Most of us don't know much about the red snapper, but to have a Florida Representative engage in the politics of denialism in the face of overwheming evidence is enormously irresponsible. This kind of pandering to isolated interest groups is so destructive to our environment!
QuoteRed Snapper Medics Studying The Crash
The Green Man
There’s a kind of blindness humans have, when it comes to the endangered species of the sea. We don’t live underwater, and so most of us don’t have much of an idea of what ocean life looks like now, or what it once looked like. Not knowing the difference, and not having any way to see things for ourselves, it can be easy to accept hearsay about the sea at face value.
That’s what Congressman John Mica has done when it comes to the red snapper. The red snapper is not a sunburned jazz musician, or an angry Republican. It’s a fish. In the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic, it’s a fish that’s in danger of extinction if fishing practices aren’t changed. That’s not just a matter of opinion. It’s an assessment based on consistent scientific observations.
The following chart for example, is based on a long-term series of surveys and data assessments by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. It shows the scientific estimate of the the biomass of red snapper in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.
(http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z276/fayeforcure/redsnapper.jpg)
Representative John Mica responds to this kind of scientific data with second-hand anecdotal information. “The fishermen I’ve talked with, both sport and commercial, say… there are strong runs of snapper and grouper,†he says. Of course, the fishermen John Mica has talked to are members of a political group that is seeking to block fishing regulations designed to protect the red snapper. They have a bias, the kind of bias that large-scale, long-term scientific observations are designed to avoid.
It’s not just one source of research that indicates current fishing practices are threatening to red snapper. Governmental surveys take place in the larger context of studies by other scientists, like Dr. William Patterson, Dr. James Cowan, Dr. Ronald Phelps, and more scientists, and more scientists. A lack of research on the red snapper is not the problem. A lack of action is.
Yet, John Mica, and his constituency of fishing interests, doesn’t like the result of the scientific research that exists, so they’re asking for action on the ecological crisis of the red snapper be halted, until a new study can be conducted - this one not by fisheries scientists, but by the Department of Commerce. That’s why Congressman Mica has introduced a bill, H.R. 3307, that would interfere with current fisheries law, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Mica’s bill would prohibit limitations under Magnuson-Stevens until the completion Department of Commerce study.
What you see in the chart above is, in plain terms, a crash. When paramedics come upon a car crash, they don’t wait for additional medical studies of the conditions of the people in the car before acting. They can see the trauma quite plainly, and they apply emergency medicine on the spot to prevent death and enable the next step in more targeted care.
The condition of the red snapper in both the South Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico is like the condition of people who have been in a serious car crash. More study on red snapper populations would be great. Delaying action to rescue the red snapper from extinction until additional research is completed would be insane.
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2009/07/25/red-snapper-medics-studying-the-crash/
For most of you this is a fringe issue, I know, but it is so indicative of the utter and complete disregard of scientific opinion showing irrefutable catastrophy in the face of entrenched business interests.
Will we empty the oceans?
By Eoin O'Carroll | 07.06.09
Print this Letter to the Editor Republish Email and shareGet e-mail alerts RSS
Last week, Greenpeace released its semiannual seafood sustainability scorecard, which ranks US supermarket chains based on the impacts their practices have on marine life and how well they communicate these practices to the shopper.
The grades are dispiriting. While the environmental advocacy group noted progress among some stores, the top scorer, Wegmans, received only 6 out of 10. Even though the East Coast chain has worked with scientists and conservationists to develop seafood sourcing standards and has removed from its stores a number of species because of sustainability concerns, Greenpeace found that Wegmans continues to sell 15 species â€" including grouper, monkfish, and Atlantic salmon â€" that appear on Greenpeace’s Red List of fish that are unavailable from sustainable sources.
Other stores fared much worse on Greenpeace’s report card. The national chain Trader Joe’s â€" which generally has a good reputation among greens â€" scored near the bottom, prompting Greenpeace to attack them in a site called Traitor Joe.
You can check how your local supermarkets have performed on Greenpeace’s ranking here.
This is about more than just a few endangered species. After a half century of industrial fishing, a quarter of the world’s fish stocks are overfished, and another half are fished to full capacity. One study found that, if current trends continue, the world will completely run out of seafood in 30 years.
It wasn’t always like this. Here’s how the Monitor’s series on overfishing last year kicked off:
Early European explorers to the Americas encountered an astounding abundance of marine life. White beluga whales, now limited to the arctic, swam as far south as Boston Bay. Cod off Newfoundland were so plentiful that fishermen could catch them with nothing more than a weighted basket lowered into the water. As late as the mid-19th century, river herring ran so thick in the eastern United States that wading across certain waterways meant treading on fish. And everywhere sharks were so numerous that, after hauling in their catches, fishers often found them stripped to the bone.
So how did we get from that world, where the oceans teemed with marine life, to the growing aquatic wasteland we see today? The answer: One catch at a time.
Here’s where we’re supposed to dust off the hoary metaphor about boiling a frog. You know the one: Drop a frog in boiling water, and it jumps out immediately. But if you place it in cold water that you heat gradually, the frog won’t perceive the danger and will make no attempt to escape as it is gradually boiled to death.
This, of course, is utter nonsense. Dropping a frog in boiling water will almost certainly kill it, and if you heat the water slowly, the frog will jump out once the temperature gets uncomfortable. Sorry, but amphibians aren’t that stupid.
Can the same be said for humans? As Nicholas Kristof pointed out in his New York Times column last week, we modern Homo sapiens are pretty much physically identical to our hunting and gathering forebears who lived some 200,000 years ago. As a result, our minds are highly attuned to Pleistocene-style threats, the saber-toothed cat lurking in the grass, the rival eying your mate, the guy from the neighboring tribe with the big stick. When we perceive these kinds of threats â€" manifested today in the form of images of militants abroad or “moral values†issues at home, our bodies instinctively gear up into fight-or-flight mode
Not so much for those creeping, incremental threats like overfishing. Even though resource depletion can wipe out a species population just as surely as a terrorist attack, the threat isn’t visceral. Unless you have a very vivid imagination, contemplating lifeless oceans won’t make your eyes widen or your pulse quicken. You’re just not built that way.
But, unlike most other animals, we humans have the capacity to override our evolutionary programming and think far into the future. That’s why we save for retirement, get regular exercise, and floss. Doing these things are much harder than living for the moment, but important for our long-term viability.
The alternative is to bury our heads in the sand and hope the problem goes away, an act that â€" while we’re puncturing bogus animal metaphors â€" even ostriches don’t do. Can we be smarter than ostriches?
==
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/07/06/will-we-empty-the-oceans/
Short-sighted congressmen who should be working to safe-guard our future, are just pandering to special interest groups, putting our future at risk, and showing a complete lack of REAL leadership.
(http://www.floridasportsman.com/features/florida_red_snapper.JPG)
Save Florida Sports, EAT A SNAPPER!
I know I've done my part to save "The Red Snapper," she used to live with me in Southern California.
So if the shrimp boats go out from Mayport, Fernandina and St. Augustine, and put their nets in the water we'll have to post signs telling the Snapper's to go elsewhere? Could do something stupid like make it illegal to have one in your possession. We did that with Birds of Prey and people around the country were arrested for making feathered dream catchers out of ROAD KILL bird feathers. "Protected, you understand, those damn road kill feathers are strictly off limits..." Huh?
This is a damn slippery slope, do we stop the fishing industry because a dumb Red Snapper got into the nets? They probably catch a few thousand per day. But no, lets just arrest the weekend fisherman that had the bad fortune to catch one at the beach or out on the sports boat. It's the evil meat, fish and fowl folks we're after, after locking up half the 16 year olds in the country for smoking a bit of boo, this will REALLY help our prisons create more hardened prisoners.
