For some reason, every time the anti marine park lobby get wound up over the latest bit of research to contradict them, they make sure to point out if any of the researchers involved are Pew fellows, as if this proves some kind of grand conspiracy. I'm sure that whenever they talk about it in person there is a whole lot of nudging and winking going on, but I am yet to see an explanation of what they have against Pew.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2010 at 7:35pm:

For some reason, every time the anti marine park lobby get wound up over the latest bit of research to contradict them, they make sure to point out if any of the researchers involved are Pew fellows, as if this proves some kind of grand conspiracy. I'm sure that whenever they talk about it in person there is a whole lot of nudging and winking going on, but I am yet to see an explanation of what they have against Pew.

If your talking about me FD, I also point out the biases and flaws in their research.

Regarding Pew do you refute any of the following:

- No take marine reserves are high on the agenda of Pew.

- Pew fellows recieve generous financial support ($100,000 grants).

- The promotion of no take marine reserves features highly in the work of Pew fellows.

Now you don't have to be part of the 'anti-marine park lobby' to connect the dots here.

Quote:

If your talking about me FD

Not just you PJ. It's a recurring theme.


Quote:

No take marine reserves are high on the agenda of Pew.

I don't know whether they are or not, but they are high on the agenda of many fisheries management institutions. So even if they are this is not an indication of bias. It merely reflects the reality of modern fisheries management research.


Quote:

Pew fellows recieve generous financial support ($100,000 grants).

I wouldn't consider that generous. How far do you think that money would go?


Quote:

The promotion of no take marine reserves features highly in the work of Pew fellows.

All Pew fellows, or just the ones researching fisheries management? Are you trying to say that Pew is targetting this area?

[]
Quote:

If your talking about me FD

Not just you PJ. It's a recurring theme.

What do you mean by not just me? Are you including me or not? PS: give me an example of this recurring theme.  


Quote:

No take marine reserves are high on the agenda of Pew.

I don't know whether they are or not, but they are high on the agenda of many fisheries management institutions. So even if they are this is not an indication of bias. It merely reflects the reality of modern fisheries management research.

Pew are quite open about it. Regarding fisheries management institutions - no marine parks in Australia were initiated from them. They are a political/ environmentalist pressure group phenomenon. Most individual fisheries scientist who are game to speak out are also against the current marine park mania.


Quote:

Pew fellows recieve generous financial support ($100,000 grants).

I wouldn't consider that generous. How far do you think that money would go?

A long way for an individual.


Quote:

The promotion of no take marine reserves features highly in the work of Pew fellows.

All Pew fellows, or just the ones researching fisheries management? Are you trying to say that Pew is targetting this area?

Of course they are.

Quote:

Now you don't have to be part of the 'anti-marine park lobby' to connect the dots here.

PJ, asking people to join the dots is a euphemism for asking them to jump to unfounded conclusions. You may be right that the dots you see are consistent with an agenda to mislead, but what you fail to appreciate is that they are also consistent with responding to the facts, which happen to support marine parks. You need to look at the whole picture to tell the difference, not just whatever dots certain loonies show you.


Quote:

What do you mean by not just me?

I mean that other people bring up Pew as well. The whole anti marine park lobby seems to be getting into the nudge nudge wink wink act. It's a lot easier to handle than the facts.


Quote:

Are you including me or not?

I did not intend to leave you out.


Quote:

PS: give me an example of this recurring theme.

Your other thread.


Quote:

Regarding fisheries management institutions - no marine parks in Australia were initiated from them.

What on earth is that supposed to mean? Are you suggesting that big political changes can be traced back to a single nucleus?


Quote:

Most individual fisheries scientist who are game to speak out are also against the current marine park mania.

Like the ones who signed the consensus statement? Or the ones in the paper you are criticising in the other thread? I suspect you are confusing being in a tiny minority with individualism.


Quote:

A long way for an individual.

But they don't give it to 'individuals', do they? I would have thought it would go to research managers in charge of significant budgets, to be part of that budget.


Quote:

Of course they are.

I think they have a very broad interest and this is only a tiny part of it.

]
Quote:

Now you don't have to be part of the 'anti-marine park lobby' to connect the dots here.

PJ, asking people to join the dots is a euphemism for asking them to jump to unfounded conclusions. You may be right that the dots you see are consistent with an agenda to mislead, but what you fail to appreciate is that they are also consistent with responding to the facts, which happen to support marine parks. You need to look at the whole picture to tell the difference, not just whatever dots certain loonies show you.

