held by any fishermen who question the bureaucratic process have turned hateful – that’s as Rep. Frank describes as lacking in values. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
At the upper corporate level of the environmental business industry, ENGO’s like EDF, Pew and the Marine Fish Conservation Network hire out-of-work congressional staffers, public relations experts and former media executives, all while using scare tactics and propaganda at the grassroots level to recruit idealistic college students to carry out their anti-fishing message. Leaders at these organizations refuse to enter into serious debate or discussion at the public, grassroots level of the fisheries management process, and prefer to sit back in their wood-paneled boardrooms to devise ways of further disparaging the individuals who hope to improve the balance of commerce and conservation. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The environmental movement has most certainly lost its way, and their activist efforts today are more about preservation than they are about conservation. Consider for a moment the post-Sandy efforts in New York and New Jersey to rebuild valuable infrastructure following the devastating storm. The National Park Service, under heavy pressure by ENGO groups, has decided to not renew <a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/staten_island/slips_sliding_away_sDoFeRgDmbfnZzdxqGY04K" target="_blank">a 40-year lease by the owners of Nichol’s Marina</a> in Great Kills Harbor, removing several hundred boat slips (and several hundred boaters/anglers) from the equation. Essentially, the ENGO lobbyists are looking to remove the human footprint from the earth by cutting off the legs of our nation’s sportsmen.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
THE OTHER, OTHER WHITE MEAT</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Congressman Barney Frank has been a passionate supporter of fishermen’s rights, speaking at two national rallies in Washington DC spearheaded by commercial and recreational advocates alike to bring attention to the plight of our coastal fishing businesses. Rigid language written into our nation’s federal fisheries law and passed by unanimous consent of the GOP-held Senate in 2006 has contributed to serious and catastrophic loss within the fishing industry. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Fisheries managers today are finding in next to impossible to navigate their way through the legal requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, forcing fishermen to actually stop fishing when rebuilding targets are met and statutory ‘overfishing’ or ‘overfished’ thresholds are removed. The grand hypocrisy is now being uncovered by Congress and fisheries experts alike – as fish populations grow, the opportunity for fishermen to fish diminishes. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
During the past six years, recreational and commercial fishermen have continued to plead for Congressional attention, while the showroom environmentalists have fought back to diminish our role in government action. While fishermen try to point out the empty-headed logic of the fisheries management process today brought about by rigid and inflexible legislation coupled with the Commerce Department’s failure to address bureaucratic negligence with science and data collection, ENGO groups blast the fishermen for being out of touch with the resource, labeling protest and the protesters as “fringe” elements within our community. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The showroom environmentalists have spent all of their time telling Members of Congress that the fish are fine, that the fishermen are wrong; is it any wonder then that in the recent attempt to fulfill the $150 million federal fisheries disaster relief package that many House members simply viewed the package as pork? Hell, it’s been the ENGO’s who have done nothing but refer to fishermen as pigs, it only stands to reason that Congress would think of anything fishing related as nothing but pork!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
THE FACTS ABOUT THE SANDY PACKAGE</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When the U.S. Senate voted 61-33 in favor of a $60.4 billion disaster relief package on December 28, 2012, there were 12 republicans who joined with 49 democrats in supporting legislation entitled ‘‘An Act making appropriations for the Department of Defense and the other departments and agencies of the Government.’’ While conservative pundits and lackadaisical reporters called this the “Sandy package,” HR1 was actually a complete package to make cash appropriations available for various natural disasters which occurred in the United States during the 2012 calendar year – which just so happen to include important funding for Sandy relief. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In a <a href="http://www.joinrfa.org/Press/SenateLetterDisaster_121112.pdf" target="_blank">bipartisan letter from 14 U.S. Senators</a> to their respective appropriations leaders in the Senate on December 11, 2012, a request for $150 million in funds was formalized by legislators from Alaska, Mississippi, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecticut. In response to four federal fisheries disasters official declared by the Secretary of Commerce, nine democrats and five republicans in the U.S. Senate signed off on this letter in asking that the appropriations committee authorize relief funding these disaster declarations made under Section 308( d) of the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act and Section 315 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
“These designations allow Congress to appropriate federal relief funds to alleviate the harm caused by natural disasters to fisheries and the fishing industry,” the letter noted, explaining how “disaster assistance funds can be used to repair or restore fishing equipment and infrastructure, compensate for losses, restore fisheries habitat, support workforce education, provide low-interest loans, and conduct monitoring and cooperative research focused on improving stock assessments.”</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Regrettably, few reporters bothered to ask any serious questions with regard to the $150 million appropriation request; fewer still were inquisitive or concerned enough to ask about the basis for HR1 or the actual intent of the “Act making appropriations for the Department of Defense and the other departments and agencies of the Government.” Five GOP senators signed on to that letter, yet the mainstream media lackadaisically following the lead of angry conservative pundits simply ignored this fact.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Again, the original disaster relief bill put forth by the U.S. Senate in late December was an attempt to address multiple natural disasters in the United States; while there was no doubt some additional fat in the final figure, sloppy reporting by the national media helped make a federal case out of critical regional issues. Regrettably, the $150 million was removed from the final legislation, no doubt in part to the aggressive work of ENGO’s working over Congress to minimize the input of coastal fishermen. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
After all, why the need for federal fisheries disaster monies when PEW, EDF and Marine Fish Conservation Network have spent the past 12 months telling key congressional staffers that there’s simply nothing wrong with our coastal fisheries? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
FRANK ADVICE FOR 113TH CONGRESS</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Offering advice to new members of Congress, outgoing Congressman Frank asked that they recognize fishing as “an important economic interest, a cultural interest, a social interest and...understand that the fishermen are very responsible, that nobody has more of an interest in regulating fishing than the fishermen," while adding, "be skeptical of our friends, the environmentalists."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Skepticism is a good bit of advice Mr. Frank, and the best place in the world to cut through the debate and rhetoric is in Congress through open discussion with stakeholders and interested parties. My hope is that you will in fact be given that temporary Senate seat, where perhaps then we can move forward with Senate deliberations on the problems affecting our coastal fishermen.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As Barney Frank said, nobody has more of an interest in regulating fishing than fishermen; and no one has more on the line with regard to the sustainability of our fish stocks than the coastal anglers themselves. ENGO lobbyists at EDF, PEW and the Marine Fish Conservation Network have done nothing more than attempt to suppress discussion and debate of stakeholders and constituents. If they truly embraced the democratic process and American exceptionalism, the ENGO’s would agree to debate and allow Congress to hold Committee hearings on the fisheries management issues in America today. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The big question is, are the showroom environmentalists and ENGO lobbyists willing to malign and vilify environmental champions like Barney Frank for daring to question these groups and their leadership “values” and for warning Congress to be “skeptical” of their actions and initiatives? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Or once again will they attempt to hide from debate by defaming and demoralizing other groups and individuals for daring to petition for a governmental redress of grievances? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The bottom line is that fish is not pork, fishermen are not pigs, and many of the ENGO’s simply have no core values. As for the angling organizations and conservation groups who have acquiesced to ENGO pressure and joined forces with many of these coalitions of deceit in opposition to sensible fisheries reform while supporting <a href="http://www.yamahaoutboards.com/yamaha-advantage/news/company-news/yamaha-marine-group-becomes-first-center-coastal-conservation" target="_blank">arbitrary, time-specific deadlines and rigid overfishing definitions</a>, please take not that you have only been made complicit (perhaps unknowingly) in the continued slaughter of our industry through widely supported congressional neglect of coastal fishing interests. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
HutchJrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00750880100084209954noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1270143666144758341.post-29793715659623921212012-12-04T14:07:00.000-08:002012-12-04T14:15:07.936-08:00SPORTSMEN'S ACT OF 2012 STALLS - "PROGESSIVE" PLAN MEETS REPUBLICAN ANTI-TAX BACKLASH<div style="text-align: justify;">
<em>“Ten bucks. That’s what killed the progressive, popular, good-government Sportsmen’s Act of 2012 yesterday. Ten bucks, or the increase of the cost of a federal duck stamp from $15 to $25</em>.”</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And so it is, the lead sentence from Ben Lamb’s Outdoor Life piece on November 28th regarding the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012, and how it was killed in the Senate over a $10 fee increase. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In other words, the democrat-led Sportsmen’s Act of 2012, complete with a 66% tax increase on the price of a federal duck stamp (a tax increased supported and endorsed by the national group Ducks Unlimited), stalled because republicans agreed that a ‘yes’ vote to increase taxes would be in clear violation of section 302(f) the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Slice it and dice any way you want, but the Senate is prohibited by law from considering legislation that would cause a committee's allocation of either budget authority or outlays to be exceeded. Additionally, Senate Budget Committee ranking member Rep. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) pointed out that the Sportsmen's Act would require $14 million in new federal spending, and thus, Sessions says, would violate the spending levels set in the Budget Control Act (BCA). "<em>The BCA limited spending in various accounts as part of an agreement to raise the debt ceiling, the debt limit,</em>" Sessions recently told The Hill. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sen. Sessions acknowledged that a $14 million override is small compared to the sums Congress usually spends, but he said Congress needs to be more principled if it is going to reduce the budget deficit, which is why he stood out as one of the sole republicans earlier in the month to come out in opposition to this piece of legislation, most of which he supports in principle. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"<em>We cannot breach those levels. It is a sick pattern and makes a mockery of law and responsible governing</em>," Sessions told The Hill. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
According to Lamb at Outdoor Life however, Sen. Sessions has a more sinister reasoning behind his opposition of the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012. “<em>The sad fact is that most Republicans are still smarting over the re-election of the bill’s sponsor, Montana Sen. Jon Tester</em>,” he wrote in his opinion, adding “That’s <em>the real reason they killed the bill, behind the guise of procedural posturing</em>.”</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Here’s the real “<em>posturing</em>” being done as perpetrated against the recreational hunting and fishing community as a whole. The Sportsmen’s Act of 2012 failed because there simply too many cooks in the kitchen. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Ducks Unlimited wanted to raise the federal duck stamp fees; the American Sportfishing Association (ASA) and the National Rifle Association (NRA) supported language to keep the Environmental Protection Agency out of the lead regulation game with regard to fishing tackle and bullets; the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) was hoping to see more funding from the Pittman-Robertson Act dedicated to development and operation of public shooting ranges; the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP) supported the creation of a new National Fish Habitat Board to for “establishing national goals and priorities for aquatic habitat conservation;” even environmental groups like Nature Conservancy pushed for elements of this bill, like authorizing use of 1-1/2% of Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations for purchasing access to public lands from private sellers.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
All totaled, there were about eight different pieces of legislation bundled together under one broad-based bill, devised with the help of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation and their Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus. The problem of course with this many individual and diverse special interests included under one big umbrella is that it only takes one little tear in the fabric to get everyone else all wet. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
After following the procession of the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012 through the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate during the course of several months, it’s been pretty interesting to see how so many individuals joined up with a caucus of one distinct voice. We at the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) certainly agree with and support certain pieces of legislation which have been bundled into the final package, however, we cannot sensibly endorse all legislative language under the umbrella, nor are we able to promote bills which are not supported by our stated mission “<em>to safeguard the rights of saltwater anglers, protect marine, boat and tackle industry jobs, and ensure the long-term sustainability of our Nation’s saltwater fisheries</em>.” </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In other words, because elements of the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012 to allow for the importation of polar bear trophies from Canada or putting mandates on increasing duck stamp fees for U.S. waterfowl hunters are not issues supported by our mission, RFA is not able to sensibly endorse or support the entire umbrella. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I know it’s hard for folks like Ben Lamb to understand, but here’s the political reality simplified – no one buys a whole carton of eggs if one of them is cracked. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the end, this appears to be about partisan politics destroying the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012, but not necessarily for the reason Lamb states. Even democrats like Sen. Frank Lautenberg and Sen. Bob Menendez who had opposed this legislation numerous times before had turned out with a favorable ‘yes’ vote on November 26th, a pretty good indication that something was amiss. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
After reading through the Senate proceedings on November 26th, it’s quite clear that this was a vote about a tax increase and the apportionment of more money towards government programs. It was indeed a partisan standoff between democrats and republicans, with a very clear edict under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I’m sure the leaders of each of the organizations with their own dog in this hunt knew about the very tenuous thread by which their umbrella was woven. One slip, and the house of cards would come crashing down. Amendment 2875 was offered clearly as a request for Senators to ignore the Congressional Budget Act, if even just this one time. Some, perhaps Ben Lamb is one of them, would argue <em>“hey, what’s $10?”</em></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For the constituents, it’s not just $10 – it’s another $10! And as far as more taxes go, Congress has drawn a line in the sand – for now. As dysfunctional as we all believe it to be, so long as our elected representatives continue to add another fee here coupled with a new appropriation over there, the bickering will continue. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Individual saltwater anglers and business owners who had been asked to sign on to a pledge or petition to help pass the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012 in the Senate may want to consider the following items in terms of saltwater fishing and the sportfishing industry as included in this bundle of legislative items, and where the RFA position stands on these specific items of marine interest. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Section 121 of the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012 would provide an exemption for fishing tackle to allow the continued use of lead in sinkers, jigs, some types of fishing line, and other materials deployed by saltwater anglers. As a stand-alone piece of legislation (S.838) called the Hunting, Fishing, and Recreational Shooting Protection Act, this language would block ongoing attempts by some environmental groups to federally ban lead in recreational fishing equipment and ammunition by clarifying the Toxic Substances Control Act. RFA supports S.838.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Section 122 of the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012 includes the same language regarding Pacific billfish that has already been signed into law by President Obama on October 5th. The so-called Billfish Conservation Act of 2012, which is in fact law today, would ban foreign imports of Pacific-caught billfish into the continental United States, but still allows those fleets to land and sell billfish in Hawaii and other Pacific Insular Areas like Guam and Samoa. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Furthermore, the new Billfish Conservation Act will allow commercial fishermen from Hawaii and these Pacific Insular Areas to continue to sell blue marlin, black marlin and striped marlin inside the continental United States. RFA did not support amendments made to the Billfish Conservation Act legislation since 2011 which now provides a loophole to allow for the continued sale of Hawaiian-caught billfish in the continental United States. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Additionally, because the U.S. Senate already sent the Billfish Conservation Act (S.3422) to the President for his signature into law (which has already taken place), RFA believes inclusion in the final Sportsmen’s Act of 2012 is mostly irrelevant at this time. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Section 123 of the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012 authorizes a report to be completed within 18 months on the feasibility and benefits of keeping inactive oil platforms in place for fish habitat. RFA endorses this language, while also supporting the Rigs to Reefs Habitat Protection Act (S.1555) which regrettably is not bundled into this final bill; S.1555 which would authorize the use of certain offshore oil and gas platforms in the Gulf of Mexico for artificial reefs (perhaps pending results of the final report which would come from approval of section 123 of the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One additional piece of legislation incorporated into the final Sportsmen’s Act of 2012 is S. 1201, otherwise referred to as the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act. The primary purpose of this language according to the bill’s sponsors is to “<em>conserve fish and aquatic communities in the United States through partnerships that foster fish habitat conservation, to improve the quality of life for the people of the United States</em>.” To meet these lofty goals, S.1201 would create a National Fish Habitat Board to further promote, oversee, and coordinate the implementation of the Act while “<em>establishing national goals and priorities for aquatic habitat conservation</em>.”</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
