This is blog is very good, and I believe the exact example of what Pew's roadmap will be in U.S. waters. Indeed, the NGO recommendations for the National Ocean Policy Task Force, which of course included Pew, spoke of using the "Antiquities Act [to establish] a network of ocean heritage areas to preserve unique and sensitive ocean habitats" and "to safeguard ecologically connected networks of habitat reserves and conservation areas in each region of our nation's oceans and Great Lakes". (NGO Comments, pg. 9) That sounds just like what was recommended in Australia. Here it comes!!
Captain Gary S. Colecchio
Silver Dawn Charters
I read Doug's editorial on Pew Environment Group's assault on Australia recreational fishing. Very good edit, as usual. I also clicked on the link and read the Aus. fishing magazine editorial with the Pew Environment boss in Aus. She spread the same lies that Pew does here in Oregon:
That no-fishing marine reserves (MRs) provide "resilience" to climate change; that they give researchers "benchmark areas" to study; that MRs increase tourism; that only 0.1 percent of Earth's oceans are closed, or as they prefer to say, "protected."
My responses: Climate is in the atmosphere that covers all of Earth, land and water included. A jurisdictional boundary is not going to matter to a changing climate.
They have MRs now that are either not studied or only lightly studied. In California the governor cut off the research money in the current budget downcycle, but the MR designations stayed on maps. I'd like to see more research in the areas already set aside than have them set more aside just in case someday they want to use them.
How can punishing the biggest tourism industry -- fishing -- benefit tourism? And what in Pew's mind IS tourism, if ecotourism isn't part of it? Fishing is ecotourism, according to the definition.
Almost all nearshore waters are regulated for fishing, ergo, they're already protected. Pew and other troublmakers include the vast open oceans and say that only 0.1 or 1.0 or whatever is actually protected. What they mean is that only a small percentage of the total ocean is completely closed to fishing, but don't say how much is responsibly managed, which would be the area they want to futher close.
Reading her interview was a big case of deja vu for me. Having been on both of Oregon's Ocean Policy Advisory Councils and a coastal county commissioner for eight years, I've seen Packard Foundation and Pew's modus operandi on this issue for more than a decade. Here in Oregon, they manufactured a crisis, said that MRs were the only solution, and villified anyone who stands against them.
They say that sport "fishers" support the MRs. Again, here in Oregon, they put a few token sport fishermen on their payroll, then had them testify to the Ocean Policy Advisory Council.
Pew are the ones who are intentionally misleading people, not us and not, for the most part, commercial fishermen.
Pew wants all of us off the ocean.
Coos Bay, Oregon
This is not the "future" in America. It's the "reality" in America. Here in CA, we're already getting hit hard.
Doug, how about an interview with Julie Packard?
john griffith -- i was interested to read your insightful comments, esp. from one who's been involved in all this at many levels, including as angling enthusiast but also politically, and has dealt directly with pew, in ways i have not. allen -- interesting idea, an interview w/ ms. packard herself and one i might pursue; however, i suspect she's likely to (a) not be very interested -- are a bunch of sport fishermen worth her time? i wonder.... and (b) in any case would likely refer me to her top dawg in matters involving marine-resource use ("extraction") -- josh reichert, and of course i've been there done that.
i'm at little surprised there hasn't been more response, more outrage to this blog, and worry that if anyone at pew does monitor such things, they might interpret this as apathy among anglers (u.s. and abroad), suggesting they won't really put up a fuss as pew chips away at prime fishing areas globally.... i hope that's not the case.
(and btw i have friends in pew who are serious anglers and in fact working on a campaign to ban longlining in gulf of mexico during bluefin spawning -- but any good things pew is doing (that help sport fishing) are lost in the turmoil of long-term harm anglers fear from higher-level pew policies and MPA efforts.)
i think that's the 64,000 (or more like 64 million) dollar question! a lot of folks are trying to get more awareness and unity within the RFC (rec'l fishing community) but it's tough. the real fear is that only AFTER the cows are outta the barn -- and MPAs are in place -- will that unity come about....
And John Griffith, thanks for your work in Oregon. I run the NorthWestKayakAnglers.com online community. We have many members in Oregon. MPA's hit the kayak fishing community pretty hard since a combination of limited range and access closures results in large portions of the ocean being unavailable to us.
Maybe the blogs should automatically feed to a sub forum here.
Len Olyott here, all the way from Australia. Thanks for the posting. I am CEO of Recfish Australia - the peak body for Australia's recreational fishers at least until December 31 when our funding (and my contract) runs out. At least we will go out fighting.
An update on the Coral Sea. Sometime ago, Pew successfully lobbied the federal environment minister (ex Midnight Oil frontman Peter Garrett) to declare the Coral Sea Area a Conservation Zone. There was no need to do this, govt says its to restrict further impacts on the area and the only change so far is that charter operators now need a (free) permit to fish there. One of our Queensland Senators tried to get the declaration disallowed but the end result was a failure with a tied vote in the Senate meaning the disallowance motion got overturned. The government essentially stifled the debate and none of the pro-fishing senators were allowed to speak.
The vote probably came down to one independent senator who was harrassed by both the government and the Greens into changing his vote.
This is the game that Pew is playing, only its not a game anymore. Their tactics are serious and we have to respond with the same. This is not just an Australia issue - we need a global response on this and anything you can do in the US to expose Pew for what they are - go right ahead and do it. We need your help for the sake of our children and their right to go fishing.