StabbinMan
08-03-2007, 02:36 AM
Our government's Fisheries Management and the recreational spearfishing community share a common goal: to manage the sustainable use of and access to marine fisheries
Accurate scientific data is needed to determine 'sustainable use', and assess prudent limits upon our access to marine fisheries.
Collecting and interpreting complete scientific data regarding fish stocks is difficult at best, and often requires regulators to 'fill in the blanks'. Understandably, those who regulate our sport often must make their best estimates when deciding how to manage the sustainable use of and access to OUR marine fisheries.
While the majority of scientists are reasonable and mainstream in their intentions, the bias of a radical few can often skew or taint the interpretation of this data to fit their agenda. It is our job as responsible sportsmen to protect our sport against those who seek to unfairly limit our rights.
Here are some examples of scientists whose agendas are frequently biased :
Dr. Felicia Coleman and her husband Dr. Christopher Koenig are scientists employed by Florida State University. Their research is funded by our tax dollars, as well as contributions from very extreme private institutions such as:
Pew Charitable Trusts
Examples of the Pew bias can be found by reading these articles:
Experts Criticize Pew Trusts for False Salmon Scare
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16808
Who`s Bankrolling The Enemy by the NRA
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1874486/posts
Possibly the biggest and most powerful foundation is The Pew Charitable Trusts, which was endowed with various inheritances of the four children of Joseph N. Pew, founder of the Sun Oil Company.
As of 2002, its total assets were $7,631,088,018 and in that year alone it awarded $238,534,822 in grants. Here are a few examples: The Tides Foundation and Tides Center got $114,086,400 between 1990-2002; Earthjustice (The Sierra Club`s Legal Defense Fund, which has fought to stop the hunting of grizzlies and wolves) got $19,046,000 between 1995-2003; the Natural Resources Defense Council (a group that grew famous when it accused apple growers of using cancer-causing agents--allegations that proved false, yet cost apple growers an estimated $250 million) was given $11,568,000 between 1991-2000; and the Sierra Club was given $4,035,000 between 1992-2001.
There are many other examples--Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation--but they all follow the same pattern, loads of money from old industry being dumped into far-left causes, many of which are designed to erode your rights as a sportsman and a shooter.
From The Pew Charitable Trust Fellows Program at
http://161.58.251.199/pewFellowsDirectoryTemplate.php?PEWSerialInt=572
The goal of Felicia Coleman's Pew Fellowship is to evaluate the effectiveness of two marine protected areas in the Gulf of Mexico for management and protection of goliath grouper (a candidate for the U.S. Threatened and Endangered Species List and considered by the American Fisheries Society to be at risk of extinction in North America),
Editors note: Who says Goliath Grouper are at risk of extinction anymore? That flies in the face of what I see every time I dive. They're plenty of fully grown, fearless goliath grouper busily consuming hoards of fish on the reefs. If we don't manage their population soon, they may very well starve!
From The Science News Online article quoting Felicia Coleman's research at :http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040828/fob6.asp
The researchers then focused on fish that the National Marine Fisheries Service has assessed as either "overfished" or "experiencing overfishing." Coleman and her colleagues determined, for example, that recreation accounts for 59 percent of red snapper landings in the Gulf of Mexico.
Editors note: It is difficult to believe that recreational fishing could account for 59 percent of any landings. Fifty nine percent of all landings is an incredibly HUGE departure from all of the other conventional estimates of recreational fishing landings.
The abstract of her scientific data shows the incredible departure from normal recreational landing rates of 4-23%, and bears close scrutiny.
(http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1100397 )
Read this article by Coleman and you'll see how the science used to make this claims varies significantly from established norms:
The Impact of United States Recreational Fisheries on Marine Fish Populations
Felicia C. Coleman,1* Will F. Figueira,2 Jeffrey S. Ueland,3 Larry B. Crowder2
We evaluated the commercial and recreational fishery landings over the past 22 years, first at the national level, then for populations of concern (those that are overfished or experiencing overfishing), and finally by region. Recreational landings in 2002 account for 4% of total marine fish landed in the United States. With large industrial fisheries excluded (e.g., menhaden and pollock), the recreational component rises to 10%. Among populations of concern, recreational landings in 2002 account for 23% of the total nationwide, rising to 38% in the South Atlantic and 64% in the Gulf of Mexico. Moreover, it affects many of the most-valued overfished species—including red drum, bocaccio, and red snapper—all of which are taken primarily in the recreational fishery
--------------
How can we assure that fishery regulation is based on sound scientific methods using valid data, and an accurate picture of the fishery?
What can you and I do to help protect our rights? Get involved!