RFA believes the creation of additional councils, commissions, boards, and summits offer excellent opportunities for bureaucrats and appointed professionals to meet and discuss important ecosystem issues in the United States. However, in the real world where U.S. anglers are being denied opportunities to fish because of an inflexible federal fisheries law bound by inadequate science and a “fatally flawed” recreational data collection program, the creation of a National Fish Habitat Board will be of no relevance to saltwater anglers. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, the U.S. Senate has stalled on a comprehensive package of legislation in the form of the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012. RFA offers the very best of luck to those supporters in getting this legislation passed. But for saltwater anglers hoping for improved access to vital saltwater fisheries, sensible reform of our nation’s federal fisheries law remains the most important action for congress to address in the coming months.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Protection of important fish habitat in the Gulf of Mexico is critical, and ensuring that environmental groups are impeded in their efforts to ban lead fishing tackle are key issues which should be taken up by Congress on behalf of saltwater anglers and business owners. However, RFA is not about to cry crocodile tears because of stalled legislation pushed by a group caucus, peer pressure mentality, especially given that there are many other pressing concerns which Congress should be addressing right now in terms of angler access and the future well-being of our recreational industry. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sure, it’s just another $10 fee heaped on the nation’s sportsmen – and a $14 million override is relatively small when compared to the sums Congress usually spends. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But the term “<em>progressive, popular, good-government</em>” is more than just a misnomer, it's an oxymoron wrapped in political doublespeak - another tax bundled up in a feel-good package which regrettably has very little impact on your access to coastal fisheries. <br />
<br />
<strong><em>Especially when considering the fact that Sandy's impact on the recreational fishing community alone on the East Coast could top $500 million...think about that when priortizing Congressional spending on critical saltwater angling interests in our frontyard!</em></strong></div>
<br />HutchJrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00750880100084209954noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1270143666144758341.post-43923114124570749612012-09-11T06:15:00.000-07:002012-09-12T09:00:41.061-07:00SOMETHING’S FISHY ABOUT THE PEW/EDF ELECTION STRATEGY <div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Rep. Steve Southerland of Florida’s 2nd Congressional District is what we at the <a href="http://www.joinrfa.org/">Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA)</a> call a Fishing Champion. <br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Since his election to Congress in 2010, Rep. Southerland has stood up for all fishermen along the Gulf of Mexico, recreational and commercial alike, while passionately representing coastal interests in the House Natural Resources Committee. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the face of a presidential executive order creating a National Ocean Policy, Rep. Southerland asked the tough questions, eliciting confusing and contradictory answers by the White House staff and NOAA administrator as to whether new laws and regulations would be required. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Rep. Southerland doesn’t pitch softballs to bureaucrats, but instead demands answers to tough questions as to how the appointed government employees plan on delivering on their pledges to the American people; a perfect example being congressionally mandated requirement that NOAA Fisheries overhaul their recreational angler data collection program by the 2009 deadline, an important scientific task which the government has still not met and for which Rep. Southerland has been particularly vocal. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In recent years - and in light of the government’s failure to meet their congressional mandates for improved science and data collection - extremist non-government organizations like Pew Environment Group (PEW) and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) have invested heavily in a cap and trade fisheries program which works by limiting the number of fishermen while trading away ownership of the fish stock itself to a few, well-heeled groups and individuals. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Falsely claiming to represent the best interests of all fishermen – even getting invited to testify before the House Natural Resources Committee in favor of their privatization scheme - the individuals who own shares of fish stocks are hoping to expand on the PEW/EDF fisheries ownership plot, breaking down the barrier between the commercial and recreational sectors in a winner-take-all battle over resource allocation. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
TWO-PARTY ‘CATCH SHARE’ OPPOSITION </h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In a recent debate before the entire House of Representatives, Rep. Southerland (a Republican) joined ranks with liberal Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank (a Democrat) in passing legislation designed to halt funding on the spread of this all-out fish grab. Also known as ‘catch shares’ or individual fishing quotas (IFQs), this devious plan devised by PEW and EDF has had a debilitating impact on the New England fishing communities, forcing small-scale operators, individual owners and private anglers out of action while allowing big corporate operators, often from out of the region, to buy their way into ownership of what once was a public natural resource. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Rep. Southerland should be commended for standing up to this take-over attempt, but the environmental organizations like EDF and PEW - those who wish to limit fish harvest to a few well-connected and hand-selected advocates- have a lot riding on this investment scheme, and they’re not about to let a freshman Congressman like Steve Southerland stand in the way of their corrupted agenda. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
According to IRS tax documents, EDF has invested more than $750,000 in the past 3 years alone in creating pseudo fishing organizations like the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders Alliance, Gulf Fishermen’s Association and South Atlantic Fishermen’s Association. As these EDF-funded organizations continue to lobby legislators and fisheries managers to further restrict coastal fishing opportunities in an effort to further divide the community and expand upon these limited entry business models, investors have been lining up at the trough. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Take Michael Miglini for example, a former tech investor from Austin, TX who was quoted in an <a href="http://amarillo.com/stories/040500/usn_stocks.shtml">Associated Press story on August 5, 2000</a> following one of the most volatile days in Wall Street history as having “lost more money in this week than I made in the previous two years." According to the AP story, Miglini had recently sold his construction company and invested heavily in technology stocks which completely collapsed in the market turn. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Twelve years later, Miglini is the owner of fisheries IFQs through several different business interests, including South Atlantic Fishing, Inc. and Great Sage, Inc. In 2011, he received another $48,000 from the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders Alliance to start a new organization called the Charter Fishermen’s Association (CFA), a group designed to look like a recreational fishing industry outfit made up solely of recreational charter boat captains. Upon closer look at the CFA board of directors however - Gary Jarvis, Mike Jennings, Michael Colby, Billy Archer, Chad Haggert and Steve Tomeny - one will also find three of the six members also hold commercial IFQ permits, while another is president of a commercial marine association. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
BUYING UP THE BYLINES</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The opinion sections of Florida newspapers have been heavy with anti-Southerland rhetoric by many of the EDF-endowed fishermen all claiming to represent the poor, huddled masses. A little bit of research will show however that the individuals do not in any way, shape or form represent the interests of the fishing public, especially not when their goal of privatizing natural resource has been directly funded by New York City and Philadelphia based environmental business organizations like EDF and PEW. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In addition to Jarvis, Jennings, Colby, Tomeny and Miglini, other representatives of the EDF-funded groups getting printed bylines in newspapers up and down the Gulf Coast of Florida of late, as well as in publications as far north as Massachusetts, including Jim Clements. A board member of the EDF-funded Gulf Fishermen’s Association, Clements recently told the <a href="http://shareholdersalliance.org/2011/06/gloucester-times-called-out-by-informed-gulf-fisherman/">Gloucester Times</a> how he is financing one of his two boats for a captain who has no shares of fish and is therefore not able to fish. “He is doing fine by leasing the allocation for each species of fish that he catches,” Clements said, essentially describing how he functions as the broker through this method of coastal sharecropping. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In actuality, Clements doesn’t have to struggle any longer trying to fill a single bucket of fish himself just to secure a living in commercial fishing; not so long as he gets harvest shares which he can then lease back to real fishermen at a significant profit. Clements and others have created a rather unique investment opportunity, all thanks to the gracious support of the environmental business leaders and lobbyists at EDF!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Then there’s recent <a href="http://www2.tbo.com/news/opinion/2012/sep/04/naopino2-race-to-the-bottom-the-politics-of-fishin-ar-482232/">Tampa Tribune</a> editorialist Dean Pruitt of Madeira Beach, another Gulf Fishermen’s Association board member and EDF funded captain who recently slammed Rep. Southerland for having “humiliated Florida recreational fishermen who have traveled to Washington to testify before his committee.” Pruitt bases his argument on a recent political action alert issued by environmental lobbyist Matt Tinning of the Pew-funded Marine Fish Conservation Network who describes CFA’s Michael Colby as having been “treated with remarkable contempt” at the congressional, adding how another charter captain named Terry Gibson also “endured a similarly offensive barrage.” </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
FROM STATE PEN TO PENNED STATEMENTS</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What neither Pruitt nor the Australian attorney turned Democratic strategist turned environmental lobbyist Tinning divulge is Colby’s financial relationship to EDF through CFA, or Gibson’s direct employment by PEW (what Gibson himself has called one of “the most incredible experiences” of his life.) </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pruitt also fails to acknowledge that he spent four years in federal prison after admitting to using "deceit, craft, trickery, and dishonesty" to undermine federal enforcement of <a href="http://www.sptimes.com/2005/12/08/news_pf/State/Felon_helps_draft_gro.shtml">grouper regulations in the early 1990s</a>. CFA member <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1392257.html">Steve Tomeny was also fined $12,000</a> after pleading guilty in the 90’s to making false statements to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to trying to meet a qualifying annual threshold of 5000 pounds of commercial caught red snapper. In the same case, Theodore Tomeny was sentenced to six months' home confinement, three years' probation and fined $20,000. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Another political operative and headline generator is <a href="http://www.tallahassee.com/proart/cd/20120824/opinion05/308240011/tommy-warren-southerland-wrong-fisheries?pagerestricted=1">Tallahassee attorney Tommy Warren</a>, a man Tinning describes as a “lifelong Gulf private angler.” Truth be told, part of Mr. Warren’s life was actually spent behind bars following <a href="http://www.sptimes.com/2002/10/06/Floridian/The_Prisoner.shtml">a 1973 bust aboard a shrimp boat</a> traveling between Cuba and Havana in an attempt to buy 10 tons of marijuana to smuggled back into the U.S. Youthful indiscretion perhaps, but Warren was finally granted an official pardon by President Bill Clinton in the mid 1990’s, and has since been a top fundraiser for both the national and state Democratic parties according to Federal Election Commission data. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As for whether Mr. Warren has entered the political firefight to undermine Rep. Southerland for purely partisan reasons, or perhaps professionally through his Tallahassee law firm (Settlement Services, Inc) is not entirely known. But with millions of dollars of environmental funding in play on political action campaigns through EDF and PEW, not to mention legal settlement opportunities in securing potential ownership rights of coastal fisheries, you can bet that where there’s smoke there’s fire. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Environmental non-government organizations are spending copious amounts of cash to steal the November elections away from coastal fishermen. Instead of doing the heavy lifting and grassroots effort themselves, they’ve contributed <a href="http://walker-foundation.org/net/org/project.aspx?projectid=67655&p=50769">millions of dollars in the Gulf of Mexico</a> over the past several years in an attempt to convert natural public resource into private equity, with a core group of pseudo fishermen and political operatives doing the extensive lobbying on behalf of their corporate benefactors. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Gulf of Mexico has now become ground zero in EDF’s campaign to “help advance catch shares throughout the country.” On behalf of 7-1/2 million individual saltwater anglers at risk of being denied the opportunity to fish recreationally in the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic and all across our nation’s public waters, the RFA gives thanks to Rep. Steve Southerland, a true Fishing Champion and staunch advocate for individual rights. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
EDF, PEW and the political action committee from California known as Oceans Champions have brought their cultural battle to Bay County, FL in hopes of stopping an effective legislator early in his congressional career. The radical environmental warriors who believe they know what’s best for our oceans like yes men, legislators who are unlikely to ask the hard questions and more than willing to take a few handouts in exchange for the peace and quiet that often comes with blanket compromise. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For legislators like Steve Southerland - those who are unwilling to give away their constituency’s essential liberty for a little personal safety – the only path is the straight and narrow. Good thing for Florida’s second congressional district and for the U.S.’s 7-1/2 million saltwater anglers, Congressman Steven Southerland is a true Fishing Champion!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.joinrfa.org/Join_RFA.htm"><strong><em>Join RFA today</em></strong></a><strong><em>, and together let’s fight for your right to fish!</em></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<em>(Journalists interested in seeing the IRS 990 forms used to compile the financial information included above may contact Jim Hutchinson at the <a href="http://www.joinrfa.org/">Recreational Fishing Alliance</a>.) </em></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
HutchJrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00750880100084209954noreply@blogger.com170tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1270143666144758341.post-47651354553533481472012-08-29T10:13:00.001-07:002013-01-30T05:42:26.278-08:00HOW PRIVATE INVESTORS ARE LOOKING TO CORNER THE FISHERIES MARKETS<div style="text-align: justify;">
<em>“On the most volatile day ever on Wall Street, plunging technology shares sent the stock market into a stomach-churning rout…”</em></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This was the lead sentence in an April 5, 2000 story in the Associated Press about a massive selloff of stocks just 12 years ago at a time when both Nasdaq and Dow had each recorded their widest point swings in history on record volume. The primary culprit of this mass movement of stock was the technology sector, what many financial analysts had called “<em>insanely overvalued</em>” while explaining the big drop in price “<em>long overdue</em>.” </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One tech stock investor who got pounded especially hard was Michael Miglini of Austin, TX. <em>"I lost more money in this week than I made in the previous two years</em>," Miglini said at the time, telling the Associate Press that he had recently sold his construction company and invested heavily in the stock market on technology stocks.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"<em>It was the absolute worst timing possible</em>," Miglini said, adding "<em>It's a painful lesson</em>."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
After losing his shirt in the stock market, Miglini started up a new business out of Corpus Christi, TX in May of 2001 called Great Sage, Inc., running a fulltime business in the Gulf of Mexico operating fishing and dive boats and hiring staffers and interns to help with grant writing and social media campaigns. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Just 10 years after learning a “painful lesson” as a technology investor in the stock market, Miglini has now gotten himself in on the ground floor of a new investment opportunity revolved around personal ownership of once public resources. Miglini now runs several business enterprises listed under NOAA Fisheries has having an ‘IFQ User ID’ which is what is required for a business owner to apply for individual fishing quota (IFQ) and transferable shares of fish stock. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In addition to possessing an IFQ User ID for himself, Miglini is the owner of at least two other enterprises out of Corpus Christi, TX listed in NOAA shareholders listing forms, including South Atlantic Fishing, Inc. and Great Sage, Inc. Miglini’s Great Sage itself is also connected to other Gulf of Mexico limited liability corporations (LLC) including Going Pelagic, Out to Sea, and South Atlantic Grouper, Inc. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While technology stocks are old news at this point, ripe for the picking are stocks of fish which are now being eyed by business savvy investors looking to corner the market on a once publicly held resource. Miglini now owns commercial IFQs for deepwater grouper, red grouper, gag grouper, shallow water grouper, tilefish and red snapper, ensuring that he can get paid for harvest even if he doesn’t actually perform the work. Once an IFQ allocation is established, a commercial owner like Miglini can catch that share of fish to sell direct to market, or he can sell the shares outright when the timing is right, while leasing out that harvest to real fishermen until such a time is right to cash in and sell out. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Same thing that Miglini did in the late 1990’s when he sold his Texas construction company and invested all the profits in technology stocks, stocks which eventually collapsed. This time however, Miglini has received some start-up cash from groups willing to help him invest, like Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). In the past 3 years, EDF and their political action arm have invested more than $750,000 on Miglini and his associates, helping him to form several non-profit organizations in the Gulf of Mexico designed to give cover to efforts to wrestle fish stocks away from the public domain, including the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders Alliance, Gulf Fishermen’s Association and South Atlantic Fishermen’s Association. As these organizations have continued to lobby legislators and fisheries managers to further restrict coastal fishing opportunities to further divide the community and expand on limited entry schemes to protect individual shareholders’ bottom line, Miglini has been active in creating yet another investment diversion. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In 2011, Miglini took $48,000 from the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders Alliance account to start a new organization called the Charter Fishermen’s Association, a group designed to look like a recreational fishing industry outfit made up solely of charter boat captains. However, upon closer look of its board of directors (Gary Jarvis, Mike Jennings, Michael Colby, Billy Archer, Chad Haggert and Steve Tomeny), one will find three of the six members hold commercial IFQ permits, another is president of a commercial marine association on the Gulf. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The fact that the original funding to create this faux charter association came from a group of commercial IFQ shareholders should send enough cautionary flags to scare off skeptical anglers. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