But you won't respond to the facts - ie the validity of the report and it's conclusions. Leninistic statements about your faith in marine parks don't qualify.


Quote:

What do you mean by not just me?

I mean that other people bring up Pew as well. The whole anti marine park lobby seems to be getting into the nudge nudge wink wink act. It's a lot easier to handle than the facts.


Quote:

Are you including me or not?

I did not intend to leave you out.


Quote:

PS: give me an example of this recurring theme.

Your other thread.

If there is a lack of scientific discussion on the other thread thats your fault as you have repeatedly refused to be drawn on that most important aspect. Now you are treacherously trying to project that back onto me.


Quote:

Regarding fisheries management institutions - no marine parks in Australia were initiated from them.

What on earth is that supposed to mean? Are you suggesting that big political changes can be traced back to a single nucleus?

Duh, you said they were the latest and greatest fisheries management tool - yet they have not been initiated by or even supported by our fisheries departments. PS: looks like you have made a freudian slip there - so the parks are political!


Quote:

Most individual fisheries scientist who are game to speak out are also against the current marine park mania.

Like the ones who signed the consensus statement? Or the ones in the paper you are criticising in the other thread? I suspect you are confusing being in a tiny minority with individualism.

160 signed the consensus, mostly from overseas and not many could be called fisheries scientists. Pew fellows feature highly, especially amonst the authors. There is no idication that the Austrsalian situtation was considered.

The GBRMPA scientists tend to be ecologists not fisheries scientists. They have a rather different world view. The look at other fisheries and degradation problems from around the world at their conferences and say 'look it's not happening here due to our marine park'. But they ignore the fact that it's not likely to happen here with our small population, remoteness of the reef and the light fishing pressure.  


Quote:

A long way for an individual.

But they don't give it to 'individuals', do they? I would have thought it would go to research managers in charge of significant budgets, to be part of that budget.

Duh, they do give it to indivuals.


Quote:

Of course they are.

I think they have a very broad interest and this is only a tiny part of it.[/quote]

You "think" - do you know anything about them? The money they throw around is not tiny - especially in the cash starved field of marine research.

So that's it eh? All this nudging and winking is down to some fool drawing a circle between two points?

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2010 at 7:55pm:

So that's it eh? All this nudging and winking is down to some fool drawing a circle between two points?

Is that the best you can come up with? You have ignored everything I have said and carried on with your same pre-determined ad hominen. You need de-programing FD.

Another point  - what is the 'anti-marine park lobby'? It's mostly ordinary people devoting their spare time to fight an injustice/ poor policy. They are far more grassroots than the professional agitators in the green movement campaigning for them. Most of the latter will never even visit these marine parks.

The green movement has a far bigger grassroots campaign than the anti marine park lobby and you would do well to at least acknowledge the reality of your situation.

Now, do you actually have anything on Pew?

Quote:

The green movement has a far bigger grassroots campaign than the anti marine park lobby and you would do well to at least acknowledge the reality of your situation. Now, do you actually have anything on Pew?

The reality is that is that they use their government and Pew slush funds to mislead the public regarding overfishing and to soften them up for marine parks. Eg the Empty Nets - Empty Oceans report, talking wrasses on TV. They have little direct interest in these parks and like you little actual knowledge of fisheries. Professional agitators would be a good description.

Yes I do 'actually' have information on Pew. You seem to have forgotten I put it up here. You also spent pages nit picking and hair splitting over it. I just shows how much thought you actually put into these debates that you can't recall!

I'm sure you have a very good reason for not wanting to post a link to the thread, but I can't find it. I can find plenty of threads where you and others trot out the Pew conspiracy theory, but none where you actually back it up.

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2010 at 9:12pm:

I'm sure you have a very good reason for not wanting to post a link to the thread, but I can't find it. I can find plenty of threads where you and others trot out the Pew conspiracy theory, but none where you actually back it up.

I put up an article regarding Pew, it's finances, campaigns and how it pays to influence marine research. I will put it up again when I get around to it so I wouldn't push your strawman too far.

PS: In the other thread your last post critcised me for putting up a reference instead putting it in my own words! Do you actually think about your drivel before you post it?

I criticised you for being unwilling to say in your own words what you copied and pasted.

There is no need to repost it. A link will do. Unless you have something to hide in the other thread? If you tell me the name of it I will do the search for you.