"What are you in for?"
"Grand theft auto and two Red Snappers..."
"They sent you here over a stolen car?"
"Hell no, that was nothing, they nailed me for eating the sacred fish."
When I stop laughing I think I'll go fishing! Maybe Faye and John would like to come along? This is going to be one hell of a deep sea journey.
OCKLAWAHA
I don't see where further limiting the amount of snapper caught would be all that bad. Limiting the supply will drive up the prices and hopefully offset the loss of quantity.
Couldn't the fisherman, theoretically, make about the same money on less fish if they scored more at he market per pound? Plus there would be less time on the water because they have less to catch. Now that I think about it, the downside to higher prices for fish is that many people will likely buy less. I guess that's the "catch" 22.
Doesn't work that way. All it will do is increase foreign purchases of seafood and drive another industry out of business to appease some extremists with a messiah complex. The snapper season has already been cut to the bare minimum possible for the commercial fishermen to survive. The recent reports have shown increasing stocks of snapper because of one main reason: more bottom structure. The majority of the gulf bottom is sand with limited natural structure. More and more artificial structure has been laid down along with an increase of oil producing structure which has had a very beneficial effect on the snapper numbers. John Mica did the right thing(as he normally does) by looking at data instead of emotional talking points.
Quote from: jaxnative on August 04, 2009, 02:23:51 PM
The recent reports have shown increasing stocks of snapper because of one main reason: more bottom structure.
Oh really? Where are those reports from? The fishermen themselves? Don't you see a conflict of interest there?
Quote from: jaxnative on August 04, 2009, 02:23:51 PM
John Mica did the right thing(as he normally does) by looking at data instead of emotional talking points.
Yeah sure, you mean the emotional talking points of the fishermen? Maybe we should listen to the emotional talking points of our children and grandchildren who want to see the red snapper survive.........
Even Mica admits not to have any data to base his decision on:
QuoteCongress Hears Arguments to Stop Moratorium on Red Snapper Fishing off Southeast Coast
Jim Burress (2009-07-27)
null
ATLANTA, GA (WABE) - In March, federal fisheries managers approved a six-month moratorium on red snapper fishing from coastal North Carolina down to Florida. A final decision is pending from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA.
But U-S Representative John Mica of Florida has put before Congress a moratorium on the moratorium. He says the issue needs more study:
"If it isn't necessary, then we don't enforce the ban. If it is necessary, go forward with the ban. It's that simple."
Debbie Salamone of the Pew Trust says the fish doesn't have more time:
"This species could be facing commercial extinction, which means it's not worth fishing for any longer."
Some fisherman call environmentalists' reports flawed and outdated. However, NOAA's regional administrator has said size and bag limits are not keeping the Red Snapper at federally-mandated levels.
Jim Burress, WABE News.
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wabe/news.newsmain/article/1/0/1534595/Atlanta/Congress.Hears.Arguments.to.Stop.Moratorium.on.Red.Snapper.Fishing.off.Southeast.Coast
No disrespect, but this thread is making me hungry. On Shark Week last night they said Hog Snapper was one of the most flavorful fish around.
It is darn good but it still doesn't beat a well cooked fillet of grouper IMHO.
Yeah, lets all not forget that just a couple of decades ago we went through the same BS with Gators... "The last dinosaurs," "A legacy for our children", "A child without Gatorland..." It really got pretty stupid. Well we saved the damn things and how many of those "children" have been consumed by them? How many parents? Since hunting became limited but legal again what is the death toll for our benevolence? Can our kids still safely swim at Bluff Landing? Lake Jessup? Juniper Springs Run? NOT! Everyone wave to the big smiling croc, doesn't it make you feel warm and fuzzy?
Anyone else remember the prehistoric fish that was gone for 10 Billion years then showed up in a net? Yeah, not only extinct but a REAL LIVE Triassic wonder. BULL SHIT!
Faye, I respect your views on Transportation and several rail issues, but this one is such a stretch that it comes across as a school yard tattle tale because Johnny got the ball. Sort of like those fools that chase Japanese fishing vessels and French warships around the Pacific. RAM THE Bastards and full speed ahead.
As a friend, I'm afraid posts like this in a Republican City, will get you a label that may make you unelectable. Anyone else agree? Got any good Snapper recipe's?
OCKLAWAHA
QuoteSort of like those fools that chase Japanese fishing vessels
That is amazing. I've just got to wonder where those idiots get the funding to equip and operate their vessels. I stop and watch these people sometimes when I'm channel surfing out of some kind of morbid curiosity as they violate maritime law and put people's lives in danger. The Animal Planet channel should be ashamed.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on August 04, 2009, 07:04:59 PM
Yeah, lets all not forget that just a couple of decades ago we went through the same BS with Gators... "The last dinosaurs," "A legacy for our children", "A child without Gatorland..." It really got pretty stupid. Well we saved the damn things and how many of those "children" have been consumed by them? How many parents? Since hunting became limited but legal again what is the death toll for our benevolence? Can our kids still safely swim at Bluff Landing? Lake Jessup? Juniper Springs Run? NOT! Everyone wave to the big smiling croc, doesn't it make you feel warm and fuzzy?
Anyone else remember the prehistoric fish that was gone for 10 Billion years then showed up in a net? Yeah, not only extinct but a REAL LIVE Triassic wonder. BULL SHIT!
Faye, I respect your views on Transportation and several rail issues, but this one is such a stretch that it comes across as a school yard tattle tale because Johnny got the ball. Sort of like those fools that chase Japanese fishing vessels and French warships around the Pacific. RAM THE Bastards and full speed ahead.
As a friend, I'm afraid posts like this in a Republican City, will get you a label that may make you unelectable. Anyone else agree? Got any good Snapper recipe's?
OCKLAWAHA
Forget the Republican city crap:
Registered Voters as of 08/04/2009 Republican: 193,524
Democrat: 241,725 Other: 94,778 Total: 530,027
http://www.duvalelections.com/
McCain 50%
Obama 49%
Besides, environmental issues are extremely important to Republicans too. Healthcare and environmental issues are the only truly bi-partisan issues.
Sorry to see your views are so outdated. I respect your views on rail, but even a 6 year old can interpret the snapper graph, and have a more appropriate and responsible response.
Species extinction is not a laughing matter,........neither is the nilly willy attitude about destroying our environment. I am sure the younger generations will be smarter than that, after the mess-up the "boomers" have made of things.
And sorry to burst "you all"'s bubble on Mica, but he too believes in bans,........he's jsut trying to delay the necessary ban despite sufficient and overwhelming scientific evidence a ban is necessary vs random anecdotal hear-say:
QuoteBut U-S Representative John Mica of Florida has put before Congress a moratorium on the moratorium. He says the issue needs more study:
"If it isn't necessary, then we don't enforce the ban. If it is necessary, go forward with the ban. It's that simple."
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wabe/news.newsmain/article/1/0/1534595/Atlanta/Congress.Hears.Arguments.to.Stop.Moratorium.on.Red.Snapper.Fishing.off.Southeast.Coast
QuoteForget the Republican city crap:
Registered Voters as of 08/04/2009 Republican: 193,524 Democrat: 241,725 Other: 94,778 Total: 530,027
http://www.duvalelections.com/
McCain 50%
Obama 49%
Besides, environmental issues are extremely important to Republicans too. Healthcare and environmental issues are the only truly bi-partisan issues.
Sorry to see your views are so outdated. I respect your views on rail, but even a 6 year old can interpret the snapper graph, and have a more appropriate and responsible response.
Species extinction is not a laughing matter,........neither is the nilly willy attitude about destroying our environment. I am sure the younger generations will be smarter than that, after the mess-up the "boomers" have made of things.