With the commercial sector already being force-fed a cap and trade fisheries policy whereby entry into the fishery is limited and ownership of the resource is awarded to a select group of established fishermen, the recreational sector has survived via open access for everyone under the harvest management mechanism of season, size and bag limits. With continuing pressure by the EDF-funded members of Miglini’s new Charter Fishermen’s Association, many charter boat captains are being led to believe that by separating the recreational sector into two parts, the private angler and the business owner, a new set of rules and regulations can be adopted to improve access. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What Miglini and friends are not explaining is how this system will operate in the same exact way as it does with commercial fishermen; a mechanism will have to be put in place to cap the number of overall fishermen, offering access to individual fish stocks through public auction or government allocation whereby shares can be openly bought, sold and traded on the open market. The sector separation and catch share scheme which would effectively trade off ownership of our coastal public resources to a few well-connected investors would effectively shut the public out of the fishery; without shares, or ‘tags’ or personalized allocation of specific quota, the average, everyday angler will not be allowed to access a given fish stock like red snapper or gag grouper. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Just like he was in the late 90’s with his technology stocks, Michael Miglini on the ground floor of the sharecropping gold rush in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, gobbling up as many individual shares of commercial quota as he can conceivably get through the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders Alliance and South Atlantic Fishermen’s Association. Simultaneously, Miglini and his fellow investors at the Charter Fishermen’s Association are hoping to divide the recreational sector into smaller pieces, divesting of private anglers to more readily invest on the commercial component of the recreational community. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Once the community is divided and recreational IFQs are finally allotted and made transferable between the sectors, Miglini is hoping to recoup that money he originally lost as a tech trader during that dismal week back in April of 2000. Then, when Miglini has cashed in his shares and the entire Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic reef fish complex is under a privatized cap and trade fisheries policy, those who had refused to fight in opposition to this corporate takeover of public resource will no doubt say the same thing as Miglini did 12 years ago. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"<em>It's a painful lesson</em>."</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />HutchJrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00750880100084209954noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1270143666144758341.post-52254853953147238712012-07-27T12:06:00.000-07:002012-07-27T12:06:00.716-07:00WHAT ORGANIZATION SHOULD I JOIN? CHOOSING BETWEEN MISSIONS & METHODS<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On July 16, 2012, Dr. Stephen R. Covey, author of <em>The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People</em>, died from complications stemming from a bicycle accident. Seven Habits sold more than 20 million copies in roughly 40 different languages, but Covey’s work was far more than just literary, as his personal clients included three-quarters of Fortune 500 companies and scores of schools and government entities. Covey trained three dozen heads of state, including the presidents of Colombia and South Korea and their cabinets, and both Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich were among his ardent fans. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As the Economist put it in 1986, "<em>Coveyism is total quality management for the character, re-engineering for the soul — a tempting product in an age when the organizational versions of these disciplines have often pushed employee morale to rock bottom</em>." </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the second of his seven habits, Covey spelled out how a mission statement – personal or corporate – functions as your constitution, the solid expression of personal or corporate vision and values. The mission becomes the very basis by which you measure everything else in your life in terms of making the daily decisions “in the midst of the circumstances and emotions that affect our lives.”</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For a private company which functions to make money, the mission is clearly to earn profit. A publicly held corporation on the New York Stock Exchange for example is actually bound by law to pursue maximum profit on behalf of their shareholders (which is essentially why the <strong>Recreational Fishing Alliance</strong> takes an antagonistic view of Omega Protein Corporation, a publicly held company whose sole mission is to vacuum as much menhaden from the ecosystem as humanly possible in order to turn a profit for its corporate shareholders). In a true capitalist sense, a typical corporate mission statement is written to guide a company towards the ultimate goal of earning income and maximizing profit. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For a non-profit organization on the other hand, Covey’s mission statement is even more important. For an organization which is recognized as non-profit in the eyes of the government, profit is not the goal; instead, it is up the mission statement to provide a clear statement of the purpose of an organization so as to guide the actions of the organization, spell out its overall goal, provide a path, and lead overall decision-making. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When a non-profit organization's purpose is to serve some part of the community as a whole, it is essential that the mission statement clearly defines the services to be performed and the compassion driving the people who provide those services. Developing the mission statement therefore becomes a critical first step in defining what a non-profit organization plans to do; it also defines how that organization is different from any other in the same field. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In other words, the non-profit mission statement is an iron-bound constitution from which no one involved in the organization may ever deviate. No egos, no personal or individual goals, but instead a strict constitution for which all strategies are formulated and carried out on behalf of the entire organization and its membership. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
HOW DOES A MISSION STATEMENT IMPACT YOU?</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Before signing up to support a non-profit organization as individual member or sustaining supporter, it’s important to first consider the mission statement. Does the mission truly represent your own personal goals? Is the reason why you are looking to join or support an organization substantiated by that organization’s own constitution? Does the organizational mission statement protect you and your rights?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the world of recreational fisheries today, there has been plenty of talk about an angler’s personal right to fish, yet there’s only ever been one organization charted specifically with that mission in mind and that’s the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA). Founded in 1996 as a non-profit political action organization and modeled after the <strong>National Rifle Association</strong> (NRA), RFA’s personal mission is to “<em>safeguard the rights of saltwater anglers, protect marine, boat and tackle industry jobs, and ensure the long-term sustainability of our Nation’s saltwater fisheries</em>.” </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When you break down the key words in the RFA’s mission, you’ll see “safeguard,” “rights,” “saltwater anglers”, “protect” and “saltwater fisheries, in addition to “marine, boat and tackle industry jobs.” </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
These are constitutional staples, missing from the mission statements of other organizations in the same field which claim to do the same thing. However, you need to consider for a moment the following “mission statements” offered up by other groups in the sportfishing field. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(Keep in mind that this is in no way meant to criticize those groups listed below, but instead to point out a very clear contrast between RFA and any other organization in America whose members have sometimes been led to believe that their right to fish is being protected through active membership.) </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Take for example the <strong>Coastal Conservation Association</strong> or CCA whose stated mission is “<em>to advise and educate the public on conservation of marine resources. The objective of CCA is to conserve, promote, and enhance the present and future availability of those coastal resources for the benefit and enjoyment of the general public</em>.”</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While CCA has often been referenced as an angler’s organization, the actual non-profit mission does not show any indication of being such. While saltwater anglers in Florida have flocked to CCA over the years because of their efforts to destroy the commercial fishing industry, there is nothing in the CCA mission to indicate that the “rights” of “saltwater anglers” will be either “safeguarded” or “protected” should the organization ever be successful in their stated mission to “advise and educate the public on conservation of marine resources.”</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Another organization often described as the voice of anglers is the <strong>International Game Fish Association</strong> or IGFA. According to their longstanding mission statement, “<em>the International Game Fish Association is a not-for-profit organization committed to the conservation of game fish and the promotion of responsible, ethical angling practices through science, education, rule making and record keeping</em>.”</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Again, while IGFA may have been founded on the premise of “record keeping,” the “conservation of game fish,” and promoting “responsible, ethical angling practices,” there is nothing in the IGFA mission that shows it is concerned with America’s right to fish. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Similarly, the <strong>Billfish Foundation</strong> (TBF) is another non-profit organization with a very clear mission which is “<em>dedicated to the conservation and enhancement of billfish populations worldwide through research, education and advocacy</em>.” TBF has taken a truly admirable path to protect the world’s billfish stocks, dedicated to protecting marlin, sailfish and swordfish specifically, and their work is to be respected. But arguably, if you’re concerned about the closure of red snapper, how is TBF structured to help you?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Of course, if as an angler you’re most interested in snook or tarpon, you might prefer to be a member of the <strong>Snook Foundation</strong> or <strong>Save the Tarpon</strong>. In the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, anglers rallied behind the summer flounder in recent years by supporting the <strong>Save the Summer Flounder Fishery Fund,</strong> while a handful of striper aficionados pressing for gamefish protection of linesides have focused efforts in that fight through <strong>Stripers Forever. </strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
All these individual species are terrific and the missions of the organizations themselves are truly admirable; in meshing with that common theme of sustainability, RFA specifically dedicated itself through development of its mission in 1996 to “<em>ensure the long-term sustainability of our Nation’s saltwater fisheries</em>”- in meeting our own mission to safeguard the rights of saltwater anglers and protect recreational industry jobs, RFA must tread carefully in making our decisions best on the overall “<em>long-term sustainability of our Nation’s saltwater fisheries</em>.” </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
By adhering to a more angler-specific perspective, RFA does not put itself in a situation of compromise…in order to get gamefish protection for striped bass for example, we would not have to compromise on someone else’s efforts to protect billfish stocks. Or if legislators had a choice of legislation to protect snook or tarpon, which effort would succeed and which would fail? This is one of the perfect examples of why combination hunting and fishing organizations or broad caucuses of ‘like-minded’ sportsmen are rarely effective. Imagine an opportunity to allow sport hunters the opportunity to take game on Sunday hinging upon whether or not an added tax will be inflicted on saltwater anglers or a freshwater hatchery is allowed to continue. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Politics, regrettably, is wrought with compromise. While a coalition of ‘like-minded’ groups or individuals has a pleasant, unifying sound to it, there will always be someone in the union who is forced to compromise, typically the one whose own personal mission is the most challenging to attain. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
POLITICAL POWER OVER IMPOTENCE</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Many folks assume that all non-profit organizations are essentially alike in their ability to operate legally under U.S. tax law. However, there are key differences between a federally recognized 501(c)(3) ‘non-profit’ and a 501(c)(4) ‘non-profit’ organization, specifically as it relates to an organization’s ability to work the political system on behalf of its mission. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) defines both the 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) as being non-profit organizations exempt from paying federal income tax, however, a 501(c)(3) organization is legally defined more as a public charity while a 501(c)(4) organization is more politically active. Specifically, a 501(c)(3) is limited by law in the amount of time/money they can put into lobbying for particular cause, whereas the 501(c)(4) can do an unlimited amount of lobbying. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A significant tradeoff here is that the 501(c)(4) is therefore ineligible to receive federal monies like grants.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Under federal law, a 501(c)(3) cannot in any way support or oppose anyone running for public office. A 501(c)(4) on the other hand can engage in political campaign activity, so long as this is consistent with the organization’s mission and is not the organization’s primary activity. Because of these political and campaigning activities, any donation made to a 501(c)(4) which is not a public entity like a local fire department is not deductible. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While corporations, environmental non-government organizations and philanthropic trusts groups can freely give to a 501(c)(3) and enjoy the benefits of an IRS tax deduction, those donating money directly to a 501(c)(4) must believe wholeheartedly in the group’s mission statement, given that no IRS ‘charitable’ donation will be recognized. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In terms of achieving political gains in support of an organization’s mission, the 501(c)(4) has power to lobby, whereas the 501(c)(3) has been all but rendered politically impotent under federal tax law. Recognizing this fact in the mid 90’s, the institutional founders of the RFA chose to register their organization with the government as a 501(c)(4) in order to meet its stated mission to “<em>safeguard the rights of saltwater anglers, protect marine, boat and tackle industry jobs, and ensure the long-term sustainability of our Nation’s saltwater fisheries</em>.” </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Where other groups like IGFA, TBF and CCA were already established as 501(c)(3) organizations with their exclusive mission, RFA was founded specifically to be the political watchdog for individual anglers and recreational business owners, as well as the resource itself. Like ‘em or hate ‘em, RFA modeled itself on the National Rifle Association (NRA) to specifically function as a lobbying force for anglers. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Over the years, RFA has taken heat from some of the other 501(c)(3) organizations because of our unwillingness to go along for the good of any broad-based coalition. Regrettably, what many of these groups simply can’t understand is that as a 501(c)(4) with a very specific, three-pronged mission (fish, fishermen and fishing industry), simply going along to get along would be flagrant violation of our mission and of grave disservice to our members. Coalition members are typically asked to compromise mission for the good of the group, something which RFA is incapable and unwilling to do. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Having proven extremely effective in its first few years, RFA’s ongoing effort to protect our membership’s right to fish has earned many friends, a few enemies, and a couple of copycats (imitation of course being the highest form of flattery.) In March of 2004 for example, a new organization sprang up in Saint Petersburg, FL called the <strong>Fishing Rights Alliance</strong> (FRA) which is registered in the state of Florida as a “domestic non-profit corporation.” Flattering to say the least, there has been plenty of confusion ever since with regard to the ‘alphabet soup’ effect. In fact, many times people will call the RFA office to complain about their FRA membership status, where still others have been led to believe that both organizations are the same. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
After years of sportfishing industry backlash for failing to fight as actively as the RFA, the <strong>American Sportfishing Association</strong> (ASA) in 2008 helped form a brand new 501(c)(4) organization by bringing in various 501(c)(3) groups including CCA, TBF and IGFA. In the very first press release announcing the formation of the new <strong>Center for Coastal Conservation</strong> (CCC), it was explained how this non-partisan national organization would be dedicated to enacting sensible marine conservation laws through education and political action. While many industry professionals believed they were getting a new industry-supported political advocate operating exclusively on behalf of America’s right to fish, the organization’s mission statement would tell a completely different story - “<em>Our mission is to promote good stewardship of America’s marine resources</em>.” </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
TURNING POLITICS INTO A BRAND</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The ineffectiveness of the CCC to promote policy or legislation in support of America’s right to fish should’ve been forecast by all who had read the organizational mission statement when it was created back in 2008. “Good stewardship of America’s marine resources,” is a completely imperceptible concept, it cannot be measured nor can it be quantified. As far as mission statements go, it is an aimless and anemic statement which does nothing to show support for the recreational fishing community, but instead leaves political process and strategy open to personal interpretation by the institutional sustainers who sit on its board of directors. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In other words, it’s simply another senseless coalition of compromise. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The rather directionless efforts of their own 501(c)(4) led to the ASA’s rebranding efforts in 2009 when a U.S. federal trademark registration was officially approved by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for <strong>Keep America Fishing™.</strong> According to USPTO, “<em>the Keep America Fishing trademark is filed in the category of Advertising, Business & Retail Services, Education and Entertainment Services. The description provided to the USPTO for Keep America Fishing is Public advocacy to promote angler access, fish conservation and fishery management, provided in person and via an on-line website</em>.” </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As anglers and business owners began logging in and signing up for Keep America Fishing™ (or KAF as they’re now known) news alerts, bulletins and political action letters, what many failed to understand was that there was no real backend to the effort, no resource or staff. KAF it would appear is just a simple ‘trademark’ issued by the USPTO, where Keep America Fishing™ itself has been described inside the Beltway as little more than a “rebranding effort” by the industry trade association, ASA. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One thing’s for sure, having apparently had 750,000 individuals go through the site and provide personal contact information (email address), the national sportfishing industry now has one amazing marketing database from which to solicit new customers and a super platform for advertisers themselves! </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Consider for a moment Wal-Mart, which RFA has heavily criticized in recent years for providing corporate funding to environmental organizations to promote catch shares and marine reserves; in response to a national angler boycott of Wal-Mart nationwide, the retail chain used the Keep America Fishing™ by partnering with ASA to provide a retail incentive on Plano tackle boxes. By emailing their database of contacts with the offer, ASA ultimately gave Wal-Mart cover within the angling community, and in turn KAF was the recipient of additional funding through the sale of every Plano tackle box sold inside Wal-Mart during the course of the campaign. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
RFA was never founded to be nice; it wasn’t incorporated to get along, to along, or to sit quietly in the back of the room while others compromised away individual rights on behalf of ego and personal agenda. RFA is the only political organization in America today which was chartered specifically to defend the rights of our nation’s saltwater anglers and business owners, while protecting the future of our saltwater fisheries. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As “grotesque and incomprehensible” as the political process may seem, it is a fact of American life which requires careful and considerate navigation. These are often treacherous waters, and one fatal act of indecision or indiscretion can surely put an entire crew at imminent risk. Before you set a course, you need to know where you’re going and how you’re going to get there. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It all starts with the mission statement. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<em>“…deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way…”</em></div>