BTW, do you know what a strawman argument is?

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2010 at 8:28am:

I criticised you for being unwilling to say in your own words what you copied and pasted. There is no need to repost it. A link will do. Unless you have something to hide in the other thread? If you tell me the name of it I will do the search for you. BTW, do you know what a strawman argument is?

About everything you have posted on these recent two threads.

Pew, SeaWeb shrug off oil to target fishing
by Nils E. Stolpe

(This is the second part of a guest column examining the influence of big money donors and the environmental groups they support on US fisheries policy originally printed in Commercial Fisheries News)
 
The Pew Charitable Trusts have spent tens of millions of dollars on fisheries and ocean issues and even more on the news media in recent years. This flood of money has had a significant impact both on fisheries policy and on how our industry is depicted in print and on the air. While a large part of the Pew focus is supposed to be representing and increasing the public's interest in fisheries and ocean issues, is it also shifting that interest?  

One of the more active efforts to influence public opinion on fisheries is spearheaded by SeaWeb. On its web site, SeaWeb describes itself as a "project designed to raise awareness of the world ocean and the life within it." Its primary funder is the Pew Charitable Trusts. Early in its existence, SeaWeb commissioned a public opinion survey to determine which ocean issues would best "engage the public interest."

The introduction to the results of the survey, which was conducted for SeaWeb by the Mellman Group, stated "Americans believe the ocean's problems stem from many sources, but oil companies are seen as a prime culprit: In fact, 81% of Americans believe that oil spills are a very serious problem. This is followed by chemical runoff from large corporate farms (75% very serious), improperly treated water from towns near the coast (69%), contaminated seafood (65%), and trash, oil, and chemical runoff from streets (65%)." Overfishing evidently wasn't considered "a very serious problem" and was lumped in with "the loss of critical species" to make the cut as a "meaningful indicator" of trouble.  

But in an article on the poll in SeaWeb's November 1996 monthly update, the only specific threat to the oceans mentioned was overfishing. Along with three paragraphs of vague generalities was this statement: "71% (of respondents) agree that overfishing is threatening the health and stability of the marine environment." Nothing about oil spills, runoff, contaminated seafood, or any of the other "problems" identified in the survey, only overfishing. Is this engaging or is it redirecting the public interest?

Funding, MPAs
It seems that an almost universal groundswell of support has developed spontaneously for Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) as the solution to problems besetting our oceans and the creatures living in them. It seems as well that much of the focus of the MPA movement is protection from fishing. A widely circulated "scientific consensus statement" by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) at the University of California at Santa Barbara basically concludes that MPAs and Marine Reserves are one of greatest developments of civilization since sliced bread. The statement, it explained, was the result of a two-and-a-half year effort by an international team of scientists. That effort included a research review and a joint meeting by the NCEAS scientists and other researchers on marine reserves convened by the Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea (COMPASS) in May of 1998. This sounds like the world of science at work the way it's supposed to work, with objective researchers reaching their own conclusions independently, then coming together behind a consensus position. But is it really?

COMPASS is funded by the Packard Foundation and SeaWeb is a COMPASS "partner." The chair of the COMPASS board of scientific experts received a Pew fellowship in 1992 and is also a member of the NCEAS international team of scientists that drafted the consensus statement. Six of the 15 scientists at the COMPASS meeting were Pew fellows, as were 25 of the 161 scientists who signed the statement. Marine reserves or MPAs were mentioned in the project descriptions, biographies, or bibliographies of 27 of the 58 Pew fellows named since 1996. One might easily conclude that they are strong supporters - if not promoters - of the concept. Few other researchers can maintain either the professional or public profiles that Pew fellows enjoy, thanks to the financial support - some $150,000 each - and connections the fellowships provide. (In addition to these Pew fellowships, the Pew Trusts and the Packard Foundation have spent more than $2 million in grants specifically promoting MPAs since 1998.)

But the Pew connections don't end there. In January of this year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) named the finalists for its MPA Advisory Committee. The 26-member committee includes representatives of a number of organizations funded by Pew and Packard, including:
• Environmental Defense - $3.4 million from Pew and $1.2 million from Packard in the last five years;
• Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) - $5.5 million from Pew;
• Center for Marine Conservation - $1.1 million from Pew, $1.6 million from Packard; and
• Conservation International - $400,000 from Packard.
A program officer from the Packard Foundation is also a MPA committee member, along with one commercial and one recreational fishing industry representative.
Groundswell? You bet. Spontaneous? Not hardly. Universal? How much of the universe can you influence with 10 or 20 million dollars, particularly the universe of marine and fisheries researchers, who have been dealing with declining research budgets for decades?

