Hey Ted K: Take Notes!

[Chromaflage]

CONGRESS CONSIDERS EXPANSION OF SANCTUARY BOUNDARIES AND AUTHORITY

At a field hearing of the House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans held on November 3rd in Santa Barbara, the RFA submitted testimony by the National Marine Sanctuary Program to create fishing regulations, including marine reserves, in circumvention of existing agencies and laws to manage our nation's fisheries.

RFA's West Coast Regional Director Jim Martin lauded the efforts of the sanctuaries in preventing non-point source pollution and for their work on water quality issues, which rate as major concerns in public opinion polls, more so than concern about recreational fishing impacts. Martin pointed out that Congress amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act to govern the creation of any new marine protected area (a type of fishing regulation that limits or bans fishing in areas including areas within Sanctuary boundaries). Congress required that any new marine protected area adhere to the following standards: the proposals must be based on the best scientific information available; include quantifiable benchmarks to assess the conservation benefit of the closure; establish a timetable for review of regulations and monitoring their success in meeting the stated goals and objectives; and an assessment of the benefits and impacts of the closure. <emphasis added> None of these standards were in place during the creation of the Channel Islands marine reserves.

Martin urged the subcommittee to support an amendment to the National Marine Sanctuary Act (NMSA) Section 304(a)(5) to clarify the conflict between the regional fishery management councils and the promulgation of fishing regulations under the authority of the sanctuaries. The law is unclear, duplicative and the sanctuaries lack the scientific expertise and public stakeholder process to effectively make sound fishery management decisions.

The full text of RFA's testimony can be found at:
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/...ony_martin.pdf

[Gun Rod Bow]

Originally Posted by Chromaflage

Congress required that any new marine protected area adhere to the following standards: the proposals must be based on the best scientific information available; include quantifiable benchmarks to assess the conservation benefit of the closure; establish a timetable for review of regulations and monitoring their success in meeting the stated goals and objectives; and an assessment of the benefits and impacts of the closure.

You mean a Governor can't just make sanctuaries to secure his place in history?

[Salty Walty]

Common sense making a come back?

along the same lines;

This was a letter sent out by the Ocean Conservancy. More Marine Reserves will prevent/protect against oil spills? Donate Now?


Protect Ocean Species - Donate Now
The oiled sea birds struggling to survive last week’s oil spill in San Francisco Bay are hard to watch. Every living thing in the San Francisco Bay, and along the coast outside the Golden Gate Bridge, including sea birds, marine life, and people, will be affected for years to come.
You can help today by supporting Ocean Conservancy today.
We salute our friends and colleagues in the San Francisco Bay area who have taken the first, and critically important, actions. Without waiting to be asked, they immediately responded by taking on the difficult, heartbreaking work of rescuing oil-soaked marine wildlife and cleaning up this disastrous oil spill.
Ocean Conservancy, with your support, is taking the next step. We have worked for years to enact policies that prevent oil spills and that strengthen response capability. Prevention must continue to be the first priority in protecting ocean wildlife and their ecosystems from oil spills. We’ve also led the effort to create a network of marine reserves along California’s North Central Coast and in coastal areas around the U.S.—reserves that act as safety nets when accidents like this oil spill happen again. And they will happen again.
Until oil spills are a thing of the past, we need to create marine reserve areas to give marine wildlife a place to rest, grow, and thrive, so that species can survive assaults like the one that we are now witnessing in San Francisco Bay.
You can help. Please make a special gift today to help Ocean Conservancy designate more marine reserves, so that marine wildlife will have places to recover from disasters like the San Francisco Bay oil spill.
Please stand up for marine wildlife in all coastal areas by supporting Ocean Conservancy today. Thank you.
Sincerely,

Vikki N. Spruill
President and CEO
Ocean Conservancy

[Pilar]

Well, I have a dumb question. How does a marine reserve or protected area prevent an oil spill?

Seems to me any money spent would be best spent on making oil obsolete. Making a marine reserve does not prevent shipwrecks.

The sad thing is some people will read that and get out thier checkbook.

[jimsbuddy]

We have worked for years to enact policies that prevent oil spills and that strengthen response capability. Prevention must continue to be the first priority in protecting ocean wildlife and their ecosystems from oil spills.

Pilar... One of two things.... more goverment regulation (like we need that) or there are working with trojan to have better containment...

[Chromaflage]

They're using "oil spill prevention" as another tool to attempt to implement and expande marine reserves. I'm with you, Pilar. Not sure how marine reserves would prevent oil spills.

[tippet]

I believe some marine reserves restrict oil shipping routes, but obviously if they are in close proximity to a place like S.F. bay that doesnt help. I would support legislation requiring double hulls on tankers. For anybody interested in information on the impacts on marine life of the S.F. bay spill you should check out www.prbo.org

[tippet]

And Pilar, it seems their main point was that marine reserves can help promote large and healthy populations that are more likely to weather the negative effects of oil spills not that reserves will prevent oil spills.

