Not Good
 

Re: Not Good
 

Maybe the PEW foundation should go to France, Spain, Austrailia, Japan and all the other countries who basically laugh at the U.S. when we try to propose any form of conservation.....The Freakin French kill 18 inch Bluefin with no regard toward the future.
Once again, stop us from catching them and enjoying a resource so the rest of the world can wipe'em out. While you struggle to land 2 and stay within the law, the rest of the world loves it!!!
Another Fishery managment debacle........ BS

Re: Not Good
 

What effect would that have on recreational fishing? The guy kept saying the ban on international sale would negatively effect commercial and recreational fisherman in the US. Pretty obvious why it hurts the commercial guys but what would that do to the rest of us?

Not that I agree with it. I think we should just sink the Mediterranean fishing fleet and keep the fish for ourselves, but that's a whole different issue.

Re: Not Good
 

I don't even like French's mustard!

Re: Not Good
 

This could be a good thing for us. If the commercial guys can't sell the fish internationaly, there should be a whole lot less pressure on the fish. Doesn't look like it will negatively effect the recreational sector.

Re: Not Good
 

Some recreational charter arrangements are to sell bluefin tuna with the proceeds being some sort of split between the boat and the charter patrons. The proposed regs would result a loss of revenue on the recreational side. If its a big bluefin, you have to worry the the fish will not be fully consumed by the charter and my pet peeve is good fish going to waste.

Re: Not Good
 

I visited the Monterey Bay Aquarium last week and there was an exhibit on the bluefin tuna and its depleted population. Next to the aquarium there is actually a research center that focuses on the BFT. There were cards that listed which fish species whose healthier populations were recommended to be eaten and lists of species that should be avoided (like BFT).

Re: Not Good
 

From what I have read on some CA fishing sites, Monteray Aquarium might as well have PETA and PEW on their board of directors

Re: Not Good
 

The PEW Charitable Trusts
Program Investments - Grants Search

Dec 2008 Marine Fish Conservation Network $400,000
Dec 2007 Marine Fish Conservation Network $350,000
Dec 2006 Marine Fish Conservation Network $305,000
Aug 2006 Marine Fish Conservation Network $600,000

Mar 2009 Oceana $4,500,000
Mar 2007 Oceana $9,000,000
Mar 2007 Oceana $240,000
Dec 2006 Oceana $673,000
Mar 2006 Oceana $4,500,000
Mar 2006 Oceana $465,000
Mar 2005 Oceana $4,500,000
Dec 2003 Oceana $5,625,000
Dec 2002 Oceana $4,500,000
Dec 2001 Oceana $5,035,000
Sep 2000 Oceana $150,000
Sep 1998 Oceana $120,000


Marine Fish Conservation Network Board of Advisors:

Monterey Bay Aquarium
Oceana

Monterey Bay Aquarium Leadership

Julie Packard, Executive Director and Vice Chairman of the aquarium's Board of Trustees, has directed the organization since it opened in 1984. Her commitment to advancing ocean conservation has been demonstrated through the aquarium and far beyond. She serves on numerous boards including the California Nature Conservancy, the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. She was also a member of the Pew Oceans Commission, which in 2003 issued its recommendations for a comprehensive overhaul of national ocean policy. Ms. Packard was 1998 recipient of the Audubon Medal for Conservation, and 2004 recipient of the Ted Danson Ocean Hero Award from Oceana, a leading ocean conservation organization.

Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute

As a private, non-profit research center, MBARI is funded by The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Marcia K. McNutt serves as the institute’s president and chief executive officer, managing a work force of approximately 220 scientists, engineers, and operations and administrative staff. MBARI scientists propose and execute innovative studies, both experimental and theoretical, in the ocean sciences. Engineers and operations staff, in partnership with the scientists, develop or adapt supporting technology.

The David and Lucile Packard Foundation
Trustees Emeriti

Robert J. Glaser, M.D. - Jane Lubchenco - Dean O. Morton - Frank Roberts - Richard T. Schlosberg III - Franklin M. Orr, Jr - Robin Chandler Duke
__________________________________________________ ___________

There's more, but that's just what a 5 minute cursory search through Pew, MFCN, MBARI, Packard Foundation gives you.

If you sit long enough and go through this stuff you'd have an awesome connect the dots game!!!

Re: Not Good
 

Exactly one of OUR problems. PETA and PEW are like octopus and have their hands in everything. We need to model their enrollment, their drive and capacity to get things done.

Re: Not Good
 

Wow, lots of views but no comments? No surprises? Figured this one woul dbe a hot topic.

Goes to show you how much I know! :eek:

Re: Not Good
 

This one seems a little hard to blame on Corzine:D Lots of factual information and need for independant thought seems like a real thread killer around here.:) To be honest I am on the fence on my own beliefs on this one. When some of the tags from "our east coast fish" showed up in the Med catches it showed that there is much more to learn about these fish stocks. What type of opinion do people have when they see a picture of a 600lb bluefin tuna hanging on a scale?????????? does your opinion change when you hear that it was caught by a guy on a center consel on a popper? How about if that it was caught by a long liner looking for swords? How about if it was caught by a "charter boat" that split the fish sale profits? How about if that picture really came from the floor of a Japanese fish auction house and was just shipped there from a "charter boat". Same dead fish in the picture...any differnt opinions. Would the listing really help police over seas? Would it be an unnecessary burden on US fisherman? Thanks for the post Capt TB ...I myself see much grey on this one....I would not mind seeing some of your opinions.

Re: Not Good
 

I knew it is known that PETA would like to stop all fishing (commercial/recreation), hunting, etc but I did not know too much about PEW Charitable Trust. From the quick reading I did today about them it looks like they are a conservation group working towards responsible fishing (commerical/rec) and not the elimination of fishing as well improved habitat/environment.

