Are we with or against

[TIMMY 666]

Its probably true Shane 78. For a lot of poular species at least the recreational take equals or surpasses the commercial take.

The amount of seafood the pros keep may be less than what rec fishers keep, I don't know, but the amount of marine life the pros kill and damage far exceeds that of us recs. Prawn trawlers for example, their nets catch nearly everything in their path, prawns, all sorts of fish, turtles, rays, etc and they only keep the prawns, the rest is thrown back dead, wasted.

I won't align with the pros.

[Genomic]

Funny thing is, many pro fishermen's attitude to rec fishermen is exactly the same as some of the most extreme greens: they'd be all too happy if rec fishing were banned or at least severely restricted in Moreton Bay.

Politics does make strange bedfellows though, just have to be real careful who you climb into bed with (to continue the metaphor; you don't want to be having to gnaw the old arm off in the morning rather than wake your sleeping partner ;-).)

[billfisher]

A lot of the conflict between the rec and pro sectors can only be put down to greed, ie each wanting the resource for themselves. Senator Boswell observed that the GBRMP has acheived something never thought possible - uniting both pro and rec fishermen!

[fishingjew]

It,s old but? The tatics haven,t changed.


SPORT FISHERMEN IGNORED WRITING ON THE WALL FOR TOO LONG

In a recent article in the journal, “Science”, an ever popular and receptive forum to stage advocacy positions, a recent “study” suggested that recreational fishermen are responsible for harvesting more fish than originally thought and, worse yet, were responsible for harvesting more fish of concern because of dwindling stocks to an alarming degree.

This might come as a surprise to any recreational fishermen or group representing recreational fishermen if they have had their heads buried in the sand for the last several years.

For those who are experienced observers of the strategies of the anti-use non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the foundations that fund their campaigns, this was the long anticipated next move in the pincher effect of controlling the world’s marine resources by these groups, by their followers in the various regulatory bodies, and by the all too easily manipulated voting public.

One has to understand that many of these groups and foundation truly believe that they are betters keepers of the planet’s resources than anyone else. Many in fact believe that man is nothing more than a pestilence on the planet and all of the flora and fauna take precedent over man. The latter is a condition they are determined to make that happen.

Think back a few years and history will portend the future. First, the anti-use advocates had to establish the fact that our oceans, rivers and lakes were in trouble from a resource standpoint. That did not take too much effort. Then they had to establish health concerns with trace levels of PCBs’, mercury and the like. (Remember, that the ability to even detect some of the elements was unavailable up until recently. And, they never bother to clarify that because one can measure something it may not necessarily be bad. It is the “dose” of any chemical even oxygen that determines toxicity.) Next they had to define a villain. The poster boy for the villain became the commercial fisherman.

As we have always reported, any advocacy issues has to have some basis of fact, albeit old, obsolete, insignificant, or not even a real threat to point to in order to establish the perception of credibility.

Here are the facts. Our oceans have been abused. Commercial fishing fleets are too many, chasing too few fish. The definitions of “depleted” and “over fished” and “fully utilized” are confusing and almost misleading to the average person. Our rivers and lakes have been used as toilets by every one from business to agriculture to our cities and suburbs.

So, indeed, there is some basis in fact for the NGO allegations. But their next steps were all too clever in their design and strategy. First, they used recreational fisherman as a tool to go after the commercial fisherman. The recreational folks were all too eager to help. They saw more fish for them to catch. By using stereotypical advocacy campaigns, funded heavily from sympathetic “green” foundations, the case was made that our oceans were on the verge of collapse from a marine resource standpoint.

Perhaps one of the most effective and biggest “slam dunk” made by the coalition of environmental NGOs and recreational fishermen was the ballot initiative along the Gulf and South Atlantic states. In these states, the voting power of the millions of recreational fishermen and the sympathetic public, absolutely crushed the few thousand commercial fishermen fighting for the economic livelihoods. Florida, as an example, saw 72 percent of voters (not marine biologists nor fishery management agencies) make the determination by ballot that gill netting was no longer wanted.

Longlining in millions of square miles of ocean around Hawaii was eliminated because of questionable concerns about sea turtles, and in particular, about a species (the leatherback) that neither eats longline bait nor finds itself in lethal entanglements despite NGO rhetoric insinuating otherwise.

There were a few of us who tried to moderate the enthusiasm of the recreational groups and magazine editors by warning that this was the first step in the attempt to regulate them. Naturally, they scoffed. Even when told the strategy that would be used against them!

Now the stage is set. After years of promoting NGO claims against commercial fishermen, the prestigious publication “Science” is suggesting that perhaps the real cause of the marine resource decline is the recreational fishermen. Once that claim is made, the logical next step is the demand that these same recreational fishermen (and former allies against the commercial sector) must be controlled or stopped!

Interestingly in the “Science” study, the authors checkmated the natural response of many recreational “catch and release” fishermen by stating that such tactics still affects the health of the fish and must be counted as a kill.