It's a fish Faye... A damn stupid (but great tasting) fish! BTW, I don't miss the sabretooth tigers, pterodactyls, or 50' crocodiles either... ROFL... Learn to salute your own generation, life's to short to take it so seriously, Gee, now I'm on par with 6 year olds? Guess my goal of never growing up is reachable, turn on - tune in - drop out! LOLOCKLAWAHA
Quoteafter the mess-up the "boomers" have made of things.
Overfishing, pollution, etc, were occuring loooooong before the "boomers". If anything... those evil boomers were the first to bring environmentalism into the public conciousness. They were the first to actually "do something" about the various problems you speak of.
Why is everyone who disagrees with the depth of your convictions wrong or childish Faye? We all dont see the same calamity in everyday life as you... but this does not make one "childish".
^Good point BT. Now we need the Chinese to have a hippy boomer generation. Despite however successful we may be at reducing our carbon footprint, China will make that irrelevant by the rate of their industrial expansion. Until they get on board, most of what we do won't matter. I'm not excusing us from doing our part, just making a point.
On a related note (you might want to look into this, Faye), we could drastically reduce atmospheric pollution by switching to hamburgers made from kangaroos. They produce a fraction of the amount of methane compared to cows. They also go great with snapper.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on August 05, 2009, 09:21:30 AM
^Good point BT. Now we need the Chinese to have a hippy boomer generation. Despite however successful we may be at reducing our carbon footprint, China will make that irrelevant by the rate of their industrial expansion. Until they get on board, most of what we do won't matter. I'm not excusing us from doing our part, just making a point.
On a related note (you might want to look into this, Faye), we could drastically reduce atmospheric pollution by switching to hamburgers made from kangaroos. They produce a fraction of the amount of methane compared to cows. They also go great with snapper.
Thank you Captain Zissou for your more rational and reasoned response. Being a true leader, the US does not need to wait for China to do the right thing. The "we shouldn't do it because they don't do it" rationale is irresponsible, and also untrue in ragards to China. Though China's need for energy is going to continue to rise astronomically ( as with all developing nations), China has been at the fore-front of the green energy industry:
QuoteChina Builds High Wall to Guard Energy Industry
Ariana Lindquist for The New York Times
The Daliang Wind Station located outside of Anxi in Gansu Province. China is now building six wind farms with a capacity of 10,000 to 20,000 megawatts apiece. More Photos >
By KEITH BRADSHER
Published: July 13, 2009
BEIJING â€" When the United States’ top energy and commerce officials arrive in China on Tuesday, they will land in the middle of a building storm over China’s protectionist tactics to become the world’s leader in renewable energy.
(http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z276/fayeforcure/DaliangWindStationAnxiinGansuProvin.jpg)
The Daliang Wind Station located outside of Anxi in Gansu Province. China is now building six wind farms with a capacity of 10,000 to 20,000 megawatts apiece.
Alex Wong/Getty Images
Energy Secretary Steven Chu will discuss global warming with Chinese officials. More Photos »
A blog about energy, the environment and the bottom line.
Calling renewable energy a strategic industry, China is trying hard to make sure that its companies dominate globally. Just as Japan and South Korea made it hard for Detroit automakers to compete in those countries â€" giving their own automakers time to amass economies of scale in sheltered domestic markets â€" China is shielding its clean energy sector while it grows to a point where it can take on the world.
Steven Chu, the American energy secretary, and Gary Locke, the commerce secretary, are coming here to discuss clean energy and global warming with Chinese leaders, and to see if progress can be made toward getting China to agree to specific targets for reductions in greenhouse gases. Agreement proved elusive during the Group of 8 summit meeting last week in Italy.
But Mr. Chu and Mr. Locke arrive as Western companies, especially Europeans, are complaining increasingly about Beijing’s green protectionism.
China has built the world’s largest solar panel manufacturing industry by exporting over 95 percent of its output to the United States and Europe. But when China authorized its first solar power plant this spring, it required that at least 80 percent of the equipment be made in China.
When the Chinese government took bids this spring for 25 large contracts to supply wind turbines, every contract was won by one of seven domestic companies. All six multinationals that submitted bids were disqualified on various technical grounds, like not providing sufficiently detailed data.
This spring, the Chinese government banned virtually any installation of wind turbines with a capacity of less than 1,000 kilowatts â€" excluding 850-kilowatt designs, a popular size for European manufacturers.
Lu Hong, the program officer for renewable energy in the Beijing office of the Energy Foundation, a nonprofit group seeking to support sustainable energy, said that China was willing to invest heavily in renewable energy industries, even though wind and solar energy costs are higher than for coal, precisely because it helps the Chinese economy.
“The Chinese government won’t consider such a big solar industry without considering the building up of the domestic industry,†she said, adding that China’s policies will also help address global warming.
Zhou Heliang, the president of the China Electrotechnical Society, a government entity that plays a broad role in national and provincial technology policy, predicted at the Wind Power Asia conference here on Friday that Chinese-owned companies would increase their share of the Chinese market by an additional 10 or 20 percentage points this year.
That would give them almost three-quarters of the domestic market, compared with a quarter for European and American companies â€" the reverse of the ratio four years ago.
This year, China passed the United States as the world’s largest market for wind energy. It is now building six wind farms with a capacity of 10,000 to 20,000 megawatts apiece, using extensive low-interest loans from state-owned banks.
By comparison, T. Boone Pickens delayed his plans to build a 4,000-megawatt wind farm in Texas, once promoted as the world’s largest.
Some foreign companies, particularly European businesses, are starting to express misgivings about China’s promotion of the local manufacturers.
European wind turbine makers have stopped even bidding for some Chinese contracts after concluding that their bids would not be seriously considered, said Jörg Wuttke, the president of the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China.
European turbine manufacturers are especially disappointed because they built factories in China in order to comply with the country’s requirement that turbines contain 70 percent local content, Mr. Wuttke said. Yet all the multinational manufacturers were disqualified on technical grounds within three days of bidding for wind farm contracts this spring, even as Chinese companies that had never built a turbine were approved, he said.
European solar power companies are also unhappy. “This is not a level playing field,†said Boris Klebensberger, the chief operating officer of SolarWorld AG, which is based in Bonn.
Mr. Wuttke said he was encouraged that Premier Wen Jiabao of China told Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany in a telephone call on June 25 that China would not discriminate against foreign enterprises, according to the official Xinhua news agency.
But no new Chinese renewable energy regulations have been issued since then on local content requirements or other rules.
American companies play a smaller role in the global renewable energy industry, but some of them are also growing exasperated with the Chinese market. “That has been a tough market for non-Chinese manufacturers,†said Victor Abate, General Electric’s vice president for wind energy.
Kevin Griffis, a Commerce Department spokesman, said that the agency had not heard from American companies about difficulties in the Chinese market for renewable energy.
“Generally speaking,†Mr. Griffis said, “we support a business environment that is open, transparent, and fair so that all companies are able to compete based on product performance, not country of origin.â€
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/business/energy-environment/14energy.html
On the other source for hamburgers (kangaroos produce a fraction of the amount of methane compared to cows), I thank you for providing that valuable info. Needless to say I'm a veggie burger fan.
QuoteQuote from: FayeforCure on August 09, 2009, 12:54:14 PM
Quote from: Captain Zissou on August 05, 2009, 09:21:30 AM
^Good point BT. Now we need the Chinese to have a hippy boomer generation. Despite however successful we may be at reducing our carbon footprint, China will make that irrelevant by the rate of their industrial expansion. Until they get on board, most of what we do won't matter. I'm not excusing us from doing our part, just making a point.
On a related note (you might want to look into this, Faye), we could drastically reduce atmospheric pollution by switching to hamburgers made from kangaroos. They produce a fraction of the amount of methane compared to cows. They also go great with snapper.