[black magic]

This is shocking. Some of these supporters are actually the same ones sponsoring fishery closures in California.

2006–07 Friends of PRBO
Gifts received between January 1, 2006, and March 31, 2007, including gifts to our Lasting Legacy Campaign.

$1,000,000 and above
Anonymous

$500,000 to $999,999
The David and Lucile Packard Foundation

$100,000 to $499,999
Anonymous
California Coastal Conservancy
Resources Legacy Fund Foundation
$50,000 to $99,999
Anonymous
S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation
Bella Vista Foundation
DMARLOU Foundation
Kimball Foundation
Makray Family Foundation
Marin Community Foundation
Moore Family Foundation
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
Lynn and Nick Nicholas
Dennis and Carol Ann Rockey Fund
The San Francisco Foundation

[Pilar]

I think the bad effects are 100% on wildlife exposed to oil spills. A concentrated population of tree hugged and tofu fed protected fish would just make more floaters in a concentrated area.

Rockfish .. most species .. are pretty much gonna pick a rock and live there. A few species move around but most find a territory and spend their lives in one spot. Only during the first part of a rockfishes life does it move around as plankton. So a protected area would potentially produce more larval fish that would be available to settle on suitable habitat. If there was any good habitat, unfouled by oil spills to settle on.

Reserves are a good idea if they are picked with science as the determining factor. Monitoring the effects of sequestering areas is essential to prove or disprove the value of such reserves. Making statements like reserves will offset the effects of oil spills is pandering to mass stupidity and the rampant, sad intellectual incuriousity of the general public. Most people are only as well informed about the world as what they see on Faux news.

If they are so good for the fish why not talk about that. Why make up specious stuff about preventing oil drilling, spills, mineral extraction and you name it off the Oregon coast?

Lets try again. Would we even be talking about oil spills if the lunacy of commuting 30 miles or more to work every day was not the reality for most of us?

Why is the idea of an oil based economy such a sacred cow that no one can imagine anything different?

I'm kinda curious about that.

[retaliate]

Originally Posted by Chromaflage

They're using "oil spill prevention" as another tool to attempt to implement and expande marine reserves. I'm with you, Pilar. Not sure how marine reserves would prevent oil spills.

They were supposted to use "Oil spill prevention" you know Double Bottom Oil Tankers to help prevent, or at least reduce the chance of another Exxon Valdez type Catastrophe, & what happened to the containment, & cleanup system they were supposted to have readily available just for such Accidents, I Guess Profits were more important.

[Pilar]

The spill in SF was bunker fuel oil from a cargo vessel. Kinda like what the New Carissa dumped on our beaches a few years back.

The double hull thing was for Oil tankers if I remember right.

[fishwhenican]

Originally Posted by Chromaflage

CONGRESS CONSIDERS EXPANSION OF SANCTUARY BOUNDARIES AND AUTHORITY

At a field hearing of the House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans held on November 3rd in Santa Barbara, the RFA submitted testimony by the National Marine Sanctuary Program to create fishing regulations, including marine reserves, in circumvention of existing agencies and laws to manage our nation's fisheries.

RFA's West Coast Regional Director Jim Martin lauded the efforts of the sanctuaries in preventing non-point source pollution and for their work on water quality issues, which rate as major concerns in public opinion polls, more so than concern about recreational fishing impacts. Martin pointed out that Congress amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act to govern the creation of any new marine protected area (a type of fishing regulation that limits or bans fishing in areas including areas within Sanctuary boundaries). Congress required that any new marine protected area adhere to the following standards: the proposals must be based on the best scientific information available; include quantifiable benchmarks to assess the conservation benefit of the closure; establish a timetable for review of regulations and monitoring their success in meeting the stated goals and objectives; and an assessment of the benefits and impacts of the closure. <emphasis added> None of these standards were in place during the creation of the Channel Islands marine reserves.

Martin urged the subcommittee to support an amendment to the National Marine Sanctuary Act (NMSA) Section 304(a)(5) to clarify the conflict between the regional fishery management councils and the promulgation of fishing regulations under the authority of the sanctuaries. The law is unclear, duplicative and the sanctuaries lack the scientific expertise and public stakeholder process to effectively make sound fishery management decisions.

The full text of RFA's testimony can be found at:
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/...ony_martin.pdf

For those who aren't members, maybe membership in the RFA would be a good thing.

www.joinrfa.com Maybe a few more west coast members would help with more of our issues?

[black magic]

Originally Posted by fishwhenican

For those who aren't members, maybe membership in the RFA would be a good thing.

www.joinrfa.com Maybe a few more west coast members would help with more of our issues?

I couldn't agree more. This man is obviously a genius.
You should support the troops that are already in the battle.

[KeyWest]

Originally Posted by black magic

I couldn't agree more. This man is obviously a genius.
You should support the troops that are already in the battle.