HIJACKING FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
How Pew Charitable Trusts has co-opted the management process using paid-for science and a well-oiled media machine.

In late 2006, “Fisheries Face Collapse by 2048!” was the headline read and heard around the world – at least in the world of Washington, DC. It just so happens that Congress was debating the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act at that precise moment. The press stories sighted a study led by Dr. Boris Worm of Dalhousie University. While objective observers might question elements of the study, it was the media hype that the Pew Charitable Trusts (“Pew” or “the Trust”) wanted out there as part of a carefully orchestrated campaign to influence the Congressional debate on the Nation’s primary fisheries law. Dr. Worm, a regular recipient of funding from Pew, working with SeaWeb, a Pew-funded public research group that specializes in media campaigns, worked on the message and the timing to get as much media coverage as possible. They were successful. Big media loves a crisis, and when you have the money and the manpower it’s easy to plant a good fish tale.
Dr. Worm’s article was quickly labeled by top fisheries scientists and managers for what it really was – a Pew advocacy piece like much of his prior work funded by the Trust. The kicker at the end of the piece calling for “no-fishing marine reserves” as the cure was the final giveaway, a goal high on the agenda of most Pew funded organizations! Worm’s work in the past had been branded “invalid”, “misleading” and “undermining the trust placed in science.” As it turns out this was a textbook study in disseminating misinformation disguised as science to a willing media with the express purpose of influencing Congressional debate. Such scare tactics have become the darling of the radical environmental movement.
The media firestorm was part of a broader, coordinated attack that included misleading ad campaigns aimed at smearing key politicians facing re-election. The targeted Members of Congress just happened to be those involved in crafting scientifically sound legislation that also recognized the needs of recreational fishermen and industry. This campaign was led by another Pew-funded environmental group, the Marine Fish Conservation Network.
The Pew Charitable Trusts is the 800-pound gorilla of ocean issues. Created with funding from the Sun Oil Company and sitting on a $4.1 billion war chest, it is an organization that refuses to let reality get in the way of their agenda. In public documents their self-mandated mission is to “save” the oceans. They claim that the primary purpose (of the Trust) ‘is to award grants to other organizations as well as direct planning and conducting projects and initiatives that carryout the organizations religious, charitable, scientific, literary and educational purposes.’ This validates that Pew grant recipients are carrying out the ideas and motivations of Pew. The impact of such tactics is changing the direction of fisheries policy. True management and conservation is gradually being replaced by a call to stop all fishing through the use of paid-for science funneled to the media through Pew-financed conduits, and touted by Pew-funded environmental organizations. Much of their agenda is anti-fishing, even on well managed, rebuilt or rebuilding fish stocks, to the point of being little more than a cleverly disguised attack on the public’s access to the ocean. That’s recreational fishermen like us.

For example, Pew funding has enabled ecologists to drive the scientific agenda for the implementation of California’s Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), which is now on course to close 20% of that state’s waters to recreational fishing. Pew Fellows serve on the Science Advisory Team of the MLPA, where they push closures while ignoring current fishery management practices, which, on the West Coast, are already the most restrictive in the world! Fishermen proposed a constructive network of MPA’s that exceeded Pew-funded scientific guidelines, but the political faction wanted blood! Their network lobbied the Governor for an even more extreme proposal and now California’s angling community is fighting a losing battle to stop a runaway train that is making it harder to find a place to fish.
Pew is a major grant provider to universities and professors in the marine sciences and the major provider of funds to environmental groups that push the party line. Those groups include The National Environmental Trust, Oceana, Earthjustice Legal Defense, the New England Aquarium, the Public Interest Research Group, National Audubon Society, National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Conservation Law Foundation, Marine Conservation Biology Institute, Marine Fish Conservation Network, Wildlife Conservation Society, Friends of the Earth and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. Combined, these groups have received over $200 million of Pew money and most have openly endorsed the implementation of arbitrary no-fishing zones!
The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership is particularly worrisome. It is attempting to become an umbrella group for sportsman’s organizations and has attracted the participation of some fishing organizations with the lure of Pew money. The American Sportfishing Association and the Coastal Conservation Association are among the board members of the Partnership. And when the going got tough during the Magnuson Act reauthorization, they ended up on the same page as the Pew-funded groups.
This is what Congressman Pombo, then chair of the House Resources Committee had to say recently. “Throughout the long process to reauthorize the Magnuson Act the RFA was consistently at the table, insisting on sound conservation policies based on the most accurate science. Their goal was clear, a sustainable fishery so that this generation of recreational fishermen and the following generations would have fish to catch. Most of the other organizations engaged in this debate had other agendas or were totally missing in action. At the end of the 109th Congress it was clear to me that the RFA was the only player left insisting on protecting the future of recreational fishing. I will always be grateful to them and respect their tenacity during what proved to be a difficult reauthorization.”
Since the implementation of the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996 the management of U.S. fisheries, while far from perfect, has become a model for the rest of the world. Yet Pew continues to use scare tactics to drive its agenda domestically while the most egregious problems can easily be found abroad. Their agenda may sound laudable, but the reality is that their goal is to stop fishing. Pew used the money of its well-heeled donors like a school-yard bully during the debate and attacked those who stood in their way. Pew has seriously damaged the ability of recreational fishermen to do what we love to do – go fishing.