<br />HutchJrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00750880100084209954noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1270143666144758341.post-8085781811279052922011-10-24T06:25:00.001-07:002011-10-24T06:25:59.203-07:00FASTER THAN A SPEEDING TELETYPE<div align="justify"><br />James Bruggers is not just a journalist, he's a warrior in the movement to protect our planet from the scourge of man.<br /><br />He’s one of a number of virtual superheroes from the left, armed with their magic blogs and Tweeting I-Phones with which to help beat back the demons and demigods who attempting to destroy our planet.<br /><br />He’s more powerful because he’s got ‘local motive.’<br /><br />“I cover a beat – the environment – that has taken huge hits at newspapers across the United States,” Bruggers said about himself in formal letter to the University of Louisville which hosted a symposium in early October. “As far as I know, I am the last one of my kind working at a newspaper in Kentucky.”<br /><br />Bruggers said that “everything is different now” in the print industry where he’s been writing for the Kentucky-based Courier-Journal, there in the heart of black coal country, since studying journalism, forestry and environmental studies at the University of Montana over 10 years ago. “Newspapers are no longer just newspapers,” Bruggers wrote in his letter, explaining how his newspaper is “increasingly focusing our news delivery online, through smart phones and through social networking, including Facebook and Twitter.”<br /><br />And able to leap tall buildings in a single bound too!<br /><br />Bruggers’ is a fairly standard response from many reporters today, particularly those in the freelance game. Many newsroom journalists are losing their jobs to attrition, cutbacks and corporate merger, while some of the ancillary op-ed writers, sports personalities and ‘bloggers’ have been kept around to keep a local slant on things – inexpensively at that - while newsrooms are being thoroughly decimated. In response, many longtime columnists have seen a burgeoning opportunity – in years past, their articles were significantly scrutinized, regularly cut, sliced, diced and edited down by experienced copy editors, managing editors and even fully engaged publishers who understood the difference between opinion pieces and balanced reports.<br /><br />Today’s ‘beat’ freelancers have little editorial scrutiny in what they provide, as most copy ‘chiefs’ are too focused on keeping Section One copy flowing through rapidly shrinking paper real estate to worry about the Section Three sport reporters and Section Five environmental ‘beat’ reporters. Since this new breed of reporter has been given carte blanche ability to post their stories directly to personal blogs and Twitter accounts without submitting through the proper chain of command, “fair and balanced” has been effectively replaced in the 21st Century by “quick and cheap.” It’s ‘fast food nation’ for the rip and read set, as print professionals, once born, bred and trained in newsroom nerve centers have been removed from their post, while pure subject matter experts – the anointed ones – have been given the front door key to the newspaper by being allowed uber access to blog site, Facebook and Twitter accounts.<br /><br />Clark Kent sadly was laid off from the downtown office. But don’t despair, James Brugger is still blogging to the world from his home office in Kentucky (“he’s everywhere, he’s everywhere!”)<br /><br />“Science is only part of what I do. Environmental journalism often involves a variety of disciplines – for example, politics, religion, economics and science,” Bruggers explained to the Kentucky academia in his recent blog titled, appropriately enough, Covering Science and the Environment Between the Tweets.<br /><br />“Journalism professors I know are producing a whole new generation of specialized science and environmental journalists who are taking an entrepreneurial approach to their careers,” Bruggers wrote in his Jerry McGuireish treatise to the symposium, adding “And membership numbers in the Society of Environmental Journalists, which I helped lead for 13 years, remain strong.”<br /><br />The Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ) met this week in Miami, where Bruggers and other anointed bloggers and Tweeters kept active by reporting in 140-charcter blips from the SEJ panel events. One blogger Imelda Albano, President of Phil Network of Environmental Journalists, Inc. said of the event via the SEJ Twitter feed, “an excellent venue for env't journalists from West and South to learn from each other in making our society a sustainable one.”<br /><br />Meanwhile Emilia Askari of the Detroit Free Press Tweets “want $ fr knight fndtn to fund your news venutre? talk to knight biz consultant ben wirz @ entrepreneurs pitchfest sat 9 a.m.” That’s Tweet speak for “hey folks, if you need some venture capital to fund your news reporting you can meet with representatives who helped fund this event, the James L. Knight Foundation, and they’ll explain how to get you some money to report to the masses.”<br /><br />Earlier, Askari posted how “the Internet gives back power given that was taken away by the mass media, just by its massiveness.”<br /><br />Or perhaps it’s a need for balance that has held the movement back.<br /><br />Nicole Lampe, Senior Program Director for a non-profit communications group called U.S. Resource Media shared one of the more popular Tweets of the day from University of Washington scientist and Pew Fellowship award winner Dr. P. Dee Boersma who said “I don't want balanced reporting when it comes to science.”<br /><br />Welcome to the environmental movement, where journalists meet to discuss ways of funding their cause, leading the charge to ensuring a more sustainable world through reliance on political, religious, economic and scientific reporting, free from the confines of traditional media scrutiny.<br /><br />It should be noted that the Miami conference of environmental journalists was hosted by the University of Miami with financial assistance from groups including John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Other SEJ financial supporters include the Everglades Foundation, Curtis and Edith Munson Foundation, Turner Family Foundation, Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment and Environmental Defense Fund.<br /><br />Not every Tweeting member of the SEJ was strictly a journalist mind you. One blogger named Clint Wilder of the research and advisory firm Clean Edge, Inc. noted the striking similarities between Occupy Wall Street and environmental movements, Tweeting they “share fighting ‘the imposition of large risks by the very few on the very many.’" At its website, Wilder’s Clean Edge, Inc. describes itself as a company which “companies, investors, and governments understand and profit from clean technologies.”<br /><br />Freelance journalist Cristina Santiestevan of Virginia is one of the first Tweeters to announce the opening comments of NOAA Fisheries Chief Dr. Lubchenco in a panel discussion on October 21, noting "Catch shares work. They end overfishing.” Posting under the online handle of Redbugmedia, Santiestevan describes how she is “Listening to Jane Lubchenco describe her job, ‘I fight for fishermen, and for fish.’”<br /><br />Caroline Behringer, Media Specialist at World Wildlife Fund adds “Lubchenco uses Slurpies to explain catch shares to science reporters,” to which Jaime Jennings, Publicity Manager at Island Press responded “awesome!”<br /><br />Behringer adds “Now contraceptives enter the Slurpy analogy to explain catch shares.”<br /><br />"Who knew that birth control and 7-11 would come up in a fisheries panel," noted Juliet Eilperin, moderator of the SEJ panel called Opening Plenary — Fish Fight, which featured Dr. Lubchenco, her brother-in-law Dr. Steve Gaines, Pew Fellowship recipient Dr. Daniel Pauly, along with commercial fishing representative Nils Stolpe and the Recreational Fishing Alliance’s (RFA) Jim Donofrio representing the voice of the angling community.<br /><br />“Here we go…” Wilder posts after Donofrio steps up and calls NOAA a 'job killer' explaining how the recreational fishing industry is 'getting regulated out of existence.'<br /><br />“We're tripping over red snapper in Florida, but it's very restricted. Why? Lack of good science,” Tweeted Forbes clean tech blogger and freelance writer/editor Amy Westervelt of Donofrio’s comments.<br /><br />“We have plenty of fish, so says one panelists,” a blogger called the Apocadocs Tweets sarcastically of Donofrio’s comments, asking wryly, “really?”<br /><br />Freelancer Allie Wilkinson posts a quote from Lubchenco that seems to back Donofrio’s scientific analysis, noting “We simply do not have the resources to do stock assessments for every single fishery, every single year.”<br /><br />Behringer then posts the theoretical question for Twitter followers to view, “Are marine protected areas good for commercial fisheries,” promptly answering herself in the affirmative in a Tweet directed at the fishermen in the front of the room, “Hey, panelists, the answer's ‘yes!’"<br /><br />Lampe Tweets Gaines as saying “we've protected less than 1% of ocean, 10 to 15% of land,” noting how “MPA’s harbor fish as they breed and grow, helping nearby fisheries.”<br /><br />The fishing representatives on the panel try to point out how notable scientific gaps in reporting through NOAA have left fishermen suffering not from science but by lack of science; they then explain to SEJ attendees that fish don’t exist upon every square inch of the ocean, and the 5% to 15% of oceans that some environmental groups would like to make off-limits to fishermen through creation of no access, no take marine reserves are actually the prime areas of oceans where fish congregate around productive structure and habitat.<br /><br />Look, up in the sky….<br /><br />“Fisheries lobbyist demonstrating he's completing unreasonable, opposes any restrictions on commercial fishing,” Tweets Brad Johnson, ThinkProgress Green Editor at the Center for American Progress.<br /><br />“Big science crush on Daniel Pauly,” Westervelt Tweets.<br /><br />“Me too,” gushes Jamie Jennings of Island Press.<br /><br />Westervelt reports that Dr. Pauly is “Keeping it real with NOAA and fishermen on fish fight panel.”<br /><br />Word to your mother.<br /><br />Pew Environment Group’s Dave Bard says “fixing overfishing benefits everyone.” His former coworker from Pew now employed as Dr. Lubchenco handler and media spokesperson through NOAA Fisheries said of the Fish Fight panel, “a whole lot of agreeing going on. When it comes to catch shares, MPAs, science, etc, design matters most.”<br /><br />Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.<br /><br />Cassandra Profita of Oregon Public Broadcasting posed the Tweeted question, “Catch shares: Best economic, ecological fish mgmt or xposing fish to 'corporate greed', 'speculation' like subprime mortgages?”<br /><br />Blogger Michael Casey of Dubai, a sports and environmental reporter who writes mainly about water shortages and the sport of cricket in the Middle East quoted Donofrio as saying of catch shares "is huge political issue, not as simple as drinking from one Slurpy cup."<br /><br />DC-based Matt Farrauto, a self-professed “political hack who’s gone full panda,” said “All this fish talk makes me want a slurpee.”<br /><br />“Don't assume, just because I'm yawning, that I'm disinterested,” Farrauto said later.<br /><br />Pittsburgh’s Jeanne Clark describes herself as “Doing my best to piss off the right wing for over 60 years,” but was unable to attend this year’s event in Miami but Tweeted a “Big shout out to my peeps at #SEJMiami. Raise lotsa $$$!”<br /><br />It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s a trial balloon!<br /><br />“Which I were there,” Clark adds, Tweeting “Too cold & not enough drinking here.”<br /><br />David E. Guggenheim, himself a marine scientist and Senior Fellow at the Ocean Foundation Tweeted from the conference a quote from Daniel Pauly that “Many fisheries in the world are afloat only because of subsidies."<br /><br />Guggenheim went on to quote Pauly as saying how “fishers” (that’s politically correct 21st Century green speak for fisherman or fishermen) are fishing for jelly fish, and monk fish.<br /><br />The Courier-Journal’s Bruggers Tweets back, “Jellyfish? Really? Ick.”<br /><br />Hmm, kryptonite and crystal jellies do seem a lot alike.<br /><br />Following the fisheries panel, Farrauto Tweets “Heading to the Balmoral Room where he will fight the Balrog,” a fictional middle-earth demonic being created by JRR Tolkien in his science fiction epic, Lord of the Rings.<br /><br />Even superheroes have to break for lunch.<br /><br />Hey James, watch out for those peanut butter and jelly sandwiches!<br /><br />“Ick!”<br /><br /></div>HutchJrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00750880100084209954noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1270143666144758341.post-28174712224966509402011-10-17T11:24:00.000-07:002011-10-17T11:26:12.955-07:00RFA TO US SENATE - TEAR DOWN THE PEDESTAL<div align="justify">Going fishing too often usually puts me on the hot seat with the folks at home, especially during the fall run.<br /><br />Paradoxically, a woman named Jane Lubchenco is on the hot seat with those of us in the fishing community; has been since the day she was chosen by President Barack Obama to take the position of NOAA Administrator back in March of 2009.<br /><br />From day one when recreational and commercial fishing community became aware that this Pew Fellowship award winner, Director/ Trustee of SeaWeb and Environmental Defense, Trustee Emerita of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and 8th Annual Heinz Award in the Environment award winner would be in charge of future angling access, we’ve been able to fish a whole less than we did 10 years ago.<br /><br />Now after 2-1/2 years of Administrative hostility and disdain, it appears as if the proverbial chickens may have come home to roost.<br /><br />On Monday, October 3, 2011, a Senate Subcommittee Field Hearing was held in a packed Massachusetts State House. The highly-charged hearing was chaired by Senator Kerry (D-MA) and focused primarily on NOAA’s controversial catch share program, the embattled NOAA Administrator Dr Lubchenco, and NOAA’s troubled Office of Law Enforcement which officials claim misused fines and legal fees paid by members of the commercial fishing sector.<br /><br />Other coastal legislators who participated in the hearing included Senator Mark Begich (D-AK), Senator Scott Brown (R-MA), Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), Congressman John Tierney (D-MA), Congressman Bill Keating (D-MA), and Massachusetts State Senate President, Therese Murray (D-Plymouth).<br /><br />As elected legislators attempted to take the top government appointee to task for failing to work with coastal stakeholders, the chief bureaucrat turned the tables on those elected officials, prompting one stark headline from an organization called Americans for Forfeiture Reform, NOAA Blames Congress<br /><br />According to policy analyst Scott Alexander Meiner, Dr. Lubchenco gave “a series of meandering evasions” which prompted a rather sharp response by Rep. Frank. “Why can’t you give me a straight answer. Just give a straight answer. It could be yes. It could be no. You don’t have to hire someone to take the SAT for you,” Rep. Frank said.<br /><br />“Most agencies are at least somewhat advocates of the industry they regulate… I can think of only two that hold their industry guilty until proven innocent- the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) and NMFS,” Frank continued.<br /><br />“We will commit to clarifying what we can and cannot do,” Lubchenco answered.<br /><br />“Will you commit to expediting the return of legal fees?” asked Rep. Tierney.<br /><br />“I will commit to looking into that,” Dr. Lubchenco responded.<br /><br />In another volley, Sen. Brown shot back “what does it take to get fired at NOAA?”<br /><br />The NOAA Administrator coolly and calmly explained that NOAA cannot discuss personnel matters due to federal regulations governing the treatment and privacy of federal employees. It would be nice to know just what kind of action would get someone fired within the government, but thanks to Congress there’s no way for the American people to really know how such a process would be enacted or followed.<br /><br />Federal laws enacted by our own legislature to protect federal employees; when a recent top enforcement officer committed the inappropriate and illegal act leading to many of these New England Subcommittee hearings, nothing was really done in terms of punishing the staffer, nor can any subsequent actions even be made public.<br /><br />In other words, these New England Members of Congress were searching for answers but getting none, mainly because of rules and regulations which they helped pass that protects the government itself from most types of regulatory oversight and control, keeping appointed bureaucrats insulated from charges brought against them by members of the public.<br /><br />The same thing as with catch shares and burdensome regulation stemming from the 2007 reauthorization of the Magnuson Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act that was passed by Congressman Frank and Congressman Tierney in 2006, the legislators set a restrictive speed limit and now they’re grilling the top trooper for ticketing so many of their constituents during the past 4-1/2 years that the speed traps have been in place.<br /><br />However, while Frank, Tierney and Brown have become more vocal about the possibility of seeing Dr. Lubchenco removed from her position as NOAA Chief, Sen. Kerry has remained more general, perhaps vanilla, in his criticism.<br /><br />As reported by Meiner, “Senator Kerry crafted a more inclusive approach, asking for Dr Lubchenco to treat the most harmed fishing areas as disaster zones. Lubchenco indicated a willingness provided the regional fishing councils would provide her the data which she noted had not been done. Senator Kerry then initiated a plan to convene a private meeting with Dr Jane Lubchenco, NMFS officials, concerned legislators, and fishing industry stake holders in a closed session presumably to flesh out steps forward and to air grievances. Kerry was able to elicit Dr Lubchenco’s acceptance of an invitation.”<br /><br />Sen. Kerry of course was a member of the Senate in 2006 who willingly accepted a vote of unanimous consent of the Magnuson Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, the very same law which has given NOAA so much authority in denying fishermen access to rebuilding fish stocks while ramrodding a program of catch shares through upon the angling public. In other words, it was Kerry who helped hand deliver the congressional edict for the top cop in charge of writing traffic summonses along the intercoastal highway!<br /><br />“This clearly threatens the future of small boat fishing in Massachusetts, which has been a way of life for generations of our families,” Sen. Kerry warned the good Doctor about the rapid spread of catch shares implemented by NOAA throughout the fishing community. “I want you to know that their way of life will not end on my watch,” Kerry said.<br /><br />Arguably, catch shares and no take areas of ocean through a network of marine reserves would in fact negatively impact life as we know it along the coastal United States, particularly for those who make their living on the water – which is that makes Sen. Kerry’s comments so unique.<br /><br />Consider for a moment that on March 12, 2002, Dr. Jane Lubchenco officially received a Heinz Award for the Environment. In her acceptance speech, the NOAA chief to be told the world “The reality is that we are not just using oceans - we are using them up. If we truly want to be able to use them tomorrow, we have to do a better job of protecting them today. A powerful new tool that is emerging and that is being talked about much more seriously is that of a network of marine reserves - not unlike national parks or wilderness areas on land. A marine reserve is an area of the sea that is completely protected from extractive activities. They are also called "no take areas" - no fishing, no mining, no drilling, no dumping. These fully protected marine reserves have been shown quite definitely to be extremely powerful in protecting habitat in protecting biodiversity and protecting the essential services provided by marine ecosystems. And in some cases, they are also helping to replenishing depleted fisheries. At present, far less than one percent of U.S. water is fully protected. So we have some real opportunities to make a real difference with this new solution.”<br /><br />The chairman of the Heinz Family Foundation and the Heinz Endowments which helped promote Dr. Lubchenco’s lifelong efforts to restrict the rights of coastal fishermen is Teresa Heinz, the wife of Sen. John Kerry.<br /><br />When U.S. Congress put forth the 2006 reauthorization of the Magnuson Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, it was passed through the Senate by unanimous consent, meaning there was no debate on the floor as to the laws vices or virtues. Pushed by primary sponsor Ted Stevens (R-AK), the bill had seven Democratic sponsors including Sen. Kerry, and six Republican sponsors including the law’s namesake, Sen. Stevens. By clearing the legislation through Senate by an up-and-down vote with no discussion, it memorialized very restrictive definitions, deadlines, and requirements which have since been used by NMFS to beat down the recreational and commercial fishing industry.<br /><br />Efforts to amend the Magnuson Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act to incorporate some management flexibility allowing fisheries management discretion to keep fisheries open to fishing access in situations where the stocks are showing improved stock biomass have been introduced by both the House and Senate, however, Sen. Kerry has refused to support the bill, neither has his wife’s friend Jane.<br /><br />“Would you support a law that would allow more flexibility rather than rely on the most recent study,” asked Rep. Keating of the NOAA Chief at the October 3 Senate Subcommittee Field Hearing.