Zhou Heliang, the president of the China Electrotechnical Society, a government entity that plays a broad role in national and provincial technology policy, predicted at the Wind Power Asia conference here on Friday that Chinese-owned companies would increase their share of the Chinese market by an additional 10 or 20 percentage points this year.
That would give them almost three-quarters of the domestic market, compared with a quarter for European and American companies â€" the reverse of the ratio four years ago.
This year, China passed the United States as the world’s largest market for wind energy. It is now building six wind farms with a capacity of 10,000 to 20,000 megawatts apiece, using extensive low-interest loans from state-owned banks.
By comparison, T. Boone Pickens delayed his plans to build a 4,000-megawatt wind farm in Texas, once promoted as the world’s largest.
Some foreign companies, particularly European businesses, are starting to express misgivings about China’s promotion of the local manufacturers.
European wind turbine makers have stopped even bidding for some Chinese contracts after concluding that their bids would not be seriously considered, said Jörg Wuttke, the president of the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China.
European turbine manufacturers are especially disappointed because they built factories in China in order to comply with the country’s requirement that turbines contain 70 percent local content, Mr. Wuttke said. Yet all the multinational manufacturers were disqualified on technical grounds within three days of bidding for wind farm contracts this spring, even as Chinese companies that had never built a turbine were approved, he said.
European solar power companies are also unhappy. “This is not a level playing field,†said Boris Klebensberger, the chief operating officer of SolarWorld AG, which is based in Bonn.
This is just great, we're going to SAVE the SNAPPERS and KILL the BIRDS! Are we going to get real emotional over Snappers? What do we do when we put them ahead of birds? Do Snappers eat birds, or do birds eat Snappers? Which group should we kill off first?
Yeah sure, you mean the emotional talking points? Maybe we should listen to the emotional talking points of our children and grandchildren who want to see the birds survive.........
QuoteWind turbines taking toll on birds of prey
By John Ritter, USA TODAY
ALTAMONT PASS, Calif. â€" The big turbines that stretch for miles along these rolling, grassy hills have churned out clean, renewable electricity for two decades in one of the nation's first big wind-power projects.
But for just as long, massive fiberglass blades on the more than 4,000 windmills have been chopping up tens of thousands of birds that fly into them, including golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, burrowing owls and other raptors.
After years of study but little progress reducing bird kills, environmentalists have sued to force turbine owners to take tough corrective measures. The companies, at risk of federal prosecution, say they see the need to protect birds. "Once we finally realized that this issue was really serious, that we had to solve it to move forward, we got religion," says George Hardie, president of G3 Energy.
The size of the annual body count â€" conservatively put at 4,700 birds â€" is unique to this sprawling, 50-square-mile site in the Diablo Mountains between San Francisco and the agricultural Central Valley because it spans an international migratory bird route regulated by the federal government. The low mountains are home to the world's highest density of nesting golden eagles.
Scientists don't know whether the kills reduce overall bird populations but worry that turbines, added to other factors, could tip a species into decline. "They didn't realize it at the time, but it was just a really bad place to build a wind farm," says Grainger Hunt, an ecologist with the Peregrine Fund who has studied eagles at Altamont.
Apocalyptic!
OCKLAWAHA
In regards to the Red Snapper, I find it very sad that people are making fun of the situation. Look at our river and the algae bloom, the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, the depletion of coastal wetlands, the sickly coral reefs (which are breeding grounds), and the health of our waterways. The amount of consumption is staggering and all animals need a healthy environment to survive an breed.
"Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realize we cannot eat money". Cree Indian Proverb
Quote from: Ocklawaha on August 09, 2009, 08:44:22 PM
QuoteQuote from: FayeforCure on August 09, 2009, 12:54:14 PM
Quote from: Captain Zissou on August 05, 2009, 09:21:30 AM
^Good point BT. Now we need the Chinese to have a hippy boomer generation. Despite however successful we may be at reducing our carbon footprint, China will make that irrelevant by the rate of their industrial expansion. Until they get on board, most of what we do won't matter. I'm not excusing us from doing our part, just making a point.
On a related note (you might want to look into this, Faye), we could drastically reduce atmospheric pollution by switching to hamburgers made from kangaroos. They produce a fraction of the amount of methane compared to cows. They also go great with snapper.
Zhou Heliang, the president of the China Electrotechnical Society, a government entity that plays a broad role in national and provincial technology policy, predicted at the Wind Power Asia conference here on Friday that Chinese-owned companies would increase their share of the Chinese market by an additional 10 or 20 percentage points this year.
That would give them almost three-quarters of the domestic market, compared with a quarter for European and American companies â€" the reverse of the ratio four years ago.
This year, China passed the United States as the world’s largest market for wind energy. It is now building six wind farms with a capacity of 10,000 to 20,000 megawatts apiece, using extensive low-interest loans from state-owned banks.
By comparison, T. Boone Pickens delayed his plans to build a 4,000-megawatt wind farm in Texas, once promoted as the world’s largest.
Some foreign companies, particularly European businesses, are starting to express misgivings about China’s promotion of the local manufacturers.
European wind turbine makers have stopped even bidding for some Chinese contracts after concluding that their bids would not be seriously considered, said Jörg Wuttke, the president of the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China.
European turbine manufacturers are especially disappointed because they built factories in China in order to comply with the country’s requirement that turbines contain 70 percent local content, Mr. Wuttke said. Yet all the multinational manufacturers were disqualified on technical grounds within three days of bidding for wind farm contracts this spring, even as Chinese companies that had never built a turbine were approved, he said.
European solar power companies are also unhappy. “This is not a level playing field,†said Boris Klebensberger, the chief operating officer of SolarWorld AG, which is based in Bonn.
This is just great, we're going to SAVE the SNAPPERS and KILL the BIRDS! Are we going to get real emotional over Snappers? What do we do when we put them ahead of birds? Do Snappers eat birds, or do birds eat Snappers? Which group should we kill off first?
Yeah sure, you mean the emotional talking points? Maybe we should listen to the emotional talking points of our children and grandchildren who want to see the birds survive.........
QuoteWind turbines taking toll on birds of prey
By John Ritter, USA TODAY
ALTAMONT PASS, Calif. â€" The big turbines that stretch for miles along these rolling, grassy hills have churned out clean, renewable electricity for two decades in one of the nation's first big wind-power projects.
But for just as long, massive fiberglass blades on the more than 4,000 windmills have been chopping up tens of thousands of birds that fly into them, including golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, burrowing owls and other raptors.
After years of study but little progress reducing bird kills, environmentalists have sued to force turbine owners to take tough corrective measures. The companies, at risk of federal prosecution, say they see the need to protect birds. "Once we finally realized that this issue was really serious, that we had to solve it to move forward, we got religion," says George Hardie, president of G3 Energy.
The size of the annual body count â€" conservatively put at 4,700 birds â€" is unique to this sprawling, 50-square-mile site in the Diablo Mountains between San Francisco and the agricultural Central Valley because it spans an international migratory bird route regulated by the federal government. The low mountains are home to the world's highest density of nesting golden eagles.
Scientists don't know whether the kills reduce overall bird populations but worry that turbines, added to other factors, could tip a species into decline. "They didn't realize it at the time, but it was just a really bad place to build a wind farm," says Grainger Hunt, an ecologist with the Peregrine Fund who has studied eagles at Altamont.
Apocalyptic!
OCKLAWAHA
Apparently the data in regards to the wind turbines killing birds is not current. They have been redesigned and don't kill quite as many birds (at least not as many as electrical lines).