Pew slammed over 'bully boy' tactics
16 Mar 2010

By Staff Writers

Recent revelations regarding the use of "dodgy" science by the US-based Pew Charitable Trust in its push for Australia's Coral Sea to become the world's largest no-fishing zone have reportedly rattled local marine conservation activists.

However, Fishing World's ongoing investigation into this issue has uncovered information which suggests Pew should be used to this sort of adverse publicity. It seems that Australians are not alone in their mounting dislike for this giant American conservation group and its extremist views on the need for vast no-fishing zones throughout the world. Others in the Pacific have also been exposed to Pew's philosophy on marine conservation, and it seems they have also become aware of issues relating to misinformation, deception and blatant bully boy tactics from the oil money funded Pew.

In the Marianas Islands, in the northern Pacific, a letter to the Saipan Tribune (see http://www.saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?cat=15&newsID=90204) enlightened Fisho to the fact that Australian anglers are not alone in their dislike for Pew's methods. In his letter, John Gourley alerts readers to the fact that “the Pew Environment Group has returned to the Marianas to continue pushing their non-science-based environmental programs and anti-fishing agenda. However this time, Pew is lurking behind its alter ego, a local Pew-financed group called 'Friends of the Monument'."

Gourley highlights a fact that has become increasingly apparent here in Australia and around the world: namely that Pew's tentacles have forced their way into numerous other marine environmental groups. This is not surprising when you consider how badly most of these smaller groups need funds to survive. Hand-outs of oil money guarantee that Pew has the ready availability of splinter groups and “alter egos” to back up its agenda in Australia and many other countries. Indeed, while several environmental groups, including WWF, were originally backing a more moderate and reasonable approach to management of the Coral Sea, it seems in recent times that they appear to have fallen in behind Pew and are now backing the full 100 per cent 1 million km2 fishing closure position.

But Pew's influence does not stop there. Recent press releases by the CSIRO have revealed that leading young scientists have received Pew Fellowships in Marine Conservation worth $150,000. (see http://www.csiro.au/news/Marine-scientist-wins-prestigious-Pew-Fellowship.html for details). Is Pew now infiltrating our scientific institutions using the same methods by which they have persuaded our local marine conservation groups to toe their line?

While the fact that infusions of money are very influential to cash-strapped environmental groups is obvious, the situation becomes murky when it comes to PEW supporting science. We now have a leading up and coming Australian scientist receiving $US150,000 of Pew Fellowship money over three years to model how marine biodiversity is affected by pressures such as overfishing and climate change. However, as Fisho's Marine Biology editor, Dr Ben Diggles explains: "The problem with these types of models is that they are only as good as the integrity of the data that is used, and they rely on the assumptions of the modeler. I can assure you that in the case of this PEW/CSIRO fellowship, although the researcher may have the best intentions, it will be impossible to accurately determine 'how marine biodiversity is affected by pressures such as overfishing and climate change' using a model without utilising a huge but equally accurate database. They will also need to have a detailed understanding of how pollution in particular (but also many other variables besides fishing and climate change), ultimately affect biodiversity. I can tell you, there are many factors that affect fisheries and marine biodiversity that we are only just becoming aware of now, and it will take many years to sort out how important these factors are in the overall picture. Then there are the many unknowns. To achieve such a lofty goal within three years, the researcher will need to make many assumptions, not all of which may be correct.”