Press about the “Science” study piled on other long-running NGO-instigated allegations about the “dangers” of eating fish because of the possible contamination by mercury, PCB, etc. This is the “health” card played by the environmental community so effective. Who could possibly object to efforts to halt the endangering of our children with poisonous seafood?

Ironically, those same press accounts contain comments from the commercial fishing groups supporting the study. Now, the shoe is on the other foot! Guess who might support this initiative?

The next move is to slowly close the pincher and begin restricting and controlling the recreational fishermen as has happened to the commercial groups.

Soon we will begin to see more and more “studies” revealing the amount of fish harvested by the recreational fisherman. Sport fishing’s former allies will feign surprise at the realization that, oh my goodness, the recreational toll on fish species is much more than thought and even more in some cases than those nasty commercial guys.

The new NGO campaign against recreational fishermen will find the same group who once were lionized by environmental groups as concerned champions of marine life being characterized as rich, spoiled fat guys with big, high dollar, gas guzzling boats, who enter tournaments where they can win hundreds of thousands of dollars by torturing a fish on the end of a line, and dragging it back to a dock to be weighed and have a picture taken with rod in hand and a cigar in the other only to have the fish is tossed into a dumpster (with pictures to support all of the above.) Voters will be a simple, very effective question: “Should the oceans be the exclusive playground for rich guys?” As predicted, the public will answer: “Of course not!”

The NGO campaign will reveal that more hooks are dragged behind recreational boats on a long weekend that behind all of the longline boats in a year! Irate calls will demand this wasteful, unregulated, greed-driven practice must be stopped.

Finally, after beating up the method of catch, the cruelty, the wasted resource, and the vast numbers of fish being killed by people in fancy boats, the environmental activists will once again play their health card portraying any and all fish taken by recreational fishermen as an unsafe food source that is endangering your children’s health because of some rich mans game.

In states where ballot initiatives are allowed, you will see the NGO list of demands against recreational fishing on the ballot. In other states, you will see it introduced via legislative action by the political water carriers of these groups. These groups will call for more NGO representation (the folks who love he planet) on marine resource management councils replacing the recreational and commercial representation (the environmental bad guys).

This is the typical “peel the onion” strategy that these groups use against hunting. Get one hunting group to do the dirty work for the anti-use NGO on another hunting group. After there is only one of two groups standing, the NGO takes them down.

I will bet you my next seafood meal that there will be factions within the recreational groups that will side with the anti-use NGOs because they think it will benefit them. I know many of the NGOs are betting on it!

Sorry did not realize billfisher had all ready put it up.

[billfisher]

Heres another article from the US. The long arm of the Pew Charitable Trust even reaches here. Recall that they were behind the "Empty Nets - Empty Oceans" missive on NSW fisheries:

In late 2006, "Fisheries Face Collapse by 2048!" was the headline read and heard around the world - at least in the world of Washington, DC. It just so happens that Congress was debating the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act at that precise moment. The media stories sited a study led by Dr. Boris Worm of Dalhousie University.

Dr. Worm, a regular recipient of of funding from Pew Charitable Trusts, working with SeaWeb, a Pew-funded public research group that specializes in media campaigns, worked on the message and the timing to get as much media coverage as possible. They were successful. Big media loves a crisis, and when you have the money and the manpower its easy to plant a good fish tale.

Dr. Worm's article was quickly labeled by top fisheries scientists and managers for what it really was - a Pew advocacy piece like much of his prior work funded by Pew. The kicker at the end of the piece calling for "No-Fishing marine reserves" (MPA's) as the cure was the final giveaway, a goal high on the agenda of most Pew-funded organizations! Worm's work in the past had been branded "invalid", "misleading" and "undermining the the trust placed in science." As it turns out this was a textbook study in disseminating misinformation disguised as science to a willing media with the express purpose of influencing Congressional debate. Such scare tactics have become the darling of the radical environmental movement.

The media firestorm was part of a broader, coordinated attack that included misleading ad campaigns aimed at smearing key politicians facing reelection. The targeted Members of Congress just happened to be those involved in crafting scientifically sound legislation that also recognized the needs of recreational fishjermen and industry. This campaign was led by another Pew-funded environmental group, the Marine Fish Conservation Network.

The Pew Charitable Trusts is the 800 Pound Gorilla of ocean issues. Created with funding from the Sun Oil Company and sitting on a $4.1 billion war chest, it is an organization that refuses to let reality get in the way of their agenda. In public documents their self-mandated mission is to "save" the oceans. Pew claims that their primary purpose "is to make grants to other organizations as well as direct planning and conducting projects and initiatives that carry out the organizations religious, charitable, scientific, literary and educational purposes." This proves that Pew grant recipients are carrying out the ideas and motivations of Pew.