Here are a couple of links to look at:
http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html (http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html)
Good footnotes on this.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/common_misconce.php (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/common_misconce.php)
Quote from: tashi on August 10, 2009, 02:08:52 AM
Apparently the data in regards to the wind turbines killing birds is not current. They have been redesigned and don't kill quite as many birds (at least not as many as electrical lines).
Here are a couple of links to look at:
http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html (http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html)
Good footnotes on this.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/common_misconce.php (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/common_misconce.php)
Thank you tashi. One of the favorite tactics of non-environmentalists is to mock real scientific evidence of declining populations, followed by putting out distracting bogus claims about other "dangers,"........in the blogosphere this is considered "concern trolling." Another frequent distraction used is to mock the the messenger.
Too bad Ock and others are so adept at distracting from the substance of the issue.
Faye... as always... you seem to think there is only one side to an issue. Mica and others do not hate fish or red snapper. I am an environmentalist and I would venture to say Ock is also very pro environment and conservation. We also like to eat snapper and understand that there are peoples jobs and livelihoods at stake. Environmentalists in your camp would ban fishing for snapper and propose that we all consume tofu and wheat germ for our eating pleasure. Mica is most likely searching for some middle ground between "environmentalist" and fishermen and fish eating public. He is not against conservation... just your version of conservation. :)
I'm not sure where the connection between red snapper and wind turbines is. But the problem with restrictions on red snapper fishing is that the one government study conflicts with practical knowledge and scientific studies. The fishermen know that the last few years have been great snapper fishing. They know that in the gulf you are limited to two per fisherman per day. But when you sit there and fish and every fish coming up is a red snapper they are abundant and not threatened. The interesting thing is that in the Gulf they limit daily catch to 2 per fisherman. But in the Atlantic they want to cut it off all together for most of the year without ever reducing bag limits. Something is wrong with that.
Fishing biologists have come out questioning the protocols of the red snapper study and the results.
Frankly if they want to help the red snapper population they would be placing more artificial reefs. The snapper and grouper populations in areas where artificial reefs are installed have grown. This might be the wind turbine connection. They are in affect artificial habitat. They could do the same thing with oil rigs, reef pyramids and old ships. Most of the shelf is desert. Added structure creates habitat for the fish.
I find it interesting that we have wind turbine fields in California and Texas and they still debate whether they kill birds. What would be the result if they just went out and counted the dead birds on the ground?
Off shore oil rigs don’t leak like they used to. Hurricanes surged through the gulf in 2004 and destroyed several rigs. There were no spills. The only spill to make the news was a barge that leaked in port. That can happen now. Fuel barges regularly transit the river to the power plants up river. I’d like to see some oil rigs five miles from the beach. (Within my boats comfort zone)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 11, 2009, 06:56:54 AM
Mica is most likely searching for some middle ground between "environmentalist" and fishermen and fish eating public. He is not against conservation... just your version of conservation. :)
Hmmm, yeah, Mica's actually gotten a 0 rating out of 100 from the League of Conservation Voters for several years in a row. Imagine that!
Apparently he just hates red snappers... :)
http://www.house.gov/mica/envtop10.shtml
Quote1. Congressman Mica has been the region’s, Florida’s, and one of our nation’s strongest advocates for mass transit and eco-friendly transportation systems as a transportation alternative. He has championed cost effective, environmentally positive new transit technology and projects both in Florida and across the United States. "No other project in Florida in the long term will benefit our state's environment more than the Central Florida Commuter Rail System". (More)
2. State and National leader on beach restoration projects. Rep. Mica has been recently been working with the U.S Army Corp of Engineers and State and Local Authorities in Volusia, Flagler, and St. Johns Counties. (Flagler) (Volusia)
(St. Johns) (Press) (Photos)
3. One of the key authors for the Florida Everglades restoration project. Ensuring that adequate engineering, cost effective restoration and future beach preservation are undertaken. Led recent efforts in Congress to authorize the first funds for actual restoration work in the historic Water Resources and Development Act (WRDA) of 2007 (including successfully overriding a Presidential Veto, the 107th in the history of Congress). (Press)
4. Passed in the WRDA bill a record $24 billion authorization for vital water project investments including ecosystem restoration and critical dam and levee protection measures. Congress had not passed any WRDA legislation since 2000. Rep. Mica instituted a transparent and open project review, setting a new standard for all committees in Congress. (Press)
5. Championed a record number of Rails to Trails projects in Florida and the nation. The 7th Congressional District completed miles of rails to trails projects which exceeds any other district in Florida and most in the Nation. Congressman Mica was recognized by the Florida Rails to Trails Association with their State award. (More) (Links) (Awards)
6. A major sponsor of and successfully secured $ 1.9 million in funding for the construction of the Guana-Tolomato-Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve Center in South Ponte Vedra Beach. This is one of only several dozen marine estuary educational and science centers in the United States. (More)
7. Over the past decade and a half, working with the Department of the Interior, St. Johns River Water Management District, and local governments, Rep. Mica helped acquire and preserve thousands of acres of endangered lands adjacent to the St. Johns River. (More)
8. Restoration of Rose Bay in Volusia County is nearly complete because of Congressman Mica’s tireless efforts to bring Federal, State, and local resources and funding to repair the damage to one of Florida’s most beautiful estuaries. (More)
9. Bringing together the Florida Department of Transportation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Johns Water Management, and State, County and local governments, Rep. Mica is working to restore DeBary Bayou, a natural waterway adjacent to the St. Johns River that has become polluted, filled with silt and choked with growth. (More)
10. Assisted with the restoration of Lake Mary near Lake Helen whose natural spring flow was restored. (More)
Shocking...
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6907
QuoteThe League of Conservation Voters (LCV) calls itself "the political voice of the national environmental movement and the only organization devoted full-time to shaping a pro-environment Congress and White House." Founded in 1969 by veteran environmentalist David Brower, this organization works to defeat what it calls "anti-environment" candidates running for political office and elect those candidates it believes are contributing to the welfare of the environment. Though LCV claims to be nonpartisan, its support is reserved almost exclusively for left-of-center Democrats.
LCV promotes its agenda through the publication and distribution of its National Environmental Scorecard and its Presidential Report Card. According to LCV, the Scorecard "provides obÂjective, factual information" about the environmental voting records of all Members of Congress. On the LCV Scorecard, the mean scores for Republicans in both the House of Representatives and the Senate are under 15 percent (in a 100 percent rating scale). By contrast, Democrats in the House and Senate score 70 percent and 82 percent, respectively.
In January 2004, LCV endorsed Democratic Senator John Kerry for U.S. President. Mr. Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, is Chair of the Howard Heinz Endowment and a Board Member of both the Vira I. Heinz Endowment and the Heinz Family Foundation. These foundations have funded LCV. In addition, at least four members of the LCV Board of Directors lead other environmental groups that received more than $1 million from the Heinz philanthropies between 2001 and 2003.
LCV's 2003 Presidential Report Card gave George W. Bush the first "F" grade ever handed out by the group. "Bush's dismal Report Card," stated LCV president Deb Callahan, "is dominated by a disturbing trend: time after time, Bush favors corporate interests over the public's interest in a clean, safe, and healthy environment. Under the Bush administration, corporate polluters have been allowed to write the laws."
LCV Chairman Bill Roberts also serves as Executive Director of the Beldon Fund, which gave LCV $2.28 million in grants between 2001 and 2003. Since 9/11, Roberts has sought to direct America's attention away from the war on terror, and toward what he perceives as the even more important battle to save the environment. "One thing the [9/11] attack did not do," Roberts said, "was alter the persistent importance of environmental issues to people and the planet. … Global warming, toxic pollution, lost biodiversity, and a long list of other environmental threats did not go away on September 11."
The California chapter of LCV endorsed a May 1, 2003 document titled "10 Reasons Environmentalists Oppose an Attack on Iraq," which was published by Environmentalists Against War.