<br /><br />“No,” replied Dr. Lubchenco.<br /><br />So much for evasive answers.<br /><br />On September 23, 2011, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) along with Rep. Barney Frank co-sponsored a piece of legislation designed to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to extend the authorized time period for rebuilding of certain overfished fisheries while providing fisheries managers with limited flexibility to keep fishermen fishing when stocks are healthy enough to support it.<br /><br />The appointed head of NOAA doesn’t support it; but that’s no reason why the senior Senator from Massachusetts shouldn’t. After all, it’s not up to a federally appointed, anti-business, agenda-driven environmental zealot to decide upon the will of the people.<br /><br />U.S. legislators are quickly realizing that their constituents are angry about the direction of the country, the burdensome regulatory process, overly restrictive bureaucracy and wide scale contempt of those appointed to serve towards the people who elect legislators to serve their interests.<br /><br />The singularly most important issue to the American voter right now is jobs, and if government continues to cut private sector jobs because of bureaucratic defiance, then someone in the public sector will have to pay.<br /><br />Dr. Jane Lubchenco and her eco-warrior cohorts must be removed from the Department of Commerce immediately. If our elected officials aren’t able to remove the anointed ones, then it’s time for the electorate to find newly elected officials who can.<br /><br />It’s time for Sen. Kerry to risk a few days on the couch at home in support of our fishermen – stand up to the administration, in standing against the job killing efforts of the NOAA Administrator. Take a stand for reasonable access to rebuilding fisheries by supporting bipartisan coastal legislation to fix the proverbial speed limits, thereby getting unreasonable enforcement off the backs of coastal businesses.<br /><br />And once and for fall Mr. Kerry, stand up to your wife on this one – Ms. Heinz may have helped put Dr. Lubchenco upon a pedestal for the president to admire, but you can help bring her down and put Americans back to work again.<br /><br />Tell your wife you’re going fishing Sen. Kerry!<br /></div>HutchJrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00750880100084209954noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1270143666144758341.post-41169565875576741232011-09-06T06:17:00.001-07:002011-09-06T06:18:38.313-07:00HIS LIPS MOVE BUT I CAN'T HEAR WHAT HE'S SAYING<div align="justify"><br />This week, President Obama will address the nation about what he is doing to spur economic growth and create jobs. While the head talks, let’s take a look at how the rest walks.<br /><br />The U.S. Department of Commerce promotes job creation, economic growth, sustainable development and improved standards of living for all Americans by working in partnership with businesses, universities, communities and our nation’s workers. Its wide range of responsibilities includes the areas of trade, economic development, technology, entrepreneurship and business development, environmental stewardship, and statistical research and analysis.<br /><br />To drive U.S. competitiveness in the global marketplace, the Commerce Department works to strengthen the international economic position of the United States and facilitates global trade by opening up new markets for U.S. goods and services. Here at home, the Commerce Department promotes progressive business policies that help America’s businesses and entrepreneurs and their communities grow and succeed.<br /><br />The Commerce Department also provides effective management and monitoring of our nation’s resources and assets to support both environmental and economic health. Through critical weather monitoring, weather forecasts and resource preservation, the department protects not only public safety and security but also our oceans, coasts and marine life while assisting their economic development.<br /><br />The Secretary of Commerce leads this department’s efforts, overseeing a $7.5 billion budget and nearly 47,000 employees worldwide. On August 1, 2011, Rebecca Blank took over as Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce, having spent approximately 8 months as Acting Deputy Secretary. Blank, a Missouri native, is filling a temporary position left by the departure of former Commerce Secretary Gary Locke of Washington State to the position of U.S. Ambassador to China. Recently, President Obama announced that John Bryson of California was being tabbed to be the next Commerce Secretary, a nomination which has since been stalled in Congress.<br /><br />According to published reports, Republicans have vowed to block Bryson’s nomination until President Obama submits free-trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama to Congress. Obama has refused to do that unless Congress agrees to expand upon an assistance program for U.S. workers who lose their jobs due to international trade.<br /><br />More troubling to many private sector business owners is that Bryson is probably best known as co-founder of the radical activist group Natural Resources Defense Council, and as CEO of Edison International, parent company of giant electric utility Southern California Edison.<br /><br />Bryson is also trustee of the California Institute of Technology, a director of the California Endowment and the W. M. Keck Foundation, and serves on the advisory board of Deutsche Bank Americas. Previously Mr. Bryson served on educational, energy and environmental boards, including as a trustee of Stanford University, a member of a United Nations advisory group on energy and climate change, and head of California’s Public Utilities Commission and its State Water Resources Control Board.<br /><br />“In the years ahead, a key to achieving our export goal will be promoting clean energy in America. It’s how we’ll reduce our dependence on foreign oil,” President Obama said of the appointment. “And that’s how we’ll encourage new businesses and jobs to take root on our shores. John understands this better than virtually anybody.”<br /><br />The President believes that going green is gold, and while many Americans support cleaner and more sustainable energy options, banking on environmental business to sustain a collapsing national economy has proven to be a treacherous course.<br /><br />Case in point, the recent bankruptcy declaration by solar-panel maker Solyndra, a politically connected California-based manufacturer. In 2009, Solyndra was able to secure a $535 million loan guarantee from the U.S. government to expand its operations, and just one year later got a visit from President Obama who hailed it as a symbol of the U.S. commitment to the expanded use of renewable energy.<br /><br />In August of this year, having borrowed almost all the guaranteed loan money, Solyndra said it was bankrupt, and was immediately shutting its operations and laying off 1,100 workers. At about the same time, two other U.S. solar firms, SpectraWatt and Evergreen Solar, also declared they are bankrupt, with taxpayers undoubtedly left to foot the bill for unpaid federal loans already received.<br /><br />Bloomberg Financial reported in August that SpectraWatt owes creditors $38.7 million and is planning to auction almost all of its assets, which the Hopewell Junction, New York-based company valued at $33.9 million in a filing with U.S. Bankruptcy Court. In their August 19th filing, the company said it was forced to seek protection from creditors because of increasing competition from Chinese rivals and deteriorating prices in the solar industry. Evergreen Solar, which owes creditors upwards of $486.5 million, cited similar reasons for its August 15 bankruptcy filing soon after the state of Massachusetts had committed $23 million in grants in support of high tech manufacturing and job creation.<br /><br />“United States-based manufacturers are under a great deal of stress because of the emergence of manufacturers in China, who receive considerable government and financial support,” SpectraWatt’s Chief Restructuring Officer and Chief Executive Officer Brad Walker said in the filing. “This support, coupled with China’s inexpensive production costs, have created a competitive advantage for Chinese manufacturers and allowed them to become price leaders within the industry.”<br /><br />After Evergreen laid off their 800 U.S. workers in Massachusetts, the Chinese government effectively swooped in with a multi-million dollar loan to assist in the relocation and construction of a new overseas manufacturing facility. Born in America, raised overseas, it’s the story about the promise of 21st Century green jobs in the global market, whereby green jobs developed in the U.S. are ultimately outsourced to China to be produced by less costly labor.<br /><br />The Washington Examiner reported recently that Commerce Secretary delegate appointee John Bryson began his career by creating an environmental litigation group, the Natural Resources Defense Council. He parlayed this gig of suing governments and businesses into top appointments in the late 1970s by California Governor Jerry Brown. After a three-year stint as president of California's Public Utility Commission, Bryson cashed out in 1984 to California's largest public utility, Edison International, parent company of Southern California Edison.<br /><br />Bryson is also chairman of the board of directors for BrightSource Energy, a California-based green corporation which designs, develops and sells solar thermal power systems that deliver reliable clean energy to utilities and industrial companies.<br /><br />Jump ahead to February of 2010, when BrightSource announced that it had received a commitment from the Department of Energy for a $1.37 billion loan guarantee to build out BrightSource’s Ivanpah solar project, set to be the first new solar thermal power plant built in California’s deserts in 20 years. Over the next several months, BrightSource would another $176 million in equity and options according to filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, with new investors including the Russian government.<br /><br />The project is said to be about 15% completed thus far, and expected to go online in 2013.<br /><br />In the early summer of 2011, President Obama said “I am pleased to nominate John Bryson to be our nation’s Secretary of Commerce, as he understands what it takes for America to succeed in a 21st century global economy.” Of the BrightSource chairman of the board, the president would add “John will be an important part of my economic team, working with the business community, fostering growth, and helping open up new markets abroad to promote jobs and opportunities here at home.”<br /><br />In an August 12, 2011 piece in the New American by Rebecca Terrell, David Bier of the Competitive Enterprise Institute said of the Commerce nominee, "Bryson helped create a regulatory structure that fixed utilities' profits at a percent of costs. As a result, the utilities make money not by bringing costs down and selling more electricity, but by raising costs with unnecessary, expensive and redundant projects." Bier charged Bryson for helping secure several government bailouts for Southern California Edison during his tenure there that saved the utility from bankruptcy and funded his $65 million retirement package in 2008.<br /><br />Senator James Inhofe (R–Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, described Bryson as the "founder of the radical Natural Resources Defense Council, a left-wing environmentalist organization, which in the name of global warming, seeks to increase drastically the price of electricity and gasoline across America.”<br /><br />While Bryson served as legal counsel for Natural Resources Defense Council during the early 70’s having founded that group with other Yale Law graduates, he has since spent much of his career managing public utilities, a service which consumers often have very little choice in terms of providers. The sad fact of the matter is that Bryson has no substantial experience in the private sector.<br /><br />At a time in this country when commerce is stymied by a 9.1% unemployment rate and ever-tightening noose of regulatory controls, we need a Commerce Department leader who truly feels the plight of the nation’s private sector, and understands what’s needed to create jobs. Taking federal subsidies to start-up public utility operations, only to watch them fail while outsourcing jobs overseas may be a retirement plan for some, but it’s certainly no business plan for the health and well-being of the greatest nation on earth.<br /><br />Think about that while the president’s lips are moving on Thursday night.<br /><br /></div>HutchJrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00750880100084209954noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1270143666144758341.post-88914512903104336302011-02-21T14:22:00.000-08:002011-02-21T14:57:44.578-08:00New York Metropolitan Legislators Vote To Cap & Trade Coastal Fisheries<div align="justify">Last week, President Obama unveiled his FY2012 budget request proposing a new National Catch Share Program calling for approximately $17.4 million in catch share funding to be moved out of Fisheries Research and Management Programs and Cooperative Research. The President's budget defines Catch Share as "a general term for several fishery management strategies that allocate a specific portion of the total allowable fishery catch to individuals, cooperatives, communities, or other entities."<br /><br />Those entitled to receive Catch Shares are accountable to cease fishing when specific quota is reached, and the President's budget also cites other programs like limited access privilege (LAP), individual fishing quota (IFQ) programs, and exclusive allocative measures such as Territorial Use Rights Fisheries (TURFs) that grant an exclusive privilege to fish in a geographically designated fishing ground. The key word used in defining Catch Shares of course is “privilege” as the entire scheme is dependent on selecting a few “privileged” individuals or entities to control catch and harvest of our coastal fisheries, regardless of commercial or recreational designation.<br /><br />One conservation group in particular outlined their plan for implementing Catch Shares across both the commercial and recreational sector through use of fish tags, whereby harvest privilege gets assigned to those who possess tags to affix to harvested fish. Regardless of whether or not one chooses to sell their fish or take it home for personal consumption, a fish tag would be required, and according to this particular plan, a capped number of tags would be offered for any particular species, available for purchase through state entities or via public auction.<br /><br />Those unable to get access to individual tags or unable to afford the bid would be precluded from participating in any particular fishery. Currently as they work in the commercial sector, once a share of the fishery is owned, it’s theirs to keep unless traded or sold at the discretion of the share owner. The Catch Share program in place in some commercial only fisheries today ensures that no new participants may enter a fishery. Imagine the concept being grandfathered in to being allowed to fish!<br /><br />Fishermen call the Catch Share scheme the privatization of a public resource, though it’s also being referred to as 'social engineering' and coastal sharecropping as well. By design, Catch Shares cap fishing participation and trade ownership of our fish stocks amongst the privileged few. At a time when vital coastal fisheries like fluke, black sea bass, porgy and red snapper are being closed down due to lack of science and data collection, it’s staggering to think that the President would again cut important fisheries research funding from the NOAA Fisheries budget to offload to this restrictive Catch Share program. This is the second FY budget in which President Obama has reallocated millions away from science towards science fiction created by preservationist agenda.<br /><br />The worst part is that New York legislators are helping ramrod the Catch Share manifesto down the throats of the coastal fishing community. On February 19th in the early morning hours, North Carolina republican Congressman Walter Jones introduced an amendment to the President’s FY2012 budget to prevent funds from being expended by NOAA to enact new limited access fishing programs. The Jones amendment (#548) to H.R. 1 was cosponsored by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) and Rep. Frank Pallone (D-New Jersey), and limits NOAA from being able to spend important research and science funding on developing or approving new limited access privilege programs for any fishery under the jurisdiction of the South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, New England or Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils. This bipartisan amendment to the budget passed the United States House of Representatives on a recorded vote of 259-159 at 1:43 a.m.<br /><br />In total, 51 Democrats joined 208 Republicans voting in favor of the Amendment, in support of coastal fishermen. Catch Shares will only cost more American jobs and lead to the outsourcing of our seafood industry to those foreign nations with no concern for quotas or conservation principles as held by American fishermen. This privatization scheme is being sold as a method to end overfishing when all it really does is end open access fishing by placing our nation's marine fisheries into the hands of a select and privileged few. The public does not want catch shares, recreational charter boats do not want catch shares, the majority of commercial fishermen do not want catch shares, and both republicans and democrats within our coastal communities have united in bipartisan form to help stave off this coastal sharecropping scheme to sell off our public resources to the highest bidder.<br /><br />However, the following New York legislators voted against their coastal constituents, siding with the minority of Congressional representatives who believe that cap and trade is a good policy for coastal fisheries management. Our local fisheries in New York like black sea bass, fluke and porgy are healthy and rebuilding, and no overfishing is taking place on any of these species. Individual anglers and coastal owners of coastal businesses like tackle shops, marinas, party and charter boats and even seashore restaurants which rely on healthy coastal fisheries should take note that the following coastal democrats in New York voted against the Jones Amendment – and a vote against the Jones Amendment is clearly a vote against the fishermen of New York!<br /><br />If you fish in the Port Washington area along the North Shore of Long Island, Rep. Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-5th Congressional District) voted in favor of privatizing your public resource on Long Island Sound.<br /><br />If you depend on the party boat industry on City Island in the Bronx, Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-7th Congressional District) wants to cap the number of anglers able to fish the Sound.<br /><br />Those of you who like to drift for fluke off Coney Island in the summer can thank Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-8th Congressional District) for voting against efforts to protect your right to fish!<br /><br />Sheepshead Bay fishermen who’ve been in contact with Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-9th Congressional District) for help on fishing limits should know their Congressman supports limited access privilege.<br /><br />In Manhattan, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-14th Congressional District) and Rep. Charles Rangel (D-15th Congressional District) both agree that fishing should be restricted to those with privilege.<br /><br />The fishermen of Port Morris in the Bronx might want to ask Rep. Jose Serrano (D-16th Congressional District) how a public auction of fish tags will be made available in the future.<br /><br />Hudson River anglers should know that Rep. Eliot Engel (D-17th Congressional District) also believes that access to our fisheries should be capped.<br /><br />Finally, for charter boat captains out of Port Chester, and Mamaroneck, Rep. Nita Lowey (D-18th Congressional District) believes it’s okay to trade away ownership of fish stocks to the highest bidder.<br /><br />My Member of Congress, Rep. Weiner, will be receiving his letter in the coming days - I hope it's not the only one!</div>HutchJrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00750880100084209954noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1270143666144758341.post-43598303650103914472010-08-02T08:29:00.000-07:002010-08-02T08:36:17.783-07:00BROKEN LAW, BROKEN PROMISE<div align="justify">"How did I get here?"<br /><br />The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) estimates that there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 291,000 saltwater anglers in New York, whereas the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pegs that number at closer to 874,000. NMFS of course bases their angler estimates on information gathered through the Marine Recreational Fishing Statistical Surveys or MRFSS, a recreational fishing harvest program deemed “fatally flawed” by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences.<br /><br />A Connecticut study spearheaded by fisheries assessment expert Dr. Victor Crecco spotlighted this growing discrepancy between NMFS and USFWS estimates, comparing numbers with overall saltwater licenses sales from several Atlantic coast states. The report shows that MRFSS’ 2008 saltwater angler estimates were often “three to four times higher than both the 2006 USFWS estimates and the 2008 adjusted saltwater license sales,” findings which Dr. Crecco said “strongly suggest that the MRFSS has severely overestimated the number of saltwater anglers and fishing trips particularly in recent years, and by extension, has severely inflated the true recreational catch and harvest of all finfish species.” In other words, the federal government believes that we’re catching 300-400% more fish than we really are - this theoretical “overfishing” of quota is no secret to the New York angler, particularly when considering our state’s own marine license has generated only about 125,000 unique registrants since it was implemented last October.