The impact of such tactics is changing the direction of fisheries policy. True management and conservation is gradually being replaced by a call to stop all fishing through the use of paid-for science funneled to the media through Pew-financed conduits, and touted by Pew-funded environmental orrganizations. Much of their agenda is anti-fishing, even on well-managed, rebuilt or rebuilding fish stocks, to the point of being little more than a cleverly disguised attack on the publics access to the oceans. That attack includes targeting recreational fishermen like us.

Pew is a major grant provider to universities and professors in the marine sciences and the major provider of funds to environmental grouips that push the party line. Those groups include -

The National Environmental Trust
Oceana
Earthjustice Legal Defense
The New England Aquarium
The Public Interest Research Group
National Audubon Society
National Resources Defense Council
Sierra Club
Conservation Law Foundation
Marine Conservation Biology Institute
Marine Fish Conservation Network
Wildlife Conservation Society
Friends of the Earth
The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

Combined, these groups have received over $200 million dollars of Pew money and most have openly endorsed the implementation of of arbitrary no-fishing zones (MPA's) !

The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership is the most worrisome. It is attempting to become an umbrella group for recreational sportsman's organizations and has attracted the participation of some well-known recreational fishing organizations with the lure of Pew money. And when the going got tough during the Magnuson reauthorization, these recreational fishing groups ended up on the same page as the Pew-funded groups.

This is what Congressman Pombo, chair of the House Resources Committee had to say recently. "Throughout the long process to reauthorize the Magnuson Act, the RFA was consistently at the table, insisting on sound conservation policies based on the most accurate science. The RFA's goal was clear: a sustainable fishery so that this generation of recreational fishermen and following generations would have fish to catch. Most of the others engaged in this debate had other agendas or were totally missing in action. At the end of the 109th Congress it was clear to me that the RFA was the only player left insisting on protecting the future of recreational fishing. I will always be grateful to the RFA and respect their tenacity during what proved to be a difficult reauthorization."

Since the implementation of the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996, the management of US fisheries, while far from perfect, has become a model for the rest of the world. Yet Pew continues to use scare tactics to drive its agenda domestically while the most egregious fisheries problems can be found abroad. PEW'S AGENDA MAY SOUND LAUDABLE BUT THE REALITY IS THAT THEIR GOAL IS TO STOP ALL FISHING. Pew used the money of its well-heeled donors like a school-yard bully during the Magnuson debate and attacked those who stood in their way. Pew has seriously damaged the the ability of recreational fishermen to do what we love to do - GO FISHING.

[billfisher]

Here's more on Pew and marine parks:

It seems that an almost universal groundswell of support has developed spontaneously for Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) as the solution to problems besetting our oceans and the creatures living in them. It seems as well that much of the focus of the MPA movement is protection from fishing. A widely circulated "scientific consensus statement" by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) at the University of California at Santa Barbara basically concludes that MPAs and Marine Reserves are one of greatest developments of civilization since sliced bread. The statement, it explained, was the result of a two-and-a-half year effort by an international team of scientists. That effort included a research review and a joint meeting by the NCEAS scientists and other researchers on marine reserves convened by the Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea (COMPASS) in May of 1998. This sounds like the world of science at work the way it's supposed to work, with objective researchers reaching their own conclusions independently, then coming together behind a consensus position. But is it really?
COMPASS is funded by the Packard Foundation and SeaWeb is a COMPASS "partner." The chair of the COMPASS board of scientific experts received a Pew fellowship in 1992 and is also a member of the NCEAS international team of scientists that drafted the consensus statement. Six of the 15 scientists at the COMPASS meeting were Pew fellows, as were 25 of the 161 scientists who signed the statement. Marine reserves or MPAs were mentioned in the project descriptions, biographies, or bibliographies of 27 of the 58 Pew fellows named since 1996. One might easily conclude that they are strong supporters - if not promoters - of the concept. Few other researchers can maintain either the professional or public profiles that Pew fellows enjoy, thanks to the financial support - some $150,000 each - and connections the fellowships provide. (In addition to these Pew fellowships, the Pew Trusts and the Packard Foundation have spent more than $2 million in grants specifically promoting MPAs since 1998.)
But the Pew connections don't end there. In January of this year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) named the finalists for its MPA Advisory Committee. The 26-member committee includes representatives of a number of organizations funded by Pew and Packard, including:
• Environmental Defense - $3.4 million from Pew and $1.2 million from Packard in the last five years;
• Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) - $5.5 million from Pew;
• Center for Marine Conservation - $1.1 million from Pew, $1.6 million from Packard; and
• Conservation International - $400,000 from Packard.
A program officer from the Packard Foundation is also a MPA committee member, along with one commercial and one recreational fishing industry representative.
Groundswell? You bet. Spontaneous? Not hardly. Universal? How much of the universe can you influence with 10 or 20 million dollars, particularly the universe of marine and fisheries researchers, who have been dealing with declining research budgets for decades?