Pro Marine Reserve PR coming

[black magic]

The following is a post at the Coastside board by Randy Fry and copied with permission. I thought it might show the level of funding and support the enviros have.They mostly favor no-take reserves. You might ask yourself how much have I contributed to recreational fishing this year?

Looking for a Job? Randy Fry (RFA-Coastside)User Profile 10.20.03 - 09.32 AM (PDT) Reply to this Message
Letter posted on the Marine Fish Conservation Network(MFCN) The environmental organizations are mounting a PR campaign to sell marine reserves to the public.


I am writing to let you know that five NGOs (Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council, Conservation Law Foundation, SeaWeb, and Marine Conservation Biology Institute) have recently formed a new coalition to run a one-year coastal initiative campaign. The campaign's purpose is to work in key states to educate the public about the need for state policies that allow states to adopt marine reserves, areas of coastal waters where all human extraction and disturbance is prohibited. The campaign will be working in up to 9 coastal states on all three coasts.

We are currently looking for a campaign director to lead this effort. Although we are prepared to house the Director in Washington DC, we will consider candidates who wish to reside in other locations on the East Coast. If you are interested in looking at the job description and have a candidate or two in mind who you think might be suitable, please let me know and I'll email the description to you. If you prefer to chat about it a little more, I'm happy to give you a call at your convenience.

Thanks for your time.
--Sarah


____________________________________
Sarah Clark Stuart
215-546-1222 (daytime phone)
419-730-0107 (efax)
267-254-7246 (cell)
215-561-1932 (home)
scs@dca.net
PO Box 2083
Philadelphia, PA 19103

*************************************************
MFCN-FISHLINK is a communication network hosted by The Marine Fish Conservation Network(MFCN). If you would like to send a message to the entire FISHLINK list, please send your message to mfcn-fishlink@igc.topica.com. Otherwise, please reply directly to the email address of the desired recipient. Questions and comments about MFCN-FISHLINK should be directed to John Marius at jmarius@conservefish.org. Please note that the views expressed in MFCN-FISHLINK are not necessarily those of Network Staff.
*************************************************

[black magic]

The real reason I posted this enviro notice is to demonstrate the level of funding they have. They are advertising for a paid director to manage a group of full time people to advocate for total closure of prime areas of ocean fishing. Mel, if you think they will leave it open for migratory fish, think again. Just look at the Channel Island Marine Sanctuary which is closed to all fishing.

I believe that this movement is the biggest single threat to all fishing in the ocean, including commercial. They want to stop fishing forever. They are against extractive uses of the ocean period, no matter what line of bull that is handed your way.

Mel is right in that traditional fisheries management has existing reserves in place now. One example is the Rockfish Conservation Area, or RCA, extends from the Canadian to Mexican border from 75 to 200 fathoms (not sure of the exact numbers, but close enough). It is a no-take reserve for all bottom trawl gear. The difference with this reserve is it is in place to recover overfished stocks. When the defined recovery level is reached the reserve will be removed.

The enviro agenda is to go around traditional fishery management to create their own reserves that are managed by people with similar ideals.

[OceanBlue]

Originally posted by black magic:
The difference with this reserve is it is in place to recover overfished stocks. When the defined recovery level is reached the reserve will be removed.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Don't count on the reserve ever being removed.

[Miss B Haven]

Originally posted by black magic:
Mel, if you think they will leave it open for migratory fish, think again. Just look at the Channel Island Marine Sanctuary which is closed to all fishing.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">I didn't say I thought they would leave it open. What I sadi is that it does NOT MAKE SENSE to have small areas closed to protect highly migratory species (who aren't there 90% of the time and would just get caught outside the area). At least it doesn't make sense for the fish, it may make sense to people who just don't want anyone fishing!
I've read a bit about these areas in a couple of Florida based boating magazines I get, at least enough to know that (as OB eluded to) that it basically puts the area off limits for EVERYTHING.
I can understand the need for some pretty restrictive regulations in highly fragile areas like coral reefs where even anchoring a boat is an issue. The only thing "fragile" off the Oregon coast is because of overfishing, non-selective (and even destructive) fishing methods.
Groups like this really get going because of poor fish managment decisions (or lack of decisions) by those chartered to manage the resource (for whatever reason, be it lobbying pressure, no funding for research or just plain bad science). If the goverment agencies managed the resources to be self sustaining in the first place these groups would have no reason to exist.
Actually they probably would still exist (there's always a wacko or three out there- look at PETA) but they wouldn't draw the big crowds and funding that they do when there ARE REAL PROBLEMS!
It's an interesting world out there. The people contributing huge sums of money to this end are probably the same people who are paying big bucks to a accounting/law firm so they don't pay any taxes (which of course supports the fish mangement bodies and research to make the right decisions for the fishery as a whole). :depressed:

[skein]

Hey, they're smart, they're organized, and they're well funded. We're quarrelsome, disorganized as hell, and have trouble raising $500. (Well, maybe not, but sometimes I wonder...)