Diggles' caution over possible scientific compromise due to the Pew funding is shared by RecFish Australia chairman Frank Prokop. "Modelling research relies on the integrity of the scientist who, for a period of some years, is supported by handouts from Pew," Prokop said. "Given that scientists are only human, the possibility for skewed or tainted results is very real, unless they have the scientific and personal integrity to be completely objective throughout."

However, based on the reports from the Marianas Islands, integrity appears to be in short supply at Pew. Gourley states in his letter" “Since the designation of the Marianas Monument in January 2009, (Editor's note: which banned commercial fishing but allowed sustainably managed traditional and recreational fishing) Pew has decided they don't like what the CNMI government negotiated. So Pew is reneging on their original promises and has resurrected their original 'no-take' monument proposal to again push it on the people of the Marianas.”

Then there is the quote by Pew boss Josh Reichert in the US-based Sport Fishing magazine (see http://www.sportfishingmag.com/species/conservation/pews-reichert-talks-to-anglers-1000071919-page-1.html). Reichert told SF editor Doug Olander: “We have repeatedly made clear that we are not in the business of trying to close off the world's oceans to recreational fishermen.”

How does the integrity of this comment sit with Australian anglers when locally Pew is unwavering in its commitment to closing 1 million km2 of the Coral Sea to all fishing? This is 1 million km2 of prime tropical sportfishing environment which could support sustainable sportfishing forever if suitably managed, especially if the Marianas precedent was followed.

It comes as cold comfort to know that we are not alone. In the Marianas Islands, Gourley finishes with a scathing attack. "If the people of the Marianas have learned anything from the 2008 Pew monument campaign fiasco, it is that any promises made by Pew or their representatives mean absolutely nothing. Pew has shown no integrity or one ounce of respect to the people of the Marianas or their culture. The only thing the schoolyard bully has been straight with us about is that they are here to take away our fishing rights, any potential right for oil, gas and mineral extraction and give it to the federal government to 'properly' manage, according to Pew preaching. I can't help but wonder how the indigenous people of the Marianas survived for all these thousands of years without Pew around to tell them what to do.”

Given the Australian Government has signaled it is not in favour of locking anglers out of the Coral Sea by going on record as saying it was keen to achieve a "balance point" over the area's future, there is still time for Pew to back down from its extremist approach on the Coral Sea. It would certainly save the reputation of many local environment groups if it did so sooner rather than later.

Pew loses Coral Sea battle
30 Mar 2010


PEW'S no compromise gamble on creating the world's biggest no-take marine park in the Coral Sea has failed with federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett rejecting the US-based lobby group's controversial anti-fishing campaign.

Garrett has opted for a balanced approach to managing the unique environmental attributes of the Coral Sea, stating categorically that well-managed recreational fishing will continue.

“I want to make plain to everyone, that while my Department will continue to assess the whole of the Coral Sea, there is no plan to establish it as one large 'no take' marine park," Garrett said.

“As with other marine areas around the country, I expect that this process will lead to a balanced mix of both multiple use areas and no-take areas within the marine reserve network in which we work with stakeholders to secure a good conservation outcome while minimising social and economic impacts.”

In an exclusive interview with Garrett in Canberra earlier this year, Fishing World magazine predicted it would be unlikely that fishing would be banned in the Coral Sea.

A February 11 article on www.fishingworld.com.au revealed Garrett was aiming for a "balance point" on any management plans for the Coral Sea.

The fact that well-managed recreational fishing will continue to be allowed in the Coral Sea is a major blow for the anti-fishing lobbyists who had spent millions of dollars trying to force the federal Government to prevent Australians from experiencing the world-class sportfishing available in this area.

The Australian arm of the Pew Environment Trust, headed by veteran green campaigner Imogen Zethoven, had led a coalition of anti-fishing groups calling for a complete ban on all fishing in the Coral Sea. The contentious Pew campaign used TV ads featuring a talking fish and glossy brochures in an attempt to elicit public support for its move to ban fishing.

In an interview with Marine Business in September last year, Zethoven said Pew was steadfast in its push for the Coral Sea to be 100 per cent closed to all fishing activities. Pew campaigners would not be satisfied with a compromise protection deal which included fishing, Zethoven said.