Join an organization that supports responsible fishing and work with them in the fight. The FRA (http://thefra.org) happens to be an organization that I belong to here in Florida, and I would recommend you join as well.
Accurate scientific data is needed to determine 'sustainable use', and assess prudent limits upon our access to marine fisheries.
Collecting and interpreting complete scientific data regarding fish stocks is difficult at best, and often requires regulators to 'fill in the blanks'. Understandably, those who regulate our sport often must make their best estimates when deciding how to manage the sustainable use of and access to OUR marine fisheries.
While the majority of scientists are reasonable and mainstream in their intentions, the bias of a radical few can often skew or taint the interpretation of this data to fit their agenda. It is our job as responsible sportsmen to protect our sport against those who seek to unfairly limit our rights.
Here are some examples of scientists whose agendas are frequently biased :
Dr. Felicia Coleman and her husband Dr. Christopher Koenig are scientists employed by Florida State University. Their research is funded by our tax dollars, as well as contributions from very extreme private institutions such as:
Pew Charitable Trusts
Examples of the Pew bias can be found by reading these articles:
Experts Criticize Pew Trusts for False Salmon Scare
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16808
Who`s Bankrolling The Enemy by the NRA
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1874486/posts
Possibly the biggest and most powerful foundation is The Pew Charitable Trusts, which was endowed with various inheritances of the four children of Joseph N. Pew, founder of the Sun Oil Company.
As of 2002, its total assets were $7,631,088,018 and in that year alone it awarded $238,534,822 in grants. Here are a few examples: The Tides Foundation and Tides Center got $114,086,400 between 1990-2002; Earthjustice (The Sierra Club`s Legal Defense Fund, which has fought to stop the hunting of grizzlies and wolves) got $19,046,000 between 1995-2003; the Natural Resources Defense Council (a group that grew famous when it accused apple growers of using cancer-causing agents--allegations that proved false, yet cost apple growers an estimated $250 million) was given $11,568,000 between 1991-2000; and the Sierra Club was given $4,035,000 between 1992-2001.
There are many other examples--Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation--but they all follow the same pattern, loads of money from old industry being dumped into far-left causes, many of which are designed to erode your rights as a sportsman and a shooter.
From The Pew Charitable Trust Fellows Program at
http://161.58.251.199/pewFellowsDirectoryTemplate.php?PEWSerialInt=572
The goal of Felicia Coleman's Pew Fellowship is to evaluate the effectiveness of two marine protected areas in the Gulf of Mexico for management and protection of goliath grouper (a candidate for the U.S. Threatened and Endangered Species List and considered by the American Fisheries Society to be at risk of extinction in North America),
Editors note: Who says Goliath Grouper are at risk of extinction anymore? That flies in the face of what I see every time I dive. They're plenty of fully grown, fearless goliath grouper busily consuming hoards of fish on the reefs. If we don't manage their population soon, they may very well starve!
From The Science News Online article quoting Felicia Coleman's research at :http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040828/fob6.asp
The researchers then focused on fish that the National Marine Fisheries Service has assessed as either "overfished" or "experiencing overfishing." Coleman and her colleagues determined, for example, that recreation accounts for 59 percent of red snapper landings in the Gulf of Mexico.
Editors note: It is difficult to believe that recreational fishing could account for 59 percent of any landings. Fifty nine percent of all landings is an incredibly HUGE departure from all of the other conventional estimates of recreational fishing landings.
The abstract of her scientific data shows the incredible departure from normal recreational landing rates of 4-23%, and bears close scrutiny.
(http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1100397 )
Read this article by Coleman and you'll see how the science used to make this claims varies significantly from established norms:
The Impact of United States Recreational Fisheries on Marine Fish Populations
Felicia C. Coleman,1* Will F. Figueira,2 Jeffrey S. Ueland,3 Larry B. Crowder2
We evaluated the commercial and recreational fishery landings over the past 22 years, first at the national level, then for populations of concern (those that are overfished or experiencing overfishing), and finally by region. Recreational landings in 2002 account for 4% of total marine fish landed in the United States. With large industrial fisheries excluded (e.g., menhaden and pollock), the recreational component rises to 10%. Among populations of concern, recreational landings in 2002 account for 23% of the total nationwide, rising to 38% in the South Atlantic and 64% in the Gulf of Mexico. Moreover, it affects many of the most-valued overfished species—including red drum, bocaccio, and red snapper—all of which are taken primarily in the recreational fishery
--------------
How can we assure that fishery regulation is based on sound scientific methods using valid data, and an accurate picture of the fishery?
What can you and I do to help protect our rights? Get involved!
Join an organization that supports responsible fishing and work with them in the fight. The FRA (http://thefra.org) happens to be an organization that I belong to here in Florida, and I would recommend you join as well.