BASS BARN banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,156 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Stripers Forever - the Pew Foundation, in its zeal to create no fishing
zones, has financed a widely circulated study. The report suggests that
individual participation in recreational fishing should be limited to
provide more conservation. We have read the report, and believe that
while some of the catch statistics may be generally accurate, the
conclusions are very misleading. In speaking today with friends at the
American Sportfishing Association, we shared the observation that some of
the overfished species reported on had been first collapsed by commercial
overfishing - then abandoned because the stock was depleted - but remain
unable to recover because so many of the juveniles of that species are
taken as bycatch in net fisheries for other species! The great number of
personal use anglers who fish for these fish may catch a large percentage
of the tiny remaining stock, even though they are greatly constrained by
minuscule bag limits and short seasons. Should they be stopped from
fishing altogether so that a dirty bycatch fishery can continue?

This is an important development in the future of recreational saltwater
fishing. Please go to the SF website www.stripersforever.org and under
general news on the right side click "Agenda-driven report..." for more
information, and to read a copy of the Pew report plus the comments of
some other organizations. Brad Burns
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,458 Posts
Bucktail ya better research SF and BB you might find a silent partner TF. Yeah thats right !!!!!

[ 08-31-2004, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Fishpicker ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
DID THE PEW FOUNDATION HIRE ITS OWN RESEARCHER, IF SO IS THE RESEARCHER FOR OR AGAINST SPORTFISHING, SOUNDS LIKE THE SPORTS WILL GO THROUGH THE SAME ORDEAL AS THE HORSESHOE CRABBERS WENT THROUGH WITH MISS QUOTED INFO AND BOGUS REPORTS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Forget PETA!
Peta pulls media stunts hoping to win converts. They get us all fired up but consider this-

PETA does not have lobbyist as far as I know for anything and certainly not for pushing no-fishing zones.

PETA is not spending a gazillion $$ to defeat your freedom to fish acts.

PETA is not trying to manipulate the regulatory process to convince agencies to kick you out.

WHO IS?
Ocean Conservancy
Sierra Club
Audubon
Nature Conservancy
Natural Resources Defense Council
Environmental Defense
Conservation Law Foundation

And I hear though cannot confirm yet that some new outfit called Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership - which is trying to position itself as "Sportsmen Freindly" - and apparently also exists only because of a heap of start-up money from Pew, is also getting into the act.

And they have recieved tens of millions from PEW to achieve this goal.

Stay focused on the real enemies. Contact your state and federal reps and ask them to support Freedom to Fish. If this bill becomes law, these folks will be forced to ask for closures based on science. And guess what? In 99.99% of cases science will not support closures and you will be protected.

Pew Using Junk Science to Attack Recreational Anglers

The Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) condemns the latest report initiated and funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts titled "The Impact of
United States Recreational Fisheries on Marine Fish Populations" as nothing more than junk science.

"Pew and the researchers they fund have reached a new low in their efforts to force arbitrary no-fishing zones on the recreational fishing public," said Jim Donofrio, Executive Director of the RFA. "This latest report brings absolutely nothing to the table to help advance marine conservation."

The report, compiled by Pew funded researchers from Florida State, Duke and Ohio Universities, purports that recreational fishing is largely
unregulated, and has a much greater impact on fisheries than was previously believed.

"The study is based on an erroneous premise - that there is a perception that recreational fishing does not have an impact on fish stocks," said Dr. Michael Sissenwine, Director of Scientific Programs and Chief Science
Advisor for NOAA Fisheries in an article published by Environmental News Service.

Fishery managers and policymakers are aware of the impact of recreational fishing on individual stocks, Sissenwine said, and consider that impact
when making management decisions on allocations and restrictions.

"I do not think the study offers anything to the science or to the fisheries management of fish stocks," said Dr. Sissenwine.

"This paper has little to do with science and everything to do with the political motives of Pew," said Mr. Donofrio. "This paper will certainly end up in the briefing folders of Pew funded lobbyists who are seeking to block the passage of the Freedom to Fish Acts and establish no-fishing zones. However, we are confident that those familiar with fisheries management will treat this paper as 'garbage in - garbage out'," said Mr. Donofrio.

[ 09-05-2004, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: egghead1 ]
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top