Paying member here - I agree - join RFA

[skein]

Let's see... lemme guess that that was a Chinese freighter carrying back raw materials so they could use coal-fired energy to manufacture the things that fill our stores. And of course the coal generates more pollutants and adversely effects the environment and more species world-wide than were touched by that oil spill in SF. But it's easier - and more self-serving - to lock up the local ocean.

Kinda like putting more locks on your door rather than actually doing something about crime.

Don't ask me what I think about CEO's and others who ship our jobs over to Asia, then cry about global warming and ecological disasters. It's happening 24/7 over there, unrestrained.

Skein

[KeyWest]

Originally Posted by skein

Let's see... lemme guess that that was a Chinese freighter carrying back raw materials so they could use coal-fired energy to manufacture the things that fill our stores. And of course the coal generates more pollutants and adversely effects the environment and more species world-wide than were touched by that oil spill in SF. But it's easier - and more self-serving - to lock up the local ocean.

Kinda like putting more locks on your door rather than actually doing something about crime.

Don't ask me what I think about CEO's and others who ship our jobs over to Asia, then cry about global warming and ecological disasters. It's happening 24/7 over there, unrestrained.

Skein

Amen brother - Not in my backyard syndrome -

"I shop at Walmart (made in China) because I don't make enough at my job to make ends meet because my company is shipping jobs over to China and cutting my wages which means I can only shop at Walmart (made in China) because.."

Our individual actions make a huge difference.

[jimsbuddy]

Originally Posted by KeyWest

"I shop at Walmart (made in China) because I don't make enough at my job to make ends meet because my company is shipping jobs over to China and cutting my wages which means I can only shop at Walmart (made in China) because.."

Our individual actions make a huge difference.

Ive mentioned this same analogy to many. And some just cant see this. There is some fact to your analogy. If corp keeps sending jobs away, what are those individuals in those low to middle income bracket to do? Pretty soon, wont it just be CEO's and maybe raw goods harvesters left in the US because all the overseas/across the boarder people will be making our goods. In Oregon we will harvest the lumber and ship off shore, then they will sell it back to us. But we can afford to buy it because all the local lumber guys are unemployed??? Every section of the US will have its own problem like this.

[Pilar]

There is a mistaken theory in economics for about the last 30 years now. And that is called supply side economics. If you make lots of stuff cheaply people will buy it. People will borrow money to buy cheap things.

Only problem is they are not cheap unless you ignore certain things. There might be costs associated with shipping mass quantities of things across formerly continent separating oceans in ships that carry oil that spills when the ship wrecks. Ther might be costs associated with employing countries to make these cheap goods that don't care about pollution or exploitation of workers. There might be costs associated with buying cheap crap that turns into a date **** drug or soluble lead when your two year old puts it in their mouth. There might be a cost associated when the widget factory in your home town shuts down and moves to another country.

Free trade is not free.

But hey it's good for big business. They laugh all the way to the bank as they send the untaxed profits to thier offshore corporate headquarters.

Every once in a while a ship hits a bridge and it's just a cost of doing business.

We allow this to happen when we buy something that is made in a foreign land.

[5 Salt]

Food for thought.

Funny thing is...half the crap we buy is imported.

[jimsbuddy]

Originally Posted by 5-Salt Fever

Food for thought.

Funny thing is...half the crap we buy is imported.

Yes this is very true, but if we (the us) are that up in arms about the over seas thing than if we all start buying one more thing "made in usa" than we can make a small shift. Don't start beating the drum about the BMW, horse corrals, or even the toaster that is made with materials from overseas and assembled here. I know that, but doing some research to buy what you can makes a difference. Make an honest attempt to buy USA... I work in Big corp industry, and when there is a 1 or 2% shift in sales or costs of product A, they watch... they wonder why and how to correct that. And not everyone in the US is going to change, but trust me if 200k people in one market start buying something else it will be noticed. Will it change??? Lets try it and find out.... Oh and if your wondering. I do live in small town, and when I shop I try to hit my local shops first. Living in small town they tend to buy from local farmers if they can. Our presidents may have inacted NAFTA and such, that we cannot stop, but can vote with our pocket book...

[KeyWest]

Originally Posted by jimsbuddy

Yes this is very true, but if we (the us) are that up in arms about the over seas thing than if we all start buying one more thing "made in usa" than we can make a small shift. Don't start beating the drum about the BMW, horse corrals, or even the toaster that is made with materials from overseas and assembled here. I know that, but doing some research to buy what you can makes a difference. Make an honest attempt to buy USA... I work in Big corp industry, and when there is a 1 or 2% shift in sales or costs of product A, they watch... they wonder why and how to correct that. And not everyone in the US is going to change, but trust me if 200k people in one market start buying something else it will be noticed. Will it change??? Lets try it and find out.... Oh and if your wondering. I do live in small town, and when I shop I try to hit my local shops first. Living in small town they tend to buy from local farmers if they can. Our presidents may have inacted NAFTA and such, that we cannot stop, but can vote with our pocket book...

[topknot]

It's time to start over, lets build our own industrial plants and hire
here again. great oportunity abounds