Home | Tournaments | Calendar | Weather | Merchandise | Sponsors |
|
Spearfishing Regulations This area is for the topic of existing or proposed Spearfishing Regulations. |
|
Thread Tools | Rating: | Display Modes |
11-18-2007, 08:50 AM | #31 |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 77
|
Re: Islands in the Stream Proposal
Maybe the RFA will have me???
|
11-18-2007, 09:16 AM | #32 | |
Forum Administrator
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 16,466
|
Re: Islands in the Stream Proposal
Quote:
__________________
"Spearing is the path to enlightenment." --- Lao Tzu “Live this day as if it will be your last. Remember that you will only find 'tomorrow' on the calendars of fools.” ---- Success Unlimited Author Og Mandino b.1923 - d.1996 Last edited by SpearMax; 11-18-2007 at 09:36 AM. |
|
11-18-2007, 09:32 AM | #33 | |
Forum Administrator
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 16,466
|
Re: Islands in the Stream Proposal
Quote:
House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans on the Reauthorization of the National Marine Sanctuary Act November 3, 2007 Kohn Hall, University of California at Santa Barbara Testimony by Jim Martin West Coast Regional Director The Recreational Fishing Alliance Thank you, Chairwoman Bordallo, Congresswoman Capps, and members of the Committee for the opportunity to provide you with our testimony on the reauthorization of the National Marine Sanctuary Act. For the record, my name is Jim Martin and I am speaking to you today on behalf of the Recreational Fishing Alliance. The Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) is a national 501(c)(4) non-profit grassroots political action organization whose mission is to safeguard the rights of salt water anglers, protect marine, boat, and tackle industry jobs, and insure the long-term sustainability of our nation’s marine fisheries. As a Groundfish Advisor to the Pacific Fishery Management Council since 2004,I have had the opportunity to meet with and discuss many issues with the staff of the National Marine Sanctuary system. I respect their dedication to the protection of the habitat upon which our marine fisheries depend. The National Marine Sanctuaries have done much to address non-source point water pollution. Recent surveys show that Californians are far more concerned about water quality and the negative impacts of polluted run-off on ocean health than they are about the impacts by recreational anglers and divers. At the same time, we have seen National Marine Sanctuaries program officials proposing to close off public fishing access to large areas of the Pacific Ocean, and to create fishing regulations within Sanctuary boundaries. RFA members are serving and have served on the Sanctuary Advisory Councils on the west coast, and I've spoken to them about their concerns with the public stakeholder process and sanctuary regulations. Paramount among our concerns is the apparent conflict between regional fishery management and sanctuary goals and objectives. Examples of fishing regulations proposed by the National Marine Sanctuaries on the west coast include: 1. Ban on krill harvest when no such fishery existed. Most recreational and commercial fishermen supported the krill-harvest ban because of the importance of this forage species. Even so, the National Marine Sanctuaries imposed an unnecessary series of meetings on the PFMC to close a fishery that did not exist. 2. Expansion of sanctuary to include Davidson Seamount, with prohibitions on fishing at certain depths. Again, no fishing occurred at those depths in the first place. 3. No bottom-contact gear on the Cordell Banks. This provision was already under consideration as a part of MSA's Essential Fish Habitat provisions. 4. Direct involvement of Sanctuary staff in proposing large marine reserves in central California within the Marine Life Protection Act process. 5. Channel Islands marine reserves in federal waters. This could have easily been accomplished, using the best available science, under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, without changing the designation document of the CINMS. In each case, state and federal fishery management had the authority to promulgate regulations to achieve these goals. Nonetheless, the National Marine Sanctuaries program made these decisions, even though they lacked the fisheries science expertise, and most importantly, a science-based, open and transparent public stakeholder process. Fishing communities supported many if not all of these regulatory changes, but found the conflict and confusion between the two federal statutes created more problems than were solved. In general, we need much more public involvement on Sanctuary regulations and Sanctuary managers need to be more accountable to the public. It took us many years to get recreational fishing representatives on the Sanctuary Advisory Councils, even though recreational saltwater anglers are the most numerous visitors to the National Marine Sanctuaries. We still need more recreational fishing representation on Sanctuary Advisory Councils. The National Marine Sanctuary Act ("NMSA") should be amended to make the development of regulations under NMSA more transparent and open to the public. We recommend a minimum number of recreational fishing representatives be appointed to the Sanctuary Advisory Councils, with representatives from a broad range of perspectives and experiences. Representation on these Councils could be proportionate to the usergroup activity within each Sanctuary. Our central concern is the lack of clarity for regulatory authority between MSA and NMSA. Under Section 304(a)(5) of the NMSA, 16 U.S.C. 1434(a)(5), regional fishery management councils are "provided the opportunity" to prepare draft regulations for fishing. In practice, Sanctuary staff propose a change in their designation document, pending approval of one person, the NOAA Administrator, unless the regional fishery management council agrees within 120 days. Most management decisions at the council level take anywhere from six months to a year or more, because the public has numerous opportunities to submit comment, meet and speak about the decision. The Recreational Fishing Alliance supports an amendment to NMSA's 304(a)(5) process. We support the proposed language contained in the eight Regional Councils' letter to the Resources Committee dated May 15, 2006 (see attachment, page 5-6). Under the proposed language, the Sanctuaries can apply for fishing regulations