We need to form a coalition that can FILE AN INJUNCTION AND TIE UP THEIR PROPOSAL IN COURT, just as they do when things don't go their way.

Can we do that? Or does that just work for their side? Or maybe we should pre-empt them and get a measure on the ballot to do just that, and have it defeated - which I believe it would be, at least prior to their media blitz.

These are admittedly knee-jerk ideas, but surely one of us out there can come up with something that will work.

Skein

[black magic]

Skein,
You have hit on the bottom line of fisheries politics. As you have figured it is money. The environmental movement has billions as they are in the business of selling the latest crisis. When there isn't a factual crisis one must be manufactured to keep the donations coming in. The truth is the enviros are most concerned with the recent trend of fisheries management toward more conservation minded policy. I think that they know that their window of opportunity is slowly closing. You see, the better the management the less the need for outside intervention.

The commercials are the next in political funding as they have many associations with paid professional lobbyists.They are very supportive of political efforts. They also have been in the game for a long time and are well connected.

As a lobbyist I know has stated, 'money is the mother's milk of politics'. It doesn't matter whether you approve or not it is a fact. With money, contributions can be made to political campaigns, full time propaganda mechanisms can be funded,and many other activities can be supported which champion your agenda.

Now to recreational fishing political groups. They are composed of a relatively small number of people who work with dismal and pathetic support from the most saltwater rec. fishers. Oregon Anglers, a political action committee, has two people working for free on ocean policy. This group is affiliated with the Recreational Fishing Alliance, the national ocean sport fishing group. What I can't understand is the fact that contributions to Oregon Anglers are a state tax credit, meaning if you pay state tax you will be paying this money anyway and in effect up to $50 per individual can be sent to a PAC instead of the state, and still it is a major struggle to get much of anything from most saltwater anglers. Most of the limited funding comes from larger individual contributions where there is no write-off whatsoever except the $50. Again a small number of people support most of the cost. The same problem exists in California according to rec. activists I have talked to there. All we can do on the political front is guerrilla warfare which works but in a limited way.I hope it isn't true what I recently heard from an ocean rec. fishery advocate:
" It's a problem I just don't know exactly what to do about. These folks are going to wake up some day and discover that the enviros have limited their fishing to wooden barrels."

[CATCH AND EAT]

This sounds not so good to me. Tying up coastal waters with more regulation and more reserves? Hopefully I am reading this incorrectly. Nope, just re-read it and here's my responce. [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] Flame on if you wish.

[ 10-21-2003, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: CATCH AND EAT ]

[Miss B Haven]

I think they've already created reserves. They would only make sense for fish that are non-migratory. A Salmon or Tuna reserve wouldn't make much sense now would it? [img]graemlins/stupid.gif[/img]
That pretty much leaves bottom dwellers. Since they are already cutting off the 40 fathom and deeper curve except in the crappy weather months off the Oregon coast, that pretty much makes the entire "deep" coast a preserve. What's to gain by doing this off Oregon?
I think I'd need a LOT more info to be convinced that this was a good thing for anyone (including the feeesh)!

[OceanBlue]

Oh yeah... marine reserves would do everybody a lot of good, wouldn't they? Hmmm... let's see. We should preserve the fish and the environment in such a way so that NOBODY can enjoy them. Tourism on the Oregon coast? Yeah, it is a beautiful place, but remove all the folks who go there to fish and the economy will suffer, jobs will go away. It isn't as if folks come here to scuba dive (oh wait... the reserves would restrict that, too). Oregon isn't Florida. We can't make it up by shifting the focus of recreation to something other than fishing.

Just say no to radical, extremist Marine Reserves. [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] (uh-oh, is that Lutz I hear approaching the keyboard?)