<br /><br />At the behest of Congress, NRC convened in 2004/2005 to review the marine recreational fishery survey methods used by NMFS to monitor fishing effort and catch data in the recreational sector. Their official report blasted the current methodology of surveying anglers based on random telephone contacts, while recommending “the development of and subsequent sampling from a comprehensive national saltwater angler registry.” When the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act was reauthorized by Congress in 2006 and signed into law by the President in 2007, it required the Secretary of Commerce to establish a national saltwater registry program which meets the recommendations of the NRC panel of experts.<br /><br />The program, which according to the law may or may not require a fee as of 2011, would provide for the registration - including identification and contact information - of individuals who engage in recreational fishing in state coastal waters when fishing for anadromous species such as striped bass, shad and river herring, or when fishing out beyond the three-mile limit in federal waters. The newly reauthorized federal law also noted that the Secretary would exempt from federal registration requirement those anglers and vessels registered by a state, if the state provides sufficient identification and contact information of individuals who engage in recreational fishing, for use in federal recreational surveys.<br /><br />About the time that Magnuson amendments were being debated in Washington, NMFS brought a series of national stakeholder groups together to review the pending registry requirements. In a 2006 briefing document on the saltwater angler registration (which can be found online by Googling <a href="http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ocs/mafac/meetings/2006_02/docs/Pro%20and%20Con%20Fishing%20License.pdf">saltwater angler registration briefing document</a>), NMFS described the angler registry specifically as a tool to help increase survey efficiency and improve precision of catch and effort statistics, describing how the Senate’s draft Magnuson reauthorization bill had language that would set up an angler registry, which NMFS called “simply a list of saltwater anglers and their contact information, a virtual phonebook of anglers.”<br /><br />A handful of groups involved in those early meetings came out specifically in favor of seeing states implement an actual saltwater fishing license in order to both meet the registration requirements and increase funding for fisheries management. NOAA’s briefing document goes on to list those groups in support of a saltwater license as being the American Sportfishing Association, Billfish Foundation, BoatU.S., Coastal Conservation Association, Coastside Fishing Club, International Game Fish Association, National Association of Charterboat Operators, National Marine Manufacturers Association, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, Pure Fishing, Sportfishing Association of California and United Anglers of Southern California.<br /><br />A smaller, more northeast-centric corps of angling groups representing vocal opposition to the saltwater fishing license present in those early registry briefing meetings was the Jersey Coast Anglers Association, United Boatmen of New York and New Jersey, and the Recreational Fishing Alliance. The northeast opposition charged that a saltwater license was simply another tax on anglers, and noted concerns that collected fees would not actually go back into fishery management, while creating a confusing patchwork of required permits and licenses throughout coastal communities.<br /><br />Perhaps bolstering the opposition argument, the NMFS briefing document states, “To be clear, a saltwater angler registry does not guarantee anglers more access or more fish. What it does is ensure that both anglers and fisheries managers have a complete picture about the scope and impact of sportfishing in our oceans and along our coasts.” Such a statement actually countered one of the key license arguments regarding power and influence. The bare facts were laid out clearly as one NOAA’s key messages regarding the need for a saltwater registry program stated the registry “is simply a list of saltwater anglers and their contact information, a virtual phonebook of anglers.”<br /><br />While the need to develop cohesive registries that capture angler contact information was paramount to the program itself, heads of fish and wildlife agencies in states without an angler registration program wasted little time in reaching out to legislators to help drive the registry discussion towards the need for funding. Soon after the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act was reauthorized, key fisherman-friendly legislators assembled New York’s recreational fishing industry stakeholders to discuss the benefits of a saltwater license. Many staunch anti-license participants dragged their feet at first, noting the earlier concerns expressed at the federal meetings. But with legislative assurances promising to hand-deliver a wish list to Albany, the staunchest naysayers acquiesced during these private meetings and eventually agreed to support a fishing license – but only if funds were dedicated to a marine account to help increase funding for fisheries management.<br /><br />By the spring of 2009, the ‘wish list’ was delivered to Albany, and while these license opponents were less than thrilled at seeing a saltwater user fee come to fruition in New York under their watch, the core stakeholders slept better at nights with the promise by legislators that funding was to be dedicated specifically to the marine resource. When a new dawn broke, so did those promises.<br /><br />In October of 2009, New York implemented its first-ever saltwater fishing license forcing all residents who fish the tidal and coastal waters to pay a $10 fee, or opt for a one-time $150 lifetime right to fish. The promise when this new tax was levied was that our community would get a whole new suite of services. However, once instituted, the Governor immediately offloaded the salaries of dozens of Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) employees from the general fund to the marine fund, immediately putting the account into a $2 million deficit. Meanwhile, monies collected through the lifetime saltwater licenses were then reallocated away from the marine fund towards paying down debt within the general conservation fund. Adding insult to injury, the very same, NMFS abruptly closed the recreational sea bass fishery for 180 days, piling a fisheries moratorium on top of the most restrictive fluke regulations of all of Atlantic coastal states.<br /><br />The recreational stakeholders involved in the scoping meetings were incredulous, but it was the sportfishing community who hadn’t been invited to participate in the deal making sessions that was most surprised to learn that in addition to fishing closures, beach permit increases and park reductions, a new saltwater user fee was going into effect from October through November, with a new license requirement set to take effect that January. The double-whammy didn’t sit well with the masses. It’s even more offensive when you consider that New York doesn’t require license registrant to submit their phone number, clearly non-compliant with NMFS requirement to create “a virtual phonebook of anglers.”<br /><br />Groups like the Recreational Fishing Alliance, United Boatmen, New York Sportfishing Federation, and New York Fishing Tackle Trades Association had recognized all along that this was an initiative which was doomed from the start, and clearly not representative of the silent majority that makes up the saltwater fishing community. While a small, vocal minority lobbied for a fee to fish in saltwater, the mainstream angling community exploded in protest within days of the new law, letting legislators know in no uncertain terms what they felt about the new saltwater user fee. Within a month of the license implementation, U.S. Senator Charles Schumer told me personally that he’d heard from New York constituents more on two very specific issues than any other– the healthcare plan and the saltwater license. Sen. Schumer was quick to react as the silent majority had spoken – without equivocation, Mr. Schumer agreed that the folks back at home wanted the license gone!<br /><br />A few months ago, the New York Senate responded in a nearly unanimous 60-1 vote on Senate Bill 6250 sponsored by Sen. Brian Foley which would repeal New York’s broken saltwater license program and replace it with a free, federally compliant angler registration system. An Assembly version (A09234) currently rests in the Environmental Conservation Committee where it’s failed to move and probably won’t until some type of federal funding initiative comes through to support the program, estimated to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $1 per registration. By NMFS estimates the cost could balloon to $875 thousand to implement, while the more conservative USFWS estimate finds a free angler registry costing the state less than $300 thousand to implement. If you use the latest license figures from NYDEC which show approximately 125,000 unique saltwater registrants since the license was first implemented, the cost to register saltwater fishermen for free as currently exists in New Jersey would come in about $10 thousand less than the annual salary of a DEC Commissioner in New York, minus benefits.<br /><br />The late Walter Fondren of Coastal Conservation Association (CCA) is quoted in the NMFS briefing document, “Regardless of how much money is generated or where it goes in a state budget, the most important function of a license is to provide a simple count of recreational saltwater anglers in a given state.” If that’s the case, then Assembly Bill 09234 to repeal the New York license and replace it with a federally compliance angler registration system for saltwater recreational fishing should be widely supported throughout the New York marine district.<br /><br />Those who continue to support the repeal of New York’s broken saltwater license continue to hear criticism from those who truly believe a license to be a panacea for all that ails our marine fisheries – that includes representatives of the DEC now hopelessly connected to fishermen who suddenly have found themselves wholly responsible for DEC payroll. Those who would prefer to see this broken system continue ‘as is’ are quick to warn opponents “be careful of what you wish for,” while challenging our opposition view as short-sighted and failing to address the future of our sportfishing community. I’d counter that those license proponents are so blinded by an ideological quest to implement a license system that they’re willing to ignore the very basic facts – the future of our sportfishing community and the marine fisheries division of the DEC now hangs precariously in the balance because of how the marine funding is being used.<br /><br />What kind of future does our DEC have when all salaries in the marine division are paid for by a saltwater fishing license? If license sales are off, will there be firings and salary freezes, or will fees be raised? When staffers retire with full benefits, will fees be increased to hire new employees? By using the license to generate marine funding to pay for salaries exclusively, our governor has ensured that license fees will increase dramatically in the next 5 to 10 years, which is fiscally irresponsible. The rug was pulled out from under the feet of the saltwater angling community, and DEC staff is now being held virtually at ransom while the license proponents shrug their shoulders and smirk.<br /><br />USFWS says New York ranks ninth overall among U.S. coastal states in total retail spending in saltwater sportfishing, with over $373 million in annual tackles sales. Recreational fishing brings in tens of millions in tax dollars, and a 10% excise tax on all fishing related equipment is already paid by the consumer from the federal side. While we all understand the fiscal problems facing our state, the marine license was co-opted as a funding source, when a simple angler registry was all that was actually required. Before asking saltwater anglers to pay a second time, the state and federal government should be reinvesting tax dollars into maintaining recreational fishing infrastructure. Saltwater fishing generates a lot of income for the government – simple economics mandates that governments reinvest in those programs which generate a return.<br /><br />So-called ‘sin taxes’ have a direct negative impact on consumer spending, which is exactly what we’re seeing in our recreational fishing community. Take for example Governor Paterson’s proposal to include a $1.60 per-pack increase in the state’s cigarette tax. Budget Director Robert Megna told the NY Daily News that "Increasing the price hopefully gets people to stop using the products," while adding "An added benefit to that is we raise revenue." When the Governor previously detailed plans to implement a 10% price hike on soda tax, it was a stated effort to raise needed funds while simultaneously cutting soda consumption, which New York City Health Department Cathy spokesperson Nonas explained "If the consumer sees the price difference when they're about ready to buy the product, we do see a reduction in consumption.”<br /><br />Again, it’s Economy 101 – implement a fee, participation drops. And in terms of our recreational fishing industry and the economics of fishing in New York, we need all the business we can get. Hanging the “free fishing” sign at our bridges and ferry terminals can help put more money into state coffers by bringing in more coastal visitors and offering new outdoor opportunities, and in turn it will increase the number of fishermen on our waters. Is that bad? Perhaps some would believe so. Personally, I can’t help but think that some of the biggest proponents of a saltwater fishing license - including some well-funded conservation groups – would prefer to protect the fish over the rights of fishermen and therefore have another agenda in promoting a saltwater user fee. The most vocal pro fishing license arguments typically come from those who would like to see fewer fishermen on the water, maybe to protect the fish or perhaps more selfishly to keep the resource to themselves while forcing those less than fortune anglers out of the sport.<br /><br />NMFS has failed to meet their requirements under the law; the patchwork of registry programs is not being used as intended, and the bureaucratic push for state funding diversions has apparently trumped the need for a comprehensive data collection program in the recreational sector. A system first meant to count the number of saltwater anglers in America and integrate a contact list to help improve data collection has been co-opted by bureaucrats and ideologues, and once again the New York angler is the one being punished. Albany needs to do the right thing – repeal the law, implement a state angler registry as Maine has done and New Jersey legislation is poised to do, and let’s focus on improving the data collection in New York coastal waters for the benefit of New York’s coastal fishermen. </div>HutchJrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00750880100084209954noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1270143666144758341.post-6546827474383330142010-06-26T11:59:00.000-07:002010-06-26T12:08:32.553-07:00FISHING IS MOST CERTAINLY AN INALIENABLE RIGHT<p style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt" class="MsoNormal" align="justify"><span style="font-family:georgia;"><em>“Fishing is a privilege, not a right.”</em> </span></p><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:georgia;">Wrong. Fishing is a right, protected under thousand-year old law, upheld by the Constitution of the United States. </span></div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:georgia;">While it’s true that there is no constitutionally protected Freedom To Fish Amendment in either the US Supreme Court or in my own home ‘states’ of New York or New Jersey, there have been attempts to create such legislation on both the federal and state sides. Here in New York, Freedom to Fish legislation passed the Senate in 2003 in the form of Senate Bill 5381, but it stalled in the Environmental Conservation committee in the form of Assembly Bill 7299, which is where it’s stayed ever since. </span></div><span style="font-family:georgia;"><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Many environmental groups openly oppose Freedom To Fish legislation, particularly the State Environmental Resource Center or SERC, a project of the Defenders of Wildlife and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). At </span><a href="http://www.serconline.org/freedomFish.html"><span style="font-family:georgia;">SERC’s website</span></a><span style="font-family:georgia;"> you’ll learn that these leading preservationist groups argue against the basic language of Freedom to Fish acts because it prohibits states from closing waters to fishing unless “<em>there is a clear indication that recreational fishing is the cause of a specific conservation problem</em>.” </span></div><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">The Defenders of Wildlife and NRDC maintain that if passed, Freedom to Fish legislation “<em>would effectively end the ability of states to create marine reserves, which are an important conservation tool for the restoration and protection of ocean ecosystems</em>.” The group makes the argument that “<em>for many species, recreational fishing is the primary source of fishing mortality, and catch-and-release practices are often not effective</em>” management compromises. </span></div><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">In other words, granting fishermen exclusive rights to catch fish would make it impossible for these groups to create legislation banning public access to public waters. Other national organizations coming out in vocal and adamant opposition to Freedom To Fish legislation include Environmental Defense and the Ocean Conservancy, organizations which not only support no-access marine parks but also publicly support a management scheme known as ‘catch shares’ which further privatize our nation’s fisheries by granting exclusive access to the resource to certain groups and/or individuals. </span></div><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">While fishermen don’t have their own amendment to hang their waders on, what we do have is a public trust doctrine, a Roman era principle that says that certain natural resources are to be preserved for public use and that the government is required to maintain it for the public’s reasonable use. When the Emperor Justinian first held around 500 AD that the seashore not be appropriated for private use but was open for all, he was setting a precedent to be memorialized by the King of England some 700 years letter when the Magna Carta ruled that fishing traps must be removed from public waters in order to allow the public access to the fish. </span></div><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">English law being the foundation of our nation, in 1842, the Supreme Court ruled that the Magna Carta was the ultimate rule determining who owned the country’s fish and wildlife, saying that King Charles II did not have authority to give away the “dominion and property” of lands in colonial America, and stated that the American Revolution rewarded the American people with public trust responsibilities for fish and wildlife except for rights specified in the U.S. Constitution. </span></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:georgia;"></span> </div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:georgia;"></span> </div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:georgia;">Just 50 years after that, the Supreme Court would again make an important ruling in Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, upholding the public trust doctrine again by ruling that the state of Illinois was in violation of the Constitution when it attempted to divest the State of the control and management of state waters, writing “<em>It is a title held in trust for the people of the state, that they may enjoy the navigation of the waters, carry on commerce over them, and have liberty of fishing therein, freed from the obstruction or interference of private parties</em>.” </span></div><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Fishing is not a privilege, nor is access to our public waterways and the resources themselves privileges – these are instead inalienable rights granted to man more than 1,500 years ago, and upheld for over a century by the U.S. Supreme Court. Any individual who claims that fishing is not a right would be contradicting recognized legal opinion, and any organization which would support the denial of access to public resources is in turn in violation of America’s constitutionally guaranteed, Supreme Court upheld right to fish. </span></div><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">State and federally recognized Freedom to Fish legislation would be nice, but thankfully the saltwater anglers of America have the Magna Carta, the public trust doctrine, the U.S. Constitution, more than 300 years of precedence in this country, and the Recreational Fishing Alliance standing firmly on a nation’s right to fish!</span> </span></div>HutchJrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00750880100084209954noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1270143666144758341.post-51218849721331989742010-06-06T12:22:00.000-07:002010-06-07T06:38:28.206-07:00Hello DC, Is There Anyone Home?<div align="justify">It's sad to watch the liberal elite come completely unglued under pressure. Most talk a good game about peace & love & impartiality, but when confronted with actual challenge, the far left is wrapped far too tightly in their own blanket of self-righteousness to mete out any true change, reverting instead to temper tantrums and petty theatrics. Pecksniffian weasels, the whole lot of ‘em!<br /><br />Pecksmith is a character from a Dickens story, an architect who never designed or built anything, going on to become one of the biggest hypocrites in fiction history. Dickens himself compared Pecksniff to a signpost which is always telling the way to a place, but never goes there itself. Same ol’ sanctimonious “DO as I say, NOT as I do” hogwash we’ve been seeing from legislators from both sides of the aisle, but it seems to permeate most through the liberal left of the private sector today.