to the Councils under MSA directly. We believe this will increase transparency and improve the science based stakeholder driven public process upon which sanctuary and fishery management decisions should be made. Last year, 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. None of these standards were in place during the creation of the Channel Islands reserves. We urge you to ensure that both MSA and NMSA govern the proposal of new marine protected areas in a manner consistent with the new requirements under the MSA. If marine protected area decisions continue to be made under the NMSA in a manner which is inconsistent with the new language in the MSA, it will further exacerbate the conflict between the two laws. The reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens made some progress in clarifying the respective roles and responsibilities of the Sanctuaries and the regional fishery management councils. We urge you to complete the job and adopt the language proposed by all eight regional fishery management councils to amend Section 304(a)5 of the National Marine Sanctuary Act. Until this issue is resolved, sanctuary decisions will continue to be mired in conflicting laws and regulations, pitting interest groups and government officials against each other, rather than bringing them together to improve the conservation and management of our marine resources. Thanks for your consideration. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.
__________________
"Spearing is the path to enlightenment." --- Lao Tzu “Live this day as if it will be your last. Remember that you will only find 'tomorrow' on the calendars of fools.” ---- Success Unlimited Author Og Mandino b.1923 - d.1996 |
|
11-18-2007, 09:43 AM | #34 |
Forum Administrator
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 16,466
|
Re: Islands in the Stream Proposal
One of the most important parts of Jim's testimony before Congress above is this:
In each case, state and federal fishery management had the authority to promulgate regulations to achieve these goals. Nonetheless, the National Marine Sanctuaries program made these decisions, even though they lacked the fisheries science expertise, and most importantly, a science-based, open and transparent public stakeholder process. Fishing communities supported many if not all of these regulatory changes, but found the conflict and confusion between the two federal statutes created more problems than were solved. The sloppiness of the Islands in the Stream proposal with blatantly wrong science on the species list in the Appendix makes me think Jim's statement above about the handling of science is so true, especially here in this case. Also, compounding government regulatory confusion is the last thing the fisheries need.
__________________
"Spearing is the path to enlightenment." --- Lao Tzu “Live this day as if it will be your last. Remember that you will only find 'tomorrow' on the calendars of fools.” ---- Success Unlimited Author Og Mandino b.1923 - d.1996 |
11-19-2007, 09:35 AM | #35 |
Forum Administrator
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 16,466
|
Re: Islands in the Stream Proposal
FYI - Here is some more political insight from just one person's perspective as to how Hawaii may have had some of its fishing scuttled very quickly:
Prior to President Bush establishing the monument by executive order, the Northwest Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) was currently in the sanctuary designation process. At that time it was a coral reef reserve network. There was a Reserve Advisory Council (RAC) was established as an advisory committee to guide NOAA's National Ocean Service (NOS - in charge of sanctuaries) in their rulemaking process. The RAC was composed of perhaps 12 individuals - mostly members of environmental orgazations such as Linda Paul from the Audubon Society, Stephanie Fried from Environmental Justice, Dave Riemy from the Sierra Club, and Paul Achitoff? from Earthjustice. The Native Hawaiian representation was Bill Aila, a known Hawaiian activist and the recreational fishermens representative was Rick Gaffney from Kailua-Kona. Their was a commercial fishermen's representative also - either Gary Dill or Timm Timmoney representing the commercial seat. Now get this - With the exception of the commercial fishing representative - the ENTIRE advisory panel voted to recommend a complete ban of fishing in the NWHI! Even the hawaiian and recreational fishing representative voted against fishing! Side note - the NWHI sanctuary was to be 10x larger than all the sanctuaries in the United States. If the RAC had their way, it would be the only NO FISHING sanctuary besides Pagatele Bay in American Samoa which is a very small bay. The other sanctuary in Hawaii is the Hawaii Humpback Whale Sanctuary which encompasses most of the state of Hawaii where fishing is allowed. The Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council (WESPAC) is the regional council responsible for the fisheries management of the NWHI along with NMFS. It was reaching a point in the sanctuary designation process where the sanctuary rule proposals was going out to public comment. We were starting to round up the LOCAL HAWAII RESIDENTS and gather support for keeping the fisheries open when Governer Linda Lingle banned fishing in state waters (out to 3 miles) by executive order. Her ban was based on reports by the Marine Conservation Network and the Ocean Conservancy that the fisheries was on the verge of collapse. This "science" was incorrect and NMFS scientists came out and publicly contradicted the "science" presented from the environmental groups. Despite the fact the governor pressed forward with the ban. Keep in mind that the NWHI fishery is a limited entry federally managed fishery with only 9 permitted vessels fishing a huge area equivalant from San Diego to Washington state! On the federal side, one of Hawaii's congressionals - Ed Case attempted to introduce Federal legislation in U.S. Congress to ban fishing in Federal waters. When approached by Hawaii fishermen who flew up to Washington DC to discuss this issue with him he was adamant in his position and wanted this to be "his legacy." He did not succeed in getting the legislation through as Hawaii's other representative and 2 Senators including senior U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye opposed his actions. Representative Case left his seat in an unsuccessful run against incumbent Dan Akaka for the Senators seat.
