Freefish,
There is much truth to what you say as long as you are strongly represented at the meetings especially during public comment. I do mean strongly. When we have public comment here in NJ we count each speaker as one opinion unless they bring some sort of documentation such as a letter signed by all those they represent submitted to the Council. That person’s opinion is given much greater consideration. Talking on this thread is great for getting out info. But, you have to do something with it. Meaning, like you have said, getting organized and being vocal at the right place at the right time.
The problem with not being represented on the Council is they have the final vote. Being behind the closed doors when the real discussion is taking place is where you want to be. Remember, the Council can listen to you or not. You know as well as I do there are hidden agendas. You can’t fight them from the outside. Many times the vote has been decided before public comment is made.
I have learned so much from the contributions of people like yourself and others that I’m ready to retire early and get my butt down there and lend a hand. Sadly, I can’t but I am doing what I can from a distance. I am having a running e-mail discussion with a PEW expert about MPA’s at this time. If and when there is a conclusion to that, I will pass it on.
Keep up the good fight!
Jaz
jazman54, your observations are spot on. Many fishermen think they can join a fishing organization to speak for them at the meetings and they have done their part. The comments of an organization carries no more weight than any other comment unless each member has submitted similar comments or signed something in support as you mentioned. Many organizations do not even have a representative at most of the meetings.
I applaud you for talking with somebody from PEW. We should not refuse to talk to those who are pushing for something we disagree with. We need to offer alternative solutions and make them THINK. I have been urging the council and PEW to consider enhancing existing MPAs with artificial reef habitat. Another alternative is to create SMALL (1 or 2 square mile) MPAs around new artificial reef habitat placed on sandy bottom that are marked and monitored with video camera equipped data buoys.
Here is the link to a discussion I had with Holly Binns from PEW. http://www.freefish7.com/pew-discussion.html
Let me know if I can help you with any issues in NJ and I would appreciate your support in our fight against Catch Shares and MPAs. We have POWER in numbers.
I have had a rather wordy Email conversation with Ms Dunmire of PEW on E mail. If someone will tell me how, I will be glad to post it. Very interesting.
Carl
natureboy, you can copy and paste the text of your conversation. PEW knows to ask for more than they can get. I think we can get their support for enhancing existing MPAs with artificial reef habitat if they lose the court case asking for Amendment 17B’s 40 fathom closure to be reinstated. We just need to politely make our case for this solution to PEW and the council.
The navy recently sold a decommissioned and decontaminated aircraft carrier that would have made a great AR for a penny. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/us-sells-navys-first-super-carrier-one-penny_764632.html
Here is a list of other decommissioned ships.
As of April 8, 2013:
USNS Hayes (T-AG-195) - Stricken, to be disposed of
USNS Mohawk (T-ATF-170) - Inactive, out of service, in reserve
USS Boone (FFG-28) - Inactive, out of commission, in reserve
USS Boulder (LST-1190) - Stricken, to be disposed of
USS Canon (PG-90) - Stricken, available for donation as a museum and memorial
USS Carr (FFG-52) - Possible foreign sale
USS Charles F. Adams (DDG-2) - Stricken, available for donation as a museum and memorial
USS Charleston (LKA-113) - Inactive, out of service, in reserve
USS Doyle (FFG-39) - Stricken, to be disposed of by the Security Assistance Program
USS El Paso (LKA-117) - Inactive, out of commission, in reserve
USS Forrest Sherman (DD-931) - Stricken, available for donation as a museum and memorial
USS Forrestal (CV-59) - Stricken, to be disposed of as scrap or artificial reef USS Hawes (FFG-53) - Inactive, out of commission
USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) - To Be Determined
USS John L. Hall (FFG-32) - Inactive, out of commission, in reserve
USS Klakring (FFG-42) - Possible foreign sale
USS Mobile (LKA-115) - Inactive, out of commission, in reserve
USS Nashville (LPD-13) - Inactive, out of commission, in reserve
USS Shreveport (LPD-12) - Stricken, to be disposed of
USS Stephen W. Groves (FFG-29) - Inactive, out of commission, in reserve
USS Thomas S. Gates (CG-51) - Stricken, to be dis
I just can’t see the PEW girls going back to their leftist vegan superiors and telling how they compromised with the fishermen. AS I see it , the eco’s have their agenda and its set in stone. Our mission is to influence the council, not PEW or EDF. They are distractions.
I enjoyed reading the list of US Navy ships from a great era. Thanks for posting. On some on this list, I have manned the wheel and walked the decks at sea. The sad thing is that the US has not replaced these once mighty vessels , and our once great Navy is so much smaller. I can only hope its more powerful of a force.
natureboy, I am glad the list brought back some good memories. Thank you for your service to our Country. Maybe you will get to fish around one of those ships soon.
You may be right about eco-charities not wanting to support artificial reefs. They are a part of the fishery management process regardless of if we like that or not. We need to offer solutions to them and the council at the same time. It will discredit those who refuse to support anything other than the most extreme agenda.