<br /><br />I’m no fan of the past president mind you, in fact I only voted for him the first time around (I believe Pecksmith is Gore’s middle name). But our latest commander in chief is certainly not making any friends in my industry right now, as his administration has run roughshod over the rights of both fishermen and their accompanying industry since taking control of the White House. If not by his own hand, those he has selected to do his bidding have arrived in our nation's capitol carrying a helluva lot of ideological baggage.<br /><br />NOAA Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco, longtime environmental champion is the recipient of a hundred-thousand dollar plus fellowship from the Sun Oil Company founded Pew Charitable Trusts, and through her work at the Pew-funded Environmental Defense Fund helped author a study praising ‘catch shares’ as the panacea for the ills plaguing our global fisheries. On April 19, 2010, the day before the BP’s Deepwater Horizon blew up, killing 11 people and dumping millions of gallons of crude oil (and counting) into our marine ecosystem, the Huffington Post ran an interview with Dr. Lubchenco which covered a series of topics, including the NOAA chief's fondness for no-take marine reserves, privatization schemes, climate change and the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force. When asked by the interviewer her biggest concern for our oceans, Dr. Lubchenco responded "At the global scale, probably the one thing currently having the most impact is overfishing and destructive fishing gear."<br /><br />Just 44 days later, the Huffington Post ran another story about ‘Blowout Jane’ in which the President’s appointment to lead scientist at NOAA refused to contradict BP CEO Tony Hayward's statement that "the oil is on the surface" and "there aren't any plumes." The liberal news website and aggregated blog founded by Arianna Huffington reported that Scientists aboard NOAA and academic research vessels have been reporting for weeks on the presence of oil suspended in the water column, claiming that lab results from a previously secret NOAA research mission have been analyzed and results not publicized.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/02/noaa-director-toes-bp-lin_n_598461.html">Click here to read the article</a> in its entirety, but members of the scientific community invited on NOAA vessels are apparently under gag order at the time, as Blowout Jane uses terms like “circumstantial" and “anomalies” to explain away reports of subsurface oil plumes in the Gulf. You have to wonder if the good doctor still thinks that fishermen are the biggest plague to our ocean environment. Her enviro friends at the big Pew-funded groups like Nature Conservancy have suddenly found themselves under a great deal of fire for being business partners with oil companies like BP. The Washington Post recently reported that Nature Conservancy specifically had given BP a “seat on its International Leadership Council and has accepted nearly $10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations over the years.”<br /><br />The Nature Conservancy recently contributed $350,000 to the Ocean Conservancy towards developing a partnership with various environmental groups and “specific stakeholder networks, both within the Administration and with a variety of stakeholders on the ground,” while promoting the “need for a federal marine spatial planning framework and supportive funding mechanisms.” This is another fancy way of saying they’re lobbying for legislation and pushing the Administration to divvy up ownership of the oceans, creating a series of ‘no take’ marine reserves, privatizing fisheries through Blowout Jane’s concept of ‘catch shares’ while working to a lot certain coastal zones for mineral extraction. <br /><br />Catch shares are essentially rights & privileges to fish. Only those who actually own shares of a particular stock are allowed to harvest fish, and the owners of these individual ‘catch shares’ can trade or sell these rights as they see fit. There’s very little evidence to prove that this privatization scheme works, except that by its very nature it will reduce participation to only the very few, or those privileged to be granted ownership. Blowout Jane says “moving forward to implement more catch share programs is a high priority for me.” Of course, she wrote one of the definitive scientific papers while working with the Pew-funded Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). Nearly every recreational fisherman I've ever met has been vehemently opposed to catch shares, except for a few well-connected allies of the Ocean Conservancy and one Houston-based conservation organization I can think of.<br /><br />Dr. Lubchenco's buddy David Festa, vice-president of EDF said the right approach to getting tie-in from the fishing industry is to offer incentives, or what some might call bribes. "Make it easy, grease the skids with some money, and celebrate the successes," he was quoted as saying in the Science Insider. According to journalist Richard Gaines, Festa has been urging institutional investors to buy shares of New England groundfish, touting a projected 400 percent return on investment based on experiences with catch shares in other fisheries.<br /><br />Another environmental ally in this privatization movement is fisheries scientist Andy Rosenberg of the University of New Hampshire, who helped write the catch share manifesto with Lubchenco. It should be noted that Rosenberg is also Senior Vice President of MRAG Americas, a consulting firm that’s in the business of managing fishery observer programs and stands to profit greatly on monitored catch share plans.<br /><br />Last week, the President acknowledged that his administration was not aggressive enough making reforms in the Minerals Management Service (MMS), the arm of the Department of Interior which oversees oil drilling operations. In a press conference, the President noted the agency "had been plagued by corruption for years," while simultaneously carrying on a "scandalously close relationship" with the oil companies. It certainly appears these cozy relationships between members of the Administration and big oil companies has had a much more devastating impact on our oceans than that family who enjoys taking a home a few red snapper, porgies or fluke ever could.<br /><br />U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has promised an aggressive criminal investigation of BP and its contractors for their actions leading up to the massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill, already the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. He had damn well better look inside the Administration as Mr. Obama clearly stated, to see what links the oil industry had on the MMS, the Department of Interior, and by god the Department of Commerce as well which oversees NOAA.<br /><br />It seems pretty apparent to me that the environmental groups are not asleep at the wheel on this one. Instead, they’ve purposely focused all attention on fishermen and the “overfishing boogey man” because that’s been the butter of the bread. The Sun Oil Company family fortunes at Pew Charitable Trusts have filtered along through the entire environmental community, poisoning the environmental movement. Instead of pressuring this and every other administration on the lax standards and improprieties stemming from undue petroleum influence, the non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) have taken the easy route and put the preservationist crosshairs on the backs of fishermen.<br /><br />Yes, there most certainly is an environmental business community, and the do-gooders and preservationists who’ve been blindly leading a battle for the past decade to save the last fish may have inadvertently destroyed the entire coastal ecosystem at the very same time.<br /><br />Who the hell is in charge down there anyway? </div>HutchJrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00750880100084209954noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1270143666144758341.post-91393134217379507882010-05-09T06:29:00.000-07:002010-05-09T06:35:20.029-07:00RFA ASKS TACKLE INDUSTRY TO HELP - East Coast Anglers Raise $30K Alone<div align="justify">Several months ago, I sent a letter to many of the friends I made in the tackle industry during my time as Executive Editor of The Fisherman Magazine. The letter outlined efforts here at the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) to infuse a bit of sensibility into our federal fisheries law in the form of the aptly named Flexibility in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act. Since that letter was sent, a lot has happened to our industry, most of it not so good – though I’m happy to report there are some glimmers of hope.<br /><br />On October 5, 2009, NOAA Fisheries (NMFS) fired a shot directly at every recreational fisherman and business dependent on recreational fishing when they used their “emergency” rulemaking authority to abruptly close the recreational black sea bass fishery for more than six months! RFA answered the call and immediately began working on a legal challenge in opposition to this hostile abuse of discretion perpetrated by the federal fisheries service.<br /><br />Just one month after the closure, RFA and a coalition of allies in the for-hire sector filed suit in federal court arguing that the sea bass closure should be declared unlawful and set aside for being arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise not in accordance with law pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. The legal argument challenges NMFS with violating numerous provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act for closing a recreational fishery in reliance upon the fatally flawed Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) and for failing to adequately assess the impacts the Emergency Rule would have on business entities like tackle manufacturers, the for-hire industry and our local bait and tackle shops.<br /><br />The obvious question for the hundreds of thousands of East Coast anglers who target black sea bass each season is where was the emergency? NMFS scientists have said all along that black sea bass is a healthy stock – it’s not overfished, no overfishing is occurring, and the most recent stock assessment places the spawning stock biomass at 103% of their rebuilding target. Yet, they shut down a recreational fishery with little or no warning during the most important part of the season for many of our fishermen!<br /><br />The RFA legal team – which consists of two small-firm lawyers very familiar with the law and issues at hand – have presented a strong case against the U.S. Department of Justice lawyers defending NMFS as to why the closure should be overturned. Captains’ groups, tackle shops, fishing clubs, locally owned manufacturers, boat owners and individual saltwater anglers have provided the financial support which carried this legal case for the last seven months.<br /><br />Over the last seven months, over $27,000 has been raised for the RFA Legal Defense Fund for our efforts to overturn this closure and set a precedent to ensure that NMFS can’t make similar midseason closures in other recreational fisheries. </div><div align="center"><br /><em><strong>Your tackle shops have gone to bat for you in this effort – your customers who buy your products have footed most of the bill. The grassroots community is leading the charge.<br /><br />The key source of revenue in this fight to reopen the black sea bass fishery and to ensure that NMFS never again shuts down a healthy fishery in any region has been the local angler.<br /><br />We need YOU to step up and support this effort!</strong><br /></em></div><div align="justify"><br />After careful review of the Administrative Record filed by the government in this case (i.e., all the documents the Court will consider in making its decision) our legal team discovered that NMFS failed to submit the minutes of the December 2008 meeting of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council which are adverse to their defense of this case. The government would not consent to adding these materials to the Administrative Record so we filed a motion to supplement the record on April 23rd which we expect will be decided sometime after May 17th. Thirty days after we have a decision on this motion to supplement, we plan to file a motion for summary judgment and expect NMFS to file a cross motion for summary judgment after that. We expect this case will ultimately be decided on these cross motions for summary judgment which will require significant legal time and effort.<br /></div><div align="center"><br /><strong><em>NMFS is a federal agency out of control. Letter writing campaigns, Congressional hearings and fishing summits won’t stop this agency – this lawsuit can!</em></strong><br /></div><div align="justify"><br />Individual anglers and local business owners from New England down through the Outer Banks have already committed to this action, and we’ve taken up the task on our own of raising the first $30,000 towards fighting this federal indifference which now threatens our very livelihoods. Today it's a complete shutdown of a healthy black sea bass fishery, but what’s next? A closure of the fluke season in the middle of the summer? How about striped bass or king mackerel? Amberjack and red snapper again? Where will it end?<br /></div><div align="center"><br /><strong><em>This case isn’t just about sea bass; it’s about putting an end to NMFS wanton disregard for our recreational fishermen and the industry they support.<br /></em></strong></div><div align="justify"><br />The members of our local fishing communities have dug into their pockets to start this legal fight – but now we need your support to see this through to the end. The RFA has worked tirelessly over the last seven months fighting for a reasonable 2010 black sea bass season and thanks in part to our heavy lobbying and the wide shadow of our lawsuit, we’re happy to report that anglers will have a fairly robust 200-day season in 2010 instead of the scant two-month season that NMFS first recommended. This of course is tremendous news, but unless we can win this case, there’s nothing stopping NMFS from shutting us down again in this or other fisheries using highly suspect MRFSS data.<br /><br />Since leading the fishermen’s rally on our nation’s Capitol on February 24th (with 5,000 strong), our grassroots coalition of recreational fishermen has been getting stronger, each and every day. I hope you will do your part and write a check to the RFA Legal Defense Fund today and mail it to us at PO Box 3080, New Gretna, NJ 08224. Nothing is certain of course, but I truly believe that we can win this battle on behalf of the recreational fishing community. Our individual anglers can’t do it alone.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_flow&SESSION=uvcVvC_gc9twisnvgyveXhZVDVnzox82h7FVam0BvxubDbkH28-UT_AKQ5y&dispatch=5885d80a13c0db1f059ee17e99acf19529de9a5cb8b345b6900ea9ca1a1bd814">Click here to contribute to the RFA Legal Defense Fund using your credit card.</a> </div>HutchJrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00750880100084209954noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1270143666144758341.post-43909482274919085532010-04-27T17:48:00.000-07:002010-04-27T17:50:13.500-07:00<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" id="video" width="320" height="280" data="http://www.myfoxphilly.com/video/videoplayer.swf?dppversion=1448"><param value="http://www.myfoxphilly.com/video/videoplayer.swf?dppversion=1448" name="movie"/><param value="&skin=MP1ExternalAll-MFL.swf&embed=true&adSrc=http%3A%2F%2Fad%2Edoubleclick%2Enet%2Fadx%2Ftsg%2Ewtxf%2Fnews%2Fmetro%2Fdetail%3Bdcmt%3Dtext%2Fxml%3Bpos%3D%3Btile%3D2%3Bfname%3Dfeds%2Dcharging%2Dfor%2Dnj%2Dsaltwater%2Dfishing%3Bloc%3Dsite%3Bsz%3D320x240%3Bord%3D247558484791054400%3Frand%3D0%2E5720812329723454&flv=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emyfoxphilly%2Ecom%2Ffeeds%2FoutboundFeed%3FobfType%3DVIDEO%5FPLAYER%5FSMIL%5FFEED%26componentId%3D132239884&img=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia2%2Emyfoxphilly%2Ecom%2F%2Fphoto%2F2010%2F04%2F27%2Ffishy%5Ftmb0000%5F20100427181053%5F640%5F480%2EJPG&story=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emyfoxphilly%2Ecom%2Fdpp%2Fnews%2Flocal%5Fnews%2Ffeds%2Dcharging%2Dfor%2Dnj%2Dsaltwater%2Dfishing" name="FlashVars"/><param value="all" name="allowNetworking"/><param value="always" name="allowScriptAccess"/></object>HutchJrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00750880100084209954noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1270143666144758341.post-76457843067435547532010-04-21T07:35:00.000-07:002010-04-21T07:39:12.794-07:00Who Supports the Free Saltwater Registry in Cape May County?<div align="justify">Open Letter From RFA’s Managing Director to Cape May County Herald<br /><br />The Cape May County Herald seems to be missing the boat a bit on reporting back to readers about the federal requirements for a saltwater registry (<a href="http://www.capemaycountyherald.com/article/61045-fishing+line+registry+still+hot+topic">click here </a>to read Herald columnist Caroline Miller’s April 1 opinion.) </div><div align="justify"><br />Here are the facts. Federal law signed by President Bush in 2007 requires that the Secretary of Commerce establish and implement a regionally based registry program for recreational fishermen in each of the eight fishery management regions. The program, which shall not require a fee before January 1, 2011, shall provide for the registration - including identification and contact information - of individuals who engage in recreational fishing in state coastal waters when fishing for anadromous species such as striped bass, shad and river herring, or when fishing out beyond the three-mile limit in federal waters. </div><div align="justify"><br />New Jersey residents and non-residents alike who will be fishing in coastal waters this season and will “fish for or are likely to catch anadromous species in tidal and salt waters,” will need to first visit <a href="http://www.countmyfish.noaa.gov/" target="_blank">http://www.countmyfish.noaa.gov/</a> or call 888-674-7411 to register with the federal government, free of charge. This information is available at most every tackle shop in Cape May County, including those I recently visited including Jim’s Bait and Tackle, Hand’s Too Bait and Tackle, Utsch’s Bait and Tackle and No Bones Bait and Tackle. </div><div align="justify"><br />For the record, each one of these Cape May County bait and tackle shops is opposed to a saltwater fishing license, and has officially signed on to support efforts to ensure that a saltwater registry is established by the state of New Jersey as of 2011, and that it’s kept free for all users. </div><div align="justify"><br />Since 1996, the Recreational Fishing Alliance has represented saltwater anglers and the recreational fishing industry on marine fisheries issues across the country. Based in southern New Jersey for over 14 years, the RFA boasts a strong 10,000-member chapter in the Garden State, with our RFA-NJ Board of Directors comprised of more than a dozen individual saltwater anglers and New Jersey marine business owners, including top local captains. The RFA and its members in New Jersey support a free saltwater registry. </div><div align="justify"><br />The Marine Trades Association of New Jersey (MTA/NJ) is a non-profit trade organization dedicated to promoting and protecting the recreational marine industry and waterways in the State of New Jersey. MTA/NJ is the watchdog for the state’s vast marine industry and is comprised of over 330 marine related businesses. The MTA/NJ serves as the voice of the recreational boater throughout New Jersey. MTA/NJ supports a free saltwater registry. </div><div align="justify"><br />The United Boatmen is an organization in New Jersey which has represented the interests and rights of party and charter boat operators for over 30 years. United Boatmen supports a free saltwater registry. </div><div align="justify"><br />Surfcasters, boaters, tackle shops, party and charter boat captains, marina owners, fishing magazine publishers, and livery operators up and down the coast of New Jersey are supporting free registry legislation in New Jersey and have pledged their support of a saltwater registry, either through MTA/NJ, United Boatmen, RFA-NJ, or by signing on to a pledge form now being circulated throughout the New Jersey fishing community. Take marine business professionals like Rick Traber for example, owner of Pier 47 Marine in Wildwood and Board President of the MTA/NJ. Mr. Traber believes strongly that his summertime boat rental business would take a serious hit if customers learned that in addition to the boat cost and fuel, they’d also have to ask everyone in the family to pay a fee in order to fish.</div><div align="justify"><br />You can also ask Ernie Utsch, III about what would happen when the casual fisherman and his family down for the weekend learn that in addition to bait, tackle and a couple of new rod & reel outfits, dad would have to plunk down cash for a saltwater user fee at Utsch’s Marina. Same can be said if you talk to Jim Wallace at Jim’s, Nick at Hand’s Too, or Capt. Fred up at No Bones in Wildwood. </div><div align="justify"><br />Recognizing that the vast majority of business owners in New Jersey do not want their loyal customers charged by bureaucrats in Trenton for the right to access a public coastal resource, Cape May County legislators Sen. Jeff Van Drew, Assemblyman Nelson Albano and Assemblyman Matt Milam have spent the past two years spearheading legislation in New Jersey to both satisfy the registry requirements mandated by the federal fisheries service, along with the needs and interests of their local constituents. Assembly Bill #823 requiring the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) passed unanimously out of Committee and was approved overwhelming (54-16) on the floor of the Assembly last month. </div><div align="justify"><br />The fishing & boating community in New Jersey offers sincere thanks to Assemblyman Albano and Assemblyman Milam (in addition fellow Primary Assembly Sponsors John Amodeo, Celeste Riley and Paul Moriarty). </div><div align="justify"><br />The RFA would also like to thank Sen. Van Drew for working hard to pass his Senate version of the free registry legislation (S1122) recognizing that New Jersey’s coastal fishing community needs this registry legislation passed in order to avoid the potential of paying a federal fee in 2011.