Garrett's statements on the Coral Sea are a slap in the face for Pew, which had gambled on its millions of US oil money and slick marketing campaigns providing it with political clout and influence. The Garrett decision also brings into serious question Zethoven's controversial campaign strategies, revealing that her team had completely failed in its stated mission plan to influence public and political sentiment towards the banning of fishing in the Coral Sea.

While Pew has failed in its campaign to make the Coral Sea a complete no-go zone, Garrett said the area would be further assessed by the Environment Department with the view of determining possible management plans that could include no-fishing zones. The Coral Sea already has an extensive network of areas that are closed to fishing. Fishing pundits yesterday said it could be possible that new management regulations could see some or all of these areas reopened to fishing.

Garrett also announced yesterday plans for the East Marine region assessment, which will likely see the development of a network of "multiple use" and "no-take" marine reserves in Commonwealth waters. The areas to be further assessed covers 2.4 million square kilometres from the Torres Strait to southern NSW, and as far east as Norfolk Island.

"Today's identification of Areas for Further Assessment kicks off a new round of scientific assessment and consultation that will help ensure that any future decisions about protecting our marine environment are made taking into account the need to minimise the impacts on industry," Garrett said.

"This ongoing consultation program is critical to ensure that we gain a comprehensive understanding about the areas that are important to both industry and to recreational fishers, as well as being environmentally significant so that we can ensure we get the balance right in our future planning.

"Seven areas, plus the Coral Sea Conservation Zone, have been identified for further assessment. The seven areas are the Fraser, Tweed, Clarence, Hunter, Batemans, Tasmania-Lord Howe and Norfolk.

"These areas for further assessment are simply areas where more detailed information will be collected. Importantly, they do not have any regulatory impact on industries, recreational fishers, boating enthusiasts, tourism operators and other users," Garrett said.

RecFish Australia CEO Len Olyott welcomed Garrett's Coral Sea announcement.

“This is a positive step by the Government and suggests that there is a real intention to engage with industry and all users of the environment, including recreational fishers,” said Olyott. “This announcement clearly says that the Government will not allow policy to be dictated by special interest groups with their own agendas.”

Quote:

About everything you have posted on these recent two threads.

So you don't actually know what a strawman is?

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2010 at 8:45pm:

Quote: About everything you have posted on these recent two threads. So you don't actually know what a strawman is?

You ignoring my argument and making up one of your own, attributing it to me, then attacking it, ie the 'strawman'.

What did I falsely attribute to you?

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2010 at 9:19pm:

What did I falsely attribute to you?

You do it constantly. For starters turning conflict of interest into an all of government conspiracy.

Another might be wanting to argue about the definition of a strawman than talking about the references I provided regarding the activities of Pew. Remember you were whining for them and tried to make an argument about me having some reason for not providing them?    

Quote:

For starters turning conflict of interest into an all of government conspiracy.

You were the one that suggested scientists must tow the line and that going to another institution like a university is not an option because they are in on it too.


Quote:

Remember you were whining for them and tried to make an argument about me having some reason for not providing them?

 

I just thought it odd that you complained that you had posted them here already, but couldn't provide a link to where you had done so. I assumed you were either lying, or didn't want to post a link to the criticisms I had already made. It is certainly strange for someone to rpefer to copy and paste large tracts of text than simply post a link to where they had done so previously. I would still be interested to know why you did that.

]
Quote:

For starters turning conflict of interest into an all of government conspiracy.

You were the one that suggested scientists must tow the line and that going to another institution like a university is not an option because they are in on it too.

Now you have done it again. What happened is that you put universities in the non government sector and I corrected it. Plus you introduced the term 'conspiracy' which I never used.  


Quote:

Remember you were whining for them and tried to make an argument about me having some reason for not providing them?

 

I just thought it odd that you complained that you had posted them here already, but couldn't provide a link to where you had done so. I assumed you were either lying, or didn't want to post a link to the criticisms I had already made. It is certainly strange for someone to rpefer to copy and paste large tracts of text than simply post a link to where they had done so previously. I would still be interested to know why you did that.[/quote]

I didn't 'complain' - I pointed out you seem to have a poor memory. I don't see what the big deal is whether I post original articles or a link to where I put them up before. In any case your search function doesn't seem to work for old posts - so mystery solved.

PS: Do you now concede Pew uses it's money to influence marine research?

Quote:

I don't see what the big deal is whether I post original articles or a link to where I put them up before.

PJ, not everyone is a fan of repeating the same debate over and over again.