__________________
"Spearing is the path to enlightenment." --- Lao Tzu “Live this day as if it will be your last. Remember that you will only find 'tomorrow' on the calendars of fools.” ---- Success Unlimited Author Og Mandino b.1923 - d.1996 |
11-19-2007, 10:43 AM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Posts: 3,104
|
Re: Islands in the Stream Proposal
Quote:
Very disturbing to read this type of thing happening in the United States of America. Despite what some people call paranoia, there is a very real threat to close vast sections of the nations waters to fishing. Incremental regulation was one way but now it appears that "Executive order" may be on its way. Environmental extremism has officially run amock... |
|
11-19-2007, 11:38 AM | #37 | |
Forum Administrator
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 16,466
|
Re: Islands in the Stream Proposal
Quote:
__________________
"Spearing is the path to enlightenment." --- Lao Tzu “Live this day as if it will be your last. Remember that you will only find 'tomorrow' on the calendars of fools.” ---- Success Unlimited Author Og Mandino b.1923 - d.1996 |
|
11-19-2007, 11:40 AM | #38 |
RFA
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Albion
Posts: 602
|
Re: Islands in the Stream Proposal
"I want to thank Mike Nussman. He's the President and CEO of American Sportfishing Association. Thanks for coming, Mike. I want to thank the guests from the environmental community who are here today. Thanks for your hard work on this vital issue."
-George W. Bush, at the signing of the NW Hawaiian Monument
__________________
Jim Martin West Coast Regional Director The Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) www.JoinRFA.org Register for the Tenth Annual Randy Fry Dive Tourney at Albion on Oct. 12th: www./randyfry2013.eventbrite.com |
11-19-2007, 01:14 PM | #39 | |
Forum Administrator
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 16,466
|
Re: Islands in the Stream Proposal
Quote:
Billy finally called me back this morning and said this: Sylvia Earle was NOT an author of the proposal. If I understood Billy correctly over the phone, the five authors of the "Islands in the Stream" document are the following: 1. Billy Causey 2. A NOAA/Sanctuary staff person from the "planning section" 3. A NOAA/Sanctuary staff person from the "science section" 4. A NOAA/Sanctuary staff person from the "policy section" 5. A NOAA/Sanctuary staff person from the "policy section" Billy would not state their names saying they have personal lives and the staff names do not need to be exposed on the Internet. Billy said "Islands in the Stream" is only a "proposed concept" that will be vetted through a completely public process as we move forward. It has not been accepted officially by NOAA or the Administration. While I can appreciate a fear of public scrutiny of staff names, I would think the author names should still be made public if it is indeed going to be a "completely public process." I respectfully disagree with Billy on this point.
__________________
"Spearing is the path to enlightenment." --- Lao Tzu “Live this day as if it will be your last. Remember that you will only find 'tomorrow' on the calendars of fools.” ---- Success Unlimited Author Og Mandino b.1923 - d.1996 |
|
11-19-2007, 01:50 PM | #40 |
.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Palm Bch County
Posts: 11,256
|
Re: Islands in the Stream Proposal
I think that another question should be: When will the "draft" designation be removed?
Once they clean up the document and remove the "draft" designation I'm sure that all the authors will want their contributions to be appropriately acknowledged within the document. After all, as taxpayers we are paying them to write it.
__________________
http://www.makospearguns.com/ My Youtube Channel -->https://www.youtube.com/user/whatandwhen2 |
11-19-2007, 01:59 PM | #41 |
John Little
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,335
|
Re: Islands in the Stream Proposal
Quietly holding my tongue... for now.