</div><div align="justify"><br />The fishing, boating and conservation community also wishes to thank Sen. Van Drew and Assemblyman Albano for proposing forward-thinking new legislation to amend the New Jersey State lottery to authorize creation of a new lottery to fund conservation programs in the state. SCR93 and ACR119 would let the New Jersey voters decide upon an amendment to the Constitution of the State of New Jersey towards dedicating funding to programs for the conservation of fish and wildlife, marine fisheries, agriculture and endangered or nongame species in the state. </div><div align="justify"><br />There are presently a handful of individuals on a campaign to disparage the excellent work of our Cape May legislators from District 1, claiming erroneously to represent the local business concerns of Cape May County. Their tactics, which include anonymous comments in local newspapers and derogatory online message board postings, coupled with venomous email exchanges between coastal advocates and local legislators, has been disheartening to say the least. </div><div align="justify"><br />While there are those who continue to spread false information about the registry legislation in hopes of forcing a full-blown saltwater license upon the boating and fishing public in New Jersey, it’s time for the majority to be heard – the ‘free fishing’ sign is hung along the Jersey Shore, and that is where our resident anglers and non-resident coastal visitors demand it stay!</div><div align="justify"><br />Cape May voters spoke in November – they put the current slate of District 1 legislators in place. The team of Van Drew, Albano and Milam has proven up to their task to represent the coastal community, and on behalf of the estimated 340,000 resident saltwater anglers in New Jersey and 155,000 non-resident visiting fishermen, who together spend an estimate $643 million on saltwater tackle sales alone in the state (source - US Fish & Wildlife Service 2006 survey), I would personally like to thank you gentlemen for going to Trenton and standing up for your constituents back at home in Cape May County!<br /><br />Jim Hutchinson, Jr.<br />Managing Director, Recreational Fishing Alliance<br />New Gretna, NJ<br /><br /><em>(Our thanks to those business owners who responded to RFA-NJ member pledge form which was first circulated at the RFA-NJ booth at the Salt Water Expo in Somerset, NJ. New Jersey area business owners who have signed the pledge so far include Bob’s Bait Board, the Gambler, the Jamaica, Bimini Bay Outfitters, New Jersey Angler Magazine, Coast Boating School, Shore Catch Charters, Reel Seat Bait & tackle, Full Ahead Sportfishing, E-Z Outrodder LLC, AquaSkinz, Coastal Fish Replicas, OB Fish Company, Avet Reels, Reel Fun Sportfishing, Industrial Welding Supply, Ole Barney Charters, Karen Ann Charters, Chum Bucket Bait & Tackle, Fish the Drop Off, Legal Limit Charters, Oceanside Bait & Tackle, Brielle Bait & Tackle, Jim’s Bait & Tackle, Chazin’ Tale Charters, Hand’s Too Bait & Tackle, Utsch’s Marina, Pier 47 Marina, and No Bones Bait & Tackle. To sign on to support the free saltwater registry legislation and to ask the Senate to support S1122, email me at </em><a href="mailto:jhutchinson@joinrfa.org"><em>jhutchinson@joinrfa.org</em></a><em>).</em> </div>HutchJrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00750880100084209954noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1270143666144758341.post-36161127720809739822010-03-01T12:03:00.000-08:002010-03-01T12:04:06.049-08:00THOUSANDS RALLY IN DC FOR THEIR "RIGHT TO FISH"<br />Leading House Members Join Fishermen At US Capitol<br /><br />February 25, 2010 - Over 20 federal lawmakers joined several thousand fishermen from around the country next to the US Capitol yesterday in a three-hour rally supporting national fisheries reform. The first reports from journalists on the scene tabbed attendance at between 3,000 and 5,000 with fishermen standing elbow-to-elbow in Washington DC. The rally was historic in that it was the first time that members of both the recreational and commercial sector found common ground in a cause for reform. "An incredible success," said Jim Donofrio, Executive Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) and one of the key organizers of the historic rally. <br /><br />The rally drew a fairly equal mix of recreational and commercial fishermen from as far as away as Alaska and California in united opposition to the strict federal fishing requirements contained in the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). The nation's primary fishing law helped fishermen when it was enacted in 1976 by eliminating foreign fishing, but during reauthorizations in 1996 and 2006 new language has mandated rebuilding fish populations under arbitrary timetables resulting in the closure of many healthy and rebuilt fisheries. <br /><br />Carrying signs and banners with the message I Fish, I Vote and Reform Magnuson Now, most participants came by chartered bus from points up and down the down coast which let off at nearby Union Station. The RFA estimates that were about 40 chartered buses, some arriving as early as Tuesday afternoon, and a few were hounded by weather-related traffic problems in New York and New Jersey depositing attendees on the scene nearly an hour into the rally. "We have close to 4,000 fishermen. This was better and bigger than we ever thought," Donofrio said.<br /><br />Those who arrived after the noon start missed an impassioned opening speech by Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), lead sponsor of Senate Bill 1255, the Flexibility in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act. "Shame on the Magnuson-Stevens Act," Schumer said MSA as currently written denies fishermen access to healthy and rebuilding stocks due to arbitrary, 'time-specific' deadlines. "We need flexibility to be able to thrive," Schumer promised the crowd, while charging federal bureaucrats with failure to recognize the impact of their decisions on working families. "We need to start caring about our fishermen as much as our fish.<br /><br />The bipartisan unity that could be seen in the crowd between commercial and recreational fishermen was well-reflected on stage, as one by one democrats and republicans took to the microphone in support of their coastal constituents. Sen. George LeMieux (R-FL) encouraged fishermen to visit their legislators, telling them "we've got to change this law." LeMieux said the federal fisheries law was "keeping you out of work, it's keeping the tackle shop out of work, it's keeping the hotel out of work, it's keeping the restaurants out of work."<br /><br />Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), a longtime champion of coastal issues with a proven track record in protecting the ocean environment has been a champion of the Flexibility in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act legislation in the House (HR 1584), and praised the fishermen for coming to DC with their concerns. "There is nothing more important than grass roots," Pallone told demonstrators. "The science is broken and what they are doing is wrong," Pallone said of how catch limits are determined. "We need flexibility ... that's the only way we're going to make some changes around here."<br /><br />"You can't brush aside basic science," said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), co-sponsor of the Schumer Bill. "When did flexibility become an ugly word," said Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL), adding "we're not going to stand for it. We'll be there and we'll get it done." "This is about our right to fish. The bureaucrats have to get their heads out of wherever it is they are," said Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) to cheers from the crowd.<br /><br />On a day when legislators were busy with hearings on the banking industry and the Toyota recall, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) found time to address his fishing constituents and said he wished the banking regulators treated the financial industry "as harshly" as fishery regulators have treated the fishing industry.<br /><br />Many legislators spoke about U.S. regulations resulting in more than 80 percent of the fish Americans eat being imported from countries like China and Russia, which Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina said "If you're gone, the Chinese own the fish market in North America. We can't let that happen."<br /><br />"We're going to work it hard. That's 10,000 miles of fish beds closed; it will put hundreds of commercial fishermen out of a job. I'm hoping these guys (the anglers) can at least get members of Congress to take a look at another option," said Rep. Henry Brown (R-SC). <br /><br />"Our fishing communities have taken a hit, which is why it is so heartening that so many have still taken the time and resources to come march on Washington in support of their industry," said Rep. John Tierney (D-MA), sentiments shared by fellow coastal congressmen like Rep. John Adler (D-NJ), Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC), Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY), Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) and Rep. John Mica (R-FL), all members of Congress who spoke on stage yesterday.<br /><br />In a passionate speech directed at Gloucester fishermen, state Senator Bruce Tarr (R-MA) said he supported changes he called the salvation of fishermen in New England, flexibility modification which would allow more reasonable rebuilding timelines while still achieving conservation goals and sustained fishing communities." "We don't have a minute to spare we're losing commercial fishing boats, we're losing the ability to fish recreational, this makes all the sense in the world, it's not an unreasonable measure," Tarr said. <br /><br />Together with fellow state Rep. Ann-Margaret Ferrante (D-MA), the Massachusetts delegation stole the show by returning to the park at 2:30 Wednesday with Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) the newest member of the Senate. Brown, Tarr and Ferrante led Massachusetts fishermen off to a meeting in the Senate, while North Carolina Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Kay Hagan (D-NC) took their constituents off to gain more support for Flexibility. <br /><br />HR 1584 picked up three additional co-sponsors this week due in large part to the February 24th rally (29 total co-sponsors), while S 1255 gained another three supporters (for a total of 5). The lobbying effort in DC by RFA staffers in support of these vitally important coastal bills will continue. <br /><br /> If you have photos to share from the fishermen's rally in Washington DC on February 24th, be sure to <a href="http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=53514399518" target="_blank">visit the RFA Facebook page </a>and connect with RFA members nationwide.HutchJrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00750880100084209954noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1270143666144758341.post-72376843585847059932010-01-20T13:03:00.000-08:002010-01-20T13:05:21.109-08:00Golden Jubilee CelebrationOn June 17, 18 & 19, 1906, Philadelphia played host to a celebration of the first 50 years of the Republican Party. Being that the first convention of the Republican Party was held in Pittsburgh, PA on February 22, 1856, the Golden Jubilee Celebration of the Republican Party in Philadelphia spotlighted the Grand Old Party’s first half-century and “the reminiscences of men who were present at the birth of the party in 1856.” Included in the three-day event was a general meeting at which historical addresses were made, along with “the annual convention of the National League of Republican Clubs; the Annual Convention of the Pennsylvania State League; a public meeting at the Academy of Music; a great street parade of Republican clubs and various excursions and entertainments for the visiting delegates.”<br /><br />A full record of the proceedings and “stenographic report of the addresses” was compiled by author Addison Burk, with a 226-page volume published in 1906, accurately piecing together the many fragmentary contributions to the history of the Republican party which were detailed during the event. Burk’s complete Golden Jubilee Celebration of the Republican Party in turn presented a comprehensive picture of the GOP’s golden anniversary, which first officially nominated J. C. Fremont in 1856 but found its first presidential success story soon after with the election of Abraham Lincoln as commander-in-chief four short years later. <br /><br />It is said the Republican Party was founded in 1854 in Ripon, Wisconsin by anti-slavery expansion activists and modernizers, while the first official party convention was said to take place on July 6, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan. Perhaps stoking the coals of debate, many of those Philadelphia attendees in 1906 actually recalled the earliest formation of the party as occurring in a small grocery store in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania in the years leading up to the 1856 convention in the city of Pittsburgh. At the gala three-day Golden Jubilee 50 years later, the shop’s owner, David Calhoun Herbst, was invited to address the Republican revelers, where he was introduced as “a man who was present at the birth of the Republican Party in Lafayette Hall, Pittsburgh.”<br /><br />Herbst gave what was later reported in local papers as an impassioned historical perspective of the Republican Party, leading off his speech by saying “On an occasion like this on the anniversary of the Grand Old Republican Party, it seems appropriate and pertinent to present a kind of family tree to show the inception and reasons for its birth.” Herbst then went into a historical synopsis of the first hundred years of American politics, beginning with the unanimous election of George Washington in the 1700s and leading up to the death in office of Whig candidate President William Henry Harrison in the mid 1800’s, which Herbst said “left the helm of state in the hands of untrusty John Tyler.” <br /><br />“Americans feeling keenly the loss of their loyal president, deemed it essential to gather their hosts and give battle again against the Free Trade Slave-holding Democracy” Herbst added, which he then explained had laid out the grounds for a new American movement. <br />“On a cold winter’s night a coterie of deep thinking men of all shades of politics, met at Herbst’s grocery store at the corner of Third and Cherry Alley, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, to formulate, if possible, a basis for a new political party upon which all political factions opposed to the free-trade pro-slavery Democracy, might unite for its overthrow.” According to Herbst, that winter was exceptionally cold, but he described “the cold blasts and heavy snow outside that little grocery did not chill the ardor of those inside. Besides, our debates got warm, especially when we sought a name for our new creation.”<br /><br />In a 1921 article in the Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine, it was said that all shades of political opinion were represented at those early rallies at the Herbst Grocery Store, with active participation from Whigs, Democrats, Abolitionists, Free Soilers, and Washingtonians. “Among them were a number who were active in politics” the magazine reported, adding “their object was to formulate a basis for a new political party upon which all the factions opposed to the pro-slavery Democracy.” <br /><br />“Our selection of a name was a thorn in the flesh and threatened several times to break up our gathering,” Herbst told those in attendance at the Golden Jubilee. “One night, it was necessary to lock all in, and that night Captain Charles Naylor stood up on the counter of the grocery, with a wave of the hand said ‘peace be still’.” Naylor was a lawyer elected to the 26th Congress as a Whig, but he declined candidacy for renomination in 1840. Naylor had raised a company of volunteers known as the Philadelphia Rangers and served as captain in the Mexican-American War, settling back into law in Pittsburgh soon after.<br /><br />Herbst continued, “Struck by his attitude and remark we were amazed and hushed. He smilingly remarked: ‘that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet,’ and after a few words, he said, Spartan-like: ‘We have a great Republic as our nation, why not call our new party, Republican?” After Captain Naylor’s grand announcement, Herbst recalled the first moment of silence in the room as the name began to register in the minds of those in attendance. “And so it was, the word Republican went forth among all the people,” Herbst said at the Golden Jubilee, saying the first convention in Pittsburgh to follow in 1856 would be most logical, “Lafayette Hall was selected as an appropriate pace for the public christening of the new political child.”<br /><br />The words of my great-great-great-grandfather David Calhoun Herbst can be found on page 148 of the Golden Jubilee of the Republican Party of 1906 by Addison Burk, contributed by the New York Public Library and preserved electronically at the Internet Archive, a non-profit group which offers permanent access for researchers, historians, scholars, people with disabilities, and the general public to historical collections that exist in digital format. <br /><br />Read more at <a href="http://openlibrary.org/b/OL13516124M/Golden_jubilee_of_the_Republican_Party">http://openlibrary.org/b/OL13516124M/Golden_jubilee_of_the_Republican_Party</a>HutchJrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00750880100084209954noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1270143666144758341.post-64403056669172112202010-01-10T08:14:00.000-08:002010-01-10T08:17:26.882-08:00United We Fish - Washington DC 02/24/2010<em>If not now, when?</em><br /><br />Born in the late 60’s, I’m part of a broad-based American generation often referred to as Generation X. We are the 30- and 40-somethings who entered the world after the Baby Boom era during a 20-year span between 1961 and 1981, sometimes referred to as the “baby bust” generation.<br /><br />Raised during a veritable spiritual awakening in the 60’s and 70’s, I grew up in the years of, and the decade following, the Vietnam War, my mind’s eye forever etched with the images of those Baby Boomers before who burned their bras and draft cards, rallied against the war, and marched on the National Mall in a call for peace, civil rights, and the end of world oppression and apartheid.<br /><br />From the time that I was a teenager through my idealistic 20’s, I’d often wondered aloud about the 60’s and 70’s youth rebellion, and whether I would’ve chosen to have become a part of the movement. A disciple of classic rock and the words and lyrics that energized a cultural era, I’d often lay in bed at night with the headphones on and the turntable skipping across a well-worn Dylan or Doors album, pondering the very thought of organized protest and my own place in the democratic process.<br /><br />Now a married man of 42, with two kids at home, bills to pay and the vinyl records stowed away in boxes (those headphones replaced by earbuds) I still occasionally wonder if any national or global conflict would ever so consume me with anger and frustration, enough that my stomach burned with passion and my heart brimming resolve. Could my own government’s repressive actions or gross inaction ever lead me to throw open the doors of dissent, to scream from the pulpit and take to the streets in formal protest? In my lifetime, could I ever find a common cause with like-minded individuals across the generational divide, to unite as one and rally on the steps of the Capitol in a grand celebration of the First Amendment’s promise to allow any and all Americans “peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”<br /><br />Today, my fellow saltwater angler, I offer you a personal invitation to democracy and dissent. Our federal government has ignored our plight, while closed-door preservationists have shut us out of the conservation equation, and in turn the entire democratic process. Our time to act has come, and our reason to come together is clear - <em>united we fish</em>.<br /><br />Many of our national sportfishing associations, conservation groups, multi-national tackle corporations and industry trade alliances have buttoned-up in the face of the preservationist movement, convening privately in their corporate boardrooms while battening down the hatches during our economic disaster, preferring instead to try to ride out the storm of anti-fishing pressure from non-governmental environmental organizations. Left behind to carry the flag and rally the troops are the individual anglers, shop owners, boat dealers, dockmasters, captains and ‘mom & pop’ businesses who’ve been scratching and clawing at every last scrap of access to a once public resource.<br /><br />We are the stakeholders in the coastal communities, we are the fishermen who understand most about the future sustainability of our fisheries, and we are the people who make up the human resource portion of our marine fisheries.<br /><br />For my generation, this may be our only opportunity ever “peaceably to assemble,” to stand together before Congress in an organized, respectful protest for our right to free and open access. For our coastal fishing communities nationwide, it is most certainly feels like the last chance we have to preserve more 300 years of heritage and tradition.<br /><br />On February 24th, 2010, the saltwater fishermen of America will stand united on the steps of the Capitol in a call on legislators to recognize our right to fish. At risk is public access for more than 12 million saltwater anglers, and the lifeblood of our coastal communities that rely on a healthy, sustained fishery. For the first time in American history, the nation’s saltwater fishermen – both commercial and recreational alike – will stand together as one upon the grand international stage of freedom, Area Number One between Constitution and Independence Avenues in Washington DC.<br /><br />From Generation X, to the Baby Boomers and our parents and grandparents from the Greatest Generation, I hope you will all join me for this historic event in defense of our right to fish. Once-in-a-lifetime doesn’t come around again.HutchJrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00750880100084209954noreply@blogger.com0