Quote:

In any case your search function doesn't seem to work for old posts - so mystery solved.

There are two search buttons. Use the one on the left, in the menus.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 9:00pm:

Quote: I don't see what the big deal is whether I post original articles or a link to where I put them up before. PJ, not everyone is a fan of repeating the same debate over and over again.

I have covered new ground - your the one repeating yourself. Ie your same old name calling and ad homs against Walter Starck, strawman arguments, nit picking over definitions etc.  

pjb05 wrote on May 16^th, 2010 at 4:34pm:

If you want direct evidence there is the admission from Pew that they use their grants to scientists and others to promote their agenda.

pjb05 wrote on May 16^th, 2010 at 6:27pm:

Quote: And what is that agenda? Revealing the truth, or misleading the public? I am not aware of many charitable organisations that fund fundamental research, without demanding to own the results. If their agenda is anything but revealing the truth, they are going about it the wrong way. Establishing marine park no take zones wherever they don't already exist.

PJ, what exactly did they admit to? And is that agenda something you projected onto them?


pjb05 wrote on May 16^th, 2010 at 6:27pm:

Trying to claim some sort of scientific authority on this is why they fund scientists.

But if the science backs marine parks, doesn't that mean they have scientific authority? I think it is great that they are funding scientific research into such an important area.

]
pjb05 wrote on May 16^th, 2010 at 4:34pm:

If you want direct evidence there is the admission from Pew that they use their grants to scientists and others to promote their agenda.

The Pew Charitable Trusts is the 800-pound gorilla of ocean issues. Created with funding from the Sun Oil Company and sitting on a $4.1 billion war chest, it is an organization that refuses to let reality get in the way of their agenda. In public documents their self-mandated mission is to “save” the oceans. They claim that the primary purpose (of the Trust) ‘is to award grants to other organizations as well as direct planning and conducting projects and initiatives that carryout the organizations religious, charitable, scientific, literary and educational purposes.’ This validates that Pew grant recipients are carrying out the ideas and motivations of Pew. The impact of such tactics is changing the direction of fisheries policy. True management and conservation is gradually being replaced by a call to stop all fishing through the use of paid-for science funneled to the media through Pew-financed conduits, and touted by Pew-funded environmental organizations. Much of their agenda is anti-fishing, even on well managed, rebuilt or rebuilding fish stocks, to the point of being little more than a cleverly disguised attack on the public’s access to the ocean



pjb05 wrote on May 16^th, 2010 at 6:27pm:

Quote: And what is that agenda? Revealing the truth, or misleading the public? I am not aware of many charitable organisations that fund fundamental research, without demanding to own the results. If their agenda is anything but revealing the truth, they are going about it the wrong way. Establishing marine park no take zones wherever they don't already exist.

PJ, what exactly did they admit to? And is that agenda something you projected onto them?

Se above.


pjb05 wrote on May 16^th, 2010 at 6:27pm:

Trying to claim some sort of scientific authority on this is why they fund scientists.

But if the science backs marine parks, doesn't that mean they have scientific authority? I think it is great that they are funding scientific research into such an important area.[/quote]


It's a claim to scientific authority. The science is tainted as I have been saying.

Quote:

Look in the Pew thread.

This is the Pew thread PJ. I have no idea what you are talking about, which is why I am asking you.


Quote:

The science is tainted as I have been saying.

I know you have said it PJ. That doesn't make it so, does it?

[]
Quote:

Look in the Pew thread.

This is the Pew thread PJ. I have no idea what you are talking about, which is why I am asking you.

Yes I just noticed that. Look at the previous post for the relevant quote.


Quote:

The science is tainted as I have been saying.

I know you have said it PJ. That doesn't make it so, does it?[/quote]

I have put up several articles on Pew's activities - you have not said one word to dispute them.

Quote:

The Pew Charitable Trusts is the 800-pound gorilla of ocean issues.

Did Pew publish this? I thought you said they admitted to something.

freediver wrote on May 17^th, 2010 at 7:54pm:

Quote: The Pew Charitable Trusts is the 800-pound gorilla of ocean issues. Did Pew publish this? I thought you said they admitted to something.

Duh FD - the part in inverted commas is from Pew.

Got it.


Quote:

‘is to award grants to other organizations as well as direct planning and conducting projects and initiatives that carryout the organizations religious, charitable, scientific, literary and educational purposes.’

Now that we have taken what they actually said away from the