__________________
What'll you have Normie? Well, I'm in a gambling mood Sammy. I'll take a glass of whatever comes out of that tap. Looks like beer, Norm. Call me Mister Lucky. |
11-19-2007, 02:04 PM | #42 |
Seafood Sifu
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Jax Fla
Age: 60
Posts: 3,808
|
Re: Islands in the Stream Proposal
FOIA and publicly post thier names and contacts.Where do public employees get off telling us we can't have a transparent process.
__________________
http://www.sustainablefishing.org |
11-19-2007, 02:07 PM | #43 |
Grounds Hog Day
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Pinellas County, Where else?
Posts: 2,914
|
Re: Islands in the Stream Proposal
Glad that you were able to verify what we have said, Tony.
Billy Causey is an excellent leader and has made many positive contributions to the FL Keys and National Marine Sanctuaries. He inspires his staff to be loyal and dedicated. Billy's many positive contributions and qualities are not erased by this act of, shall we just call it "end running the process". Nor do they excuse this end run. Many times in the past, I have taken serious criticism for brining certain people's actions to light. I feel right now, as I have many times in the past, vinidicated. As a reminder,the information (minus the name 'Islands in the stream') about this plan was passed to me over two years ago from a very reliable source. It is happening exactly as they said it would. How about those gag grouper?
__________________
Protecting and promoting the rights of offshore spearfishers and anglers. Join us! http://www.thefra.org Check out OFFSHORE HUNTER Waypoint management software for the serious spearfisher. Got numbers? http://www.offshorehunter.com |
11-19-2007, 08:37 PM | #44 | |
Forum Administrator
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 16,466
|
Re: Islands in the Stream Proposal
FROM ABOVE:
Quote:
Hi Denny, this is the second time in this month you stated you knew about this proposal from a reliable source/excellent authority for over two years. Can you tell us more about that? Are you saying there were more "authors" of the concept than Billy told me about? If so, are they part of Dr. Crabtree's office? Thanks, Tony
__________________
"Spearing is the path to enlightenment." --- Lao Tzu “Live this day as if it will be your last. Remember that you will only find 'tomorrow' on the calendars of fools.” ---- Success Unlimited Author Og Mandino b.1923 - d.1996 |
|
11-19-2007, 09:44 PM | #45 |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Coast of Florida
Posts: 2,586
|
Re: Islands in the Stream Proposal
Islands in the Stream DRAFT inaccuracies: Florida Middlegrounds section “Best known and most important on the west coast of Florida in terms of coral communities. Many commercially important species such as striped mullet, spotted sea trout, Spanish mackerel, king mackerel, snappers and grouper, rough tounge bass, red barbier, Spanish flag, creole fish, amberjack, almaco jack, yellowtail reef fish, black coral, soft coral, fire coral and some stony coral. Author: NOAA Sanctuary staff who wish to remain anonymous. 1. Spanish flag (Gonioplectrus Hispanus) The Spanish flag lives in deep-reef habitats, at depths of 35-365 meters (115-2000 feet). They attain a maximum length of 30.5 centimeters (12 inches). Life span: 1 year http://ca.switcherzoo.com/profiles/spanishflag.htm Not in the IUCN Red List (World conservation union) of threatened species. Minor commercial value. http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/Spec...ry.php?id=3323 2. Spotted Sea trout Live only in shallow in estuaries. None in the Middlegrounds. Gamefish-Illegal to sell. (in Fl) Zero commercial value. 3. Striped Mullet NONE in the Middlegrounds. Live in estuaries but make brief spawning runs to “deeper water” off shore in the fall. “As far as 5 to 20 miles” (Offshore Spawning of the Striped Mullet, Mugil cephalus, in the Gulf of Mexico Edgar L. Arnold, Jr., John R. Thompson Copeia, Vol. 1958, No. 2 (Jun. 18, 1958), pp. 130-132 doi:10.2307/1440554) The Middlegrounds is 68 miles from land at its closest point. 4. Rough Tongue bass: (Pronotogrammus martinicensis) Depth range 65 – 230 m (far deeper than the Middlegrounds) Max size: 20 cm NO commercial value DO NOT inhabit the Middlegrounds http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/Spec...ry.php?id=3328 5. Yellowtail reef fish-(Chromis enchrysura) Tiny damsel fish NO COMMERCIAL VALUE “The yellowtail reef fish is a plankton-eating damselfish that lives on shallow and deep coral reefs of the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico.” Doug Weaver-NOAA-Sept 30. 6. Red Barbier-(Hemanthias Vianus) Depths-45-610 meters Max size: 25 cm (Tiny) No commercial value DO NOT inhabit the Middlegrounds http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/Spec...ry.php?id=3327
__________________
It is what it is. Last edited by Ed Walker; 11-19-2007 at 10:05 PM. |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|