So, I guess my point is given PETA's agenda on fishing I can disregard their opinions but from what I read about about PEW it looks like their studies, opinions, donations to the Monterey Bay Aquarium and its thoughts on bluefin tuna can be taken more reputably when connecting the dots between the groups.

Here is something from the PEW website:

Pew Oceans Commission

We depend on the oceans—for food, jobs, recreation and solace. Ocean currents circulate the energy and water that regulate the earth’s climate and weather and thus affect many aspects of the human experience, whether we live on the nation’s coasts or its heartland.

In the first thorough review of ocean policy in 34 years, the Pew Oceans Commission released a host of recommendations in 2003 to guide the way in which the federal government will successfully manage America’s marine environment. The report found that more than 60 percent of America’s coastal rivers and bays are degraded by nutrient runoff. Crucial species like groundfish and salmon are under assault from overfishing. Invasive species are establishing themselves in the nation’s coastal waters.

The commission recommended


improving the management of the nation’s commercial fisheries;
establishing networks of marine reserves in coastal waters;
increasing the involvement of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in environmental restoration;
applying strong environmental standards to fish farms; and
regulating the discharge of waste by cruise ships.
The Pew Oceans Commission concluded its work, but its findings are still available online to aid researchers and policy makers.

Re: Not Good
 

Chris, thank you for the taking the time to look at some of this stuff.

I would suggest that when talking about PEW you look a bit deeper at exactly who they fund.

you see, PEW does very little directly and the bulk of the work done by anti-fishing groups is PAID FOR by PEW.

For example, in addition to MFCN (which has been a major opponent of fishermen for years) PEW has funded groups like EDF (Environmental Defense Fund) Ocean Conservancy (where our wonderful dogfish problem originated) and many, many others.

PEW "science" has been questioned often (like Dr. Worm's Study) and has many times been considered "the best science money can buy."

Another example, PEW funded groups have been known to refuse a scientist the ability to publish his/her work done at their behest because the conclusions did not fit with their agenda and did not come to the conclusions they were looking for.

A scientist who's name would be familiar to many here had just such an issue in the past.

Groups like SSFFF have made it a point to allow anyone doing work for them to publish the results of their work REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME of whatever study/work they were doing.

There is grant funded science for the sake of accuracy and there is grant funded science looking to arrive at a specific, predetermined answer.

Just a word of caution when looking at PEW and those they fund.

You'll also notice that PEW receives a massive amount of money from the Sun oil family fortune, and oddly enough none of the work PEW funds deals with environmental issues revolving around oil.

Hmmmmmm......

Re: Not Good
 

[QUOTE=1captainron]Maybe the PEW foundation should go to France, Spain, Austrailia, Japan and all the other countries who basically laugh at the U.S. when we try to propose any form of conservation.....The Freakin French kill 18 inch Bluefin with no regard toward the future.

The EU his talking out of both sides and always has been, my brother in law saw 12 to 20" Bluefin Tuna being sold at a market in Spain last month. The EU is the biggest raper of the ocean

Re: Not Good
 

Very Ironic that PEW or the charitable trust is funded by the Sun Oil Company trust - but no mention to stop oil drilling in our ocean's - MMMM:confused: - Can you say bought off???

Also if they dont like the results of there studies they find the results with another - very true

Be-Careful With PEW and anything associated to them - they fund alot of ANTI-Fishing

Just do a google seacrh and follow the money and you will see where it comes from and were it goes -

EU - they could care less about the size of a tuna - while we try to do the right thing other countries could care less and comes down to the money and what they will make

G- Out -

Re: Not Good
 

Sorry.........

Re: Not Good
 

Just a snapshot of PEW for those who do not already know.
http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/05_04_FW.pdf

The Philadelphia-based Pew Charitable
Trusts is one of the nation’s largest
and most influential philanthropic foundations.
The Pew Charitable Trusts are actually
an interlocking set of seven trusts
established by the children of turn-of-the century
oil baron Joseph N. Pew, and stewarded
by the family’s private investment
bank, the Glenmede Trust Company, which
is the trustee of the seven charitable trusts.
Glenmede manages $14 billion of total Pew
family wealth, about $4 billion of which
belongs to the Pew Charitable Trusts.

As Capt Tony and many others have stated, the almighty $ is LAW, and their calls for donations of time and money are not them begging to fatten their pockets. These institutions are very well funded and knowledge of them and their policies is the starting point in the fight to have our voices heard. Remember one thing, money buys the lobbyists, and the lobbyists have the access to the decision makers. Without the money and / or lobbyists, our fight will get much tougher and our victories will become fewer. I am a member of the RFA, I do donate, so far my money, but now my time. Do recreational fishermen have the collective resources to mount a sustainable defense to this assault on our lives? I hope so, it's what we are all banking on.

Re: Not Good
 

Some articles on the topic of PEW, anti-fishing lobbies and "Fisheries Science" from Nils Stolpe.

Nils and I certainly have disagreed on a great many things over the years, and we have also agreed on many as well. While his "pro-commercial" stance and "not-positive" recreational stance (I will not call him anti-recreational because I know he is not, he is by the nature of his job simply pro-commercial) may put off some recreational fishermen, myself included at times, he has however done extensive research into the aforementioned groups/topics.

To further the discussion about our collective opponents in the realm of fisheries issues, take a gander at these articles by Nils.

The Pew Commission – a basis for national ocean policy?

Who needs science

The real enemy

It should have been Acrockalypse Now - Another Perspective, October 8, 2009