LCV has received funding from the Bauman Family Foundation; the Beldon Fund; the Blue Moon Fund; the Bullitt Foundation; the Compton Foundation; the Educational Foundation of America; the Nathan Cummings Foundation; the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; the Joyce Foundation; the J.M. Kaplan Fund; the David and Lucile Packard Foundation; the Scherman Foundation; the Surdna Foundation; the Turner Foundation; the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation; the New-Land Foundation; and numerous others.
The LCV Board of Directors includes officials of the Beldon Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth (Brent Blackwelder), the Wilderness Society, and the Center for American Progress (John D. Podesta).
Yes, shocking. Thanks for looking further BT.
Imagine that,.........Mica singing his own praises on the environment. Too bad he didn't even manage to score a 50% with the League of Conservation voters, which would have entitled him to a "middle-ground" designation.
As for the possibility of Republicans to score higher than the most dismal 0% that Mica scored with the LCV,.......let's see if that's even possible:
Quote10/15/08
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Joshua McNeil, (202) 785-8683 or joshua_mcneil@lcv.org
League of Conservation Voters Endorses Senator Susan Collins
Only Republican Senator with a Perfect Environmental Voting Record in 2007, Collins Kept Commitment to Conservation and Clean Energy in 2008
WASHINGTON, DC - The League of Conservation Voters (LCV), which works to turn environmental values into national priorities, today announced the endorsement of Senator Susan Collins for re-election in Maine.
“Senator Collins is a leader and a champion for the environment, reaching across party lines to introduce and support bipartisan pieces of legislation that hold oil companies accountable for their high profits, invest in clean energy alternatives, and promote fuel efficiency for vehicles,†LCV Senior Vice President Tony Massaro said. “Senator Collins brings Maine’s strong spirit of conservation to Washington, and she continues to be one of the nation’s most powerful voices for clean, renewable energy.â€
“I am honored to receive the endorsement of the League of Conservation Voters,†said Senator Susan Collins, “Maine’s future depends on clean air, clean water, and clean energy, and I will continue to work with LCV and forward thinking leaders from both parties to ensure a cleaner future for us all.â€
In 2007, Collins received a perfect 100% score on LCV’s 2007 National Environmental Scorecard,* the only Republican Senator to do so. In 2008, she consistently supported conservation and clean energy (The 2008 Scorecard will be released on October 17). In the upcoming Congress, she proposes to do more to increase funding to programs that help consumers conserve energy and lower heating and utility costs. She will support extending existing tax credits for alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles, repeal billions of dollars in excessive tax breaks for major oil companies and redirect the money to support renewable energy and efficiency initiatives.
“Putting her values ahead of the powerful influence of the oil industry, Susan Collins has taken a stand against high gas prices and fought to break America’s addiction to oil,†Massaro said.
Susan Collins understands that the path towards energy independence lies in the development of clean, renewable energy resources such as solar, wind and tidal. She intends to extend tax incentives for investors and innovators in these fields and believes that in order to take full advantage of these new technologies, the Senate must pass a National Renewable Energy Standard. Implementing a standard that would require utilities to generate at least 20% of their electricity from environmentally safe sources by 2020 will help create millions of new, American jobs and reduce our country’s dependence on foreign oil.
"The only way to find solution to the most pressing environmental and energy challenges facing our nation is to come together across party and regional lines. I have a proven track record of doing just that. Again, I am honored to receive the League of Conservation Voters endorsement," said Senator Collins.
* The non-partisan LCV National Environmental Scorecard is a nationally accepted yardstick used to rate Members of Congress on conservation and clean energy issues. Based on key conservation votes in the House and Senate, it is often used by the media to quickly describe a Member’s record. For more information, visit www.lcv.org/scorecard. The 2008 Scorecard will be available on October 17, 2008.
# # #
http://www.lcv.org/newsroom/press-releases/league-of-conservation-voters-endorses-senator-susan-collins.html
Pandering to local voters, and local businesses here and there is quite a different notion than the leadership needed to support what's best for our nation's environment at large.
Sorry, Faye. your credibility on this issue has been lost. read the first article by BT. The BOD for LCV says it all. LCV is not an objective source.
Sour grapes
Faye... either he did those ten things for the environment or he didnt. Lets substitute...
QuotePandering to local voters, and local businesses
for
QuoteListening to local voters, and local businesses
I mean... he is one of our representatives. I Guess one mans pandering is anothers listening...
Quote from: Sigma on August 11, 2009, 11:16:25 AM
Sorry, Faye. your credibility on this issue has been lost. read the first article by BT. The BOD for LCV says it all. LCV is not an objective source.
Well if a Republican like Susan Collins can receive a perfect 100% score with LCV when "she consistently supported conservation and clean energy," it shows that "Mica consistently opposes conservation and clean energy," giving him that 0% score.
It's an equal opportunity scoring system. Mica failed and Susan Collins excelled. Plain and simple...........that's what scoring systems do.
Isn’t this a common problem that occurs with lots of different breeds of fish each year and that’s easily solved by putting a ban on what sizes you’re allowed to keep until the population goes back up again?
Like when the red drum population gets low in the St. Johns, or it's breeding season and you can only keep anything between 18 â€" 23 inches. And if you get caught breaking this rule you get a massive fine as well as risk losing your fishing license.
Yes of course... PROPER conservation techniques have been used to enhance populations in many different species both on land and in water. A total ban on snapper fishing is probably not needed at all but restrictions and limits on size and takes are reasonable.
Quote from: Bewler on August 12, 2009, 03:05:58 PM
Isn’t this a common problem that occurs with lots of different breeds of fish each year and that’s easily solved by putting a ban on what sizes you’re allowed to keep until the population goes back up again?
Like when the red drum population gets low in the St. Johns, or it's breeding season and you can only keep anything between 18 â€" 23 inches. And if you get caught breaking this rule you get a massive fine as well as risk losing your fishing license.
Bewler, yes. Such provisions are already enacted:
QuoteMagnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act of 2006
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) is the primary law governing marine fisheries management in United States federal waters. The Act was first enacted in 1976 and amended in 1996. Most notably, the Magnuson-Stevens Act aided in the development of the domestic fishing industry by phasing out foreign fishing. To manage the fisheries and promote conservation, the Act created eight regional fishery management councils. The 1996 amendments focused rebuilding overfished fisheries, protecting essential fish habitat, and reducing bycatch.
President George W. Bush, through his Ocean Action Plan, made reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Act a top priority. The President called for a hard deadline to end overfishing, increased use of market-based management tools, creation of a national saltwater angler registry, and an emphasis on ecosystem approaches to management.
Learn more about the 2006 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act by clicking on the links below.
For more information about fisheries management, visit NMFS' Office of Sustainable Fisheries.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2005/
However, Mica's H.R. 3307, would interfere with current fisheries law, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
Mica’s bill would prohibit limitations under Magnuson-Stevens.http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2009/07/25/red-snapper-medics-studying-the-crash/
QuoteThe following chart for example, is based on a long-term series of surveys and data assessments by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. It shows the scientific estimate of the the biomass of red snapper in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.
(http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z276/fayeforcure/redsnapper.jpg)
Representative John Mica responds to this kind of scientific data with second-hand anecdotal information. “The fishermen I’ve talked with, both sport and commercial, say… there are strong runs of snapper and grouper,†he says. Of course, the fishermen John Mica has talked to are members of a political group that is seeking to block fishing regulations designed to protect the red snapper. They have a bias, the kind of bias that large-scale, long-term scientific observations are designed to avoid.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 12, 2009, 03:22:57 PM
Yes of course... PROPER conservation techniques have been used to enhance populations in many different species both on land and in water. A total ban on snapper fishing is probably not needed at all but restrictions and limits on size and takes are reasonable.
BT, I'm glad you feel that way. You can add your name to a letter to the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council to ensure that PROPER conservation techniques will be used:
QuoteEnd Overfishing -- A Chance to Save 10 Species
Target: Chairman Duane Harris, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council
Sponsored by: Pew Environment Group
Did you know U.S. South Atlantic waters have more dwindling fish populations than any other region in the nation?
Ten species are in critical need of protection -- from black, red and gag grouper that make up the popular fish sandwich to the Warsaw grouper, a gentle giant that can grow nearly eight feet long and weigh up to 440 pounds. Additionally, red snapper populations have plummeted to just 3 percent of 1945 levels, and although they can live up to 54 years, few are older than 10.
Regional fishery managers are currently working on important changes to fishing rules that would strengthen limits on the numbers of fish caught annually, prohibit fishing in some areas of the ocean where imperiled fish live and limit certain kinds of fishing so populations have time to replenish themselves.
You can help save these fish! Please add you name to a letter to the chairman of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, asking for approval of the new rules to help end overfishing and preserve our ocean ecosystem for future generations.
http://www.care2.com/go/z/19800885
It's citizens taking action, that impact the health of our communities most.
Quote from: Bewler on August 12, 2009, 03:05:58 PM
............Like when the red drum population gets low in the St. Johns, or it's breeding season and you can only keep anything between 18 â€" 23 inches. And if you get caught breaking this rule you get a massive fine as well as risk losing your fishing license.
Red drum or redfish slot limits are
18 to 27 inches with pinched tail. Bag limit is one per fisherman per day.
Redfish were pushed to near extinction in the 80s by the gill netters and others. The banning of gill netting and commercial harvest along with limits on the recreational fishermen saved the redfish species in Florida. Unlike the red snapper the red fish scarcity was observed by all parties.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 12, 2009, 03:22:57 PM
Yes of course... PROPER conservation techniques have been used to enhance populations in many different species both on land and in water. A total ban on snapper fishing is probably not needed at all but restrictions and limits on size and takes are reasonable.
Agreed.
The amazing thing is that they limit red snapper in the gulf possession to two per fisherman per day. But in the Atlantic they propose to ban it entirely for long periods rather than reduce bag limits like the gulf fishery.
Also there isn't agreement between biologists as the the validity of the studies.
Quote from: Overstreet on November 04, 2009, 08:47:45 AM
Also there isn't agreement between biologists as the the validity of the studies.
Can you source this statement? The Red Snapper population is down to 3% of 1945 levels. Are there SCIENTIFIC studies that say otherwise?
I'm not talking hearsay from fishermen.
Quote from: stephendare on September 28, 2009, 03:36:45 PM
Well I have to say, going back to bridge trolls original post extolling mica as an environmentalist:
How can you be pro rail and a rails to trails guy at the same time?
one needs rails, and the other converts rails to public parks.
The other thing that is troubling to me about the rails to trails program is the pure poison that lines some of the rails. Does it make sense to mix children and families with toxic throughways and chemical exposure?
Ock. You know about this more than I do, but I was under the impression that the rails are better left as rails?
Actually Stephen, the Rails to Trails programs, have preserved thousands of miles of right-of-way that would have been forever lost to farm fields or urban growth. Seldom if ever do these folks do any damage to our transportation future, they know up front from State and local agreements that they can play as long as they PRESERVE. In various places a new mine or industry opens up along the old rail bed, and the tracks have gone right back down.
At Worst, it's NOT A CONFRONTATIONAL SITUATION. Certainly there are a few places where the trail has become so beloved by the public, the conversion back, has raised some outcry, but breech of agreement would be much worse for the conservancy then stopping a few miles of track.
The other method to save a rail line, is outright state purchase, and/or "rail banking", either by the state or railroad companies. In this case the track stays in place, usually both parties are looking for a shortline or other operator to take over the business. State ownership removes the realestate from the tax rolls, but the tax rolls are what causes abandonment of little used lines in the first place. They were also the main driver of causing the railroads to divest so many thousands of miles in the 60's - 80's, all across the nation. Had a state/or OUR state been creative back in those days, I'm sure we would still have a mainline through Gainesville - Ocala - Leesburg, Wildwood - Auburndale, or down the west coast from Thomasville, GA to Tampa.
Hope this is what you were looking for... YES, you can and should support both RAILS and RAIL TRAILS. OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: FayeforCure on November 04, 2009, 09:15:47 AM
Quote from: Overstreet on November 04, 2009, 08:47:45 AM.....Also there isn't agreement between biologists as the the validity of the studies.......
Can you source this statement? The Red Snapper population is down to 3% of 1945 levels. Are there SCIENTIFIC studies that say otherwise?...........
How about a bunch of PHDs?
http://www.pba.edu/media/news-releases/red-snapper.cfm
http://www.pba.edu/media/news-releases/red-snapper.cfm
http://www.floridasportsman.com/casts/090626/index.html
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20091022/COLUMNISTS0205/91021041/Don-t-close-the-fishery
http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Shipp_Bob_12954493.aspx
www.reef-man.com/ShippBortoneMSfinal.doc
Quote from: Overstreet on November 04, 2009, 12:52:33 PM
Quote from: FayeforCure on November 04, 2009, 09:15:47 AM
Quote from: Overstreet on November 04, 2009, 08:47:45 AM.....Also there isn't agreement between biologists as the the validity of the studies.......
Can you source this statement? The Red Snapper population is down to 3% of 1945 levels. Are there SCIENTIFIC studies that say otherwise?...........
How about a bunch of PHDs?
http://www.pba.edu/media/news-releases/red-snapper.cfm
http://www.pba.edu/media/news-releases/red-snapper.cfm
http://www.floridasportsman.com/casts/090626/index.html
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20091022/COLUMNISTS0205/91021041/Don-t-close-the-fishery
http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Shipp_Bob_12954493.aspx
www.reef-man.com/ShippBortoneMSfinal.doc
Thanks Overstreet for that info. It was interesting to read. However, I have to say that none of those studies are independent studies, one is anecdotal from a scientist who also happened to be a fisherman, and another was commissioned by Florida Sportsman Magazine.
There are a few factors to keep in mind. When we talk about tons of fish being caught,.....size needs to be part of the equation. Also some people may have improved fishing methods or know where the larger populations live.
Anyway, I did come across something that would be far more problematic than a 6 month ban,........and I do think that would cause a very distinct problem to our fisheries that are so important to our economy:
Quoteorlandosentinel.com/news/local/volusia/orl-snapper-grouper-fishing-closure-100709,0,1529309.story
OrlandoSentinel.com
Broad fishing ban would be 'devastating,' captains say
Federal officials want snapper, grouper closure for up to 35 years
Ludmilla Lelis
Sentinel Staff Writer
8:17 PM EDT, October 6, 2009
Before a proposed ban on red snapper was even decided, a more-drastic proposal is causing fear in Florida's fishing industry: a full-scale closure of all grouper and snapper off the south Atlantic for up to 35 years.
The latest proposal would require a massive closure area covering the bottom-fishing grounds from South Carolina to Cape Canaveral and affecting 73 different fish species.
The proposed shutdown would mark the end of the fishing industry and would devastate every business tied to it -- from boating to restaurants to tourism, said Jimmy Hull, a longtime fisherman and owner of Hull's Seafood in Ormond Beach.
Florida's recreational-fishing industry alone is worth $16.7 billion a year, according to the last federal study.
"This is a crucial battle, and the stakes have never been higher," Hull said.
Federal officials developed the broader ban after deciding that its earlier proposal of a short-term red-snapper ban wouldn't be enough to save the treasured fish and other species considered overfished.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the federal body that proposes new fishing regulations, is considering the broader regulation for 15 to 30 years.
"We know these alternatives are going to have significant economic impacts, but the council must end overfishing -- and long-term, that's a good thing," said Council Chairman Duane Harris. "But there will certainly be huge consequences to recreational and commercial fishing communities. There doesn't appear to be any way to avoid these consequences while ending overfishing for red snapper."
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration could announce by the end of the month whether to ban all red snapper fishing for six months, which could be extended up to a year.
The large-scale closure, if approved, could take effect sometime next year, but it faces a potential lawsuit from fishing groups such as the Fishing Rights Alliance, which sued the government over a grouper closure in the Gulf of Mexico. Public meetings are scheduled in Florida in November.
The proposal, being considered by the council at its December meeting in North Carolina, would close bottom fishing in waters from 90 feet out to 200 miles deep. There are some variations: The smallest proposed-ban area would cover about 8,100 square miles of ocean and the largest ban would cover 26,600 square miles of ocean.
According to a federal fishing study, the red snapper is overfished, down to 3 percent of a healthy stock. Scientists have found the red snapper population lacks the larger, older fish which are key to the fish's reproductive capacity and its future.
Hull, who leads a local chapter of the Southeastern Fisheries Association, said the science is flawed and doesn't reflect what local captains see from their boats. This summer, several captains have enjoyed some of the best red snapper seasons seen in decades.
For example, John Weeks, owner of the Seafood Shoppe in St. Augustine, said he's seen grouper catches increase steadily over the past five years and the boats supplying his shop have caught 8,000 pounds to 10,000 pounds of red snapper in just the past two weeks.
"I fished in the 1970s and 1980s and very seldom did you catch red snapper," Weeks said. "The fish is coming back." Even the federal fishing studies acknowledge the higher catches in recent years, which may lead to a smaller closure area and a shorter time span, but it might not be enough to curtail the ban.
Hull also challenges the idea that red snapper has been overfished. He and other fishermen tried to dispel the federal finding with their own scientific study, but federal scientists stuck with their own data.
"If it was so overfished, for so many years, we wouldn't be able to catch any now," he said.
His group even hired a consultant, Frank Hester, who had a career in fisheries and has a doctorate in marine biology. Hester found that the federal assessment used outdated information and that the data does show that current limits on red snapper are working.
A broad closure, Hull said, "would completely finish us, and it will be devastating."
Ludmilla Lelis can be reached at llelis@orlandosentinel.com or 386-253-0964.
Public meetings Public hearings on the full-scale closure of grouper and snapper fishing will be held throughout the Southeast, including these two meetings: 3 to 7 p.m. on Nov. 11 at the Radisson Resort at the Port, Cape Canaveral 3 to 7 p.m. on Nov. 12 at the Crowne Plaza Jacksonville Riverfront, Jacksonville
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/volusia/orl-snapper-grouper-fishing-closure-100709,0,7412511,print.story
The problem is that no matter what the battle lines are along political adgenda lines no matter what experts say. For example, you discount the Florida Sportsman requested "unpaid" review because of who asked it.
I wonder what the Snappers think of this under the sea? Maybe we could find a couple of very smart ones and get a snapper to snapper interview? Anyway, this last insanity has now expanded to somewhere around 70-90 types of fish... In other words Southern Boys, it's put your rod away and kiss those sweet snappers goodbye. Then again, we could join together and give them all a bill for damage to our employment... Or are these the same guys that will build that HSR from an Airport, to an Amusement Park, to a Interstate Interchange, in Tampa? Jobs! That's it, Billions in jobs... but we can't eat snapper? Wanna bet?
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: Overstreet on November 06, 2009, 12:39:08 PM
The problem is that no matter what the battle lines are along political adgenda lines no matter what experts say. For example, you discount the Florida Sportsman requested "unpaid" review because of who asked it.
Well apparently the Florida Sportsman aren't as interested in sustainable fishing as industry is. Seems the Gulf ( not South Atlantic) industries have worked hard at complying with
sustainable fishing, but the sportsmen have not been held responsible in the same way:
QuoteNovember 06, 2009
Snapper back!
I had the privilege this week of attending a luncheon on the red snapper fishery.
Not the one off the Southeast Atlantic coast that is currently embroiled in controversy, but the Gulf of Mexico fishery that is clawing its way back from oblivion with an IFQ and an eye toward tripling its overall quota.
The Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders' Alliance is working hard to recruit fishermen and other stakeholders to continue their efforts toward branding this recovering fishery and possibly even gaining Marine Stewardship Council certification.
Anyone who is familiar with the Monterey Bay Aquarium's Avoid List (often called the Red List) may be surprised to hear that red snapper fishermen are publicizing their preassessment with the MSC.
Well, that certainly speaks to the confusion often caused by these pocket lists, despite their clear efforts to inform and empower consumers.
But it also speaks to the power of fishermen to recover and resurge.
David Krebs, a Destin, Fla., fisherman, dealer and member of the shareholders' alliance, spoke passionately and eloquently at this gathering in Boston on Wednesday.
When answering questions about the group's marketing efforts and whether the goal was to pump up the price of red snapper, he said, "I don't think fishermen are looking for more money, but they're looking for credibility."
It's a shame that these fishermen who are working to fish sustainably and allow a complete recovery of their fishery also have to have a powerful organization behind them to beg the folks at Monterey Bay to put an asterisk on their red snapper red-listing.
But I sure am glad they have it.
The alliance is also striving to bring some form of accountability to the recreational fleet that claims 49 percent of the overall red snapper quota in the Gulf of Mexico. As of now, there is no tagging program and no reporting requirement.
For more information on the shareholder's alliance, visit their Web site, and consider joining.
http://thesortingtable.nationalfisherman.com/2009/11/snapper-back.html
Of course that discounts the fact that the only reason there is a red snapper fishery in the Gulf near the state of Florida is the artifical reef program founded by fishermen and divers that provides habitat for red snapper, grouper and other fishes. This has drastically increased the red snapper populations. You could read Dr Bob Shipp and learn more, but you ignore all of that.
Your experts are some Californians at the Monteray Aquarium. An aquarium more interested in kelp beds.
Quote from: Overstreet on November 08, 2009, 01:31:17 PM
Of course that discounts the fact that the only reason there is a red snapper fishery in the Gulf near the state of Florida is the artifical reef program founded by fishermen and divers that provides habitat for red snapper, grouper and other fishes. This has drastically increased the red snapper populations. You could read Dr Bob Shipp and learn more, but you ignore all of that.
Your experts are some Californians at the Monteray Aquarium. An aquarium more interested in kelp beds.
You didn't notice that I just posted an article that says just that,...........that the fishermen in the Gulf Coast have been very actively promoting sustainable fishing! Their only complaint is regarding the sportsmen not being held accountable:
QuoteThe alliance is also striving to bring some form of accountability to the recreational fleet that claims 49 percent of the overall red snapper quota in the Gulf of Mexico. As of now, there is no tagging program and no reporting requirement.
I have not been part of this discussion, but I saw this on the TU, and this thread has been around here so long I figured I would post it.
Snapper fishing banned from Florida to North Carolina QuoteThe federal government announced a six-month ban on fishing for red snapper Thursday that could be followed by far wider restrictions on Southeastern fishing.
Commercial fishermen and sportsmen are covered by the ban, which starts Jan. 4. It affects federal waters - areas more than three miles offshore - from Florida's east coast to North Carolina.
The rule is supposed to be a stopgap while government agencies consider setting more sweeping, long-term restrictions in response to government research that estimates the stock of red snapper in the Southeast is just 3 percent of what it was in the 1950s.
http://jacksonville.com/news/florida/2009-12-04/story/snapper_fishing_banned_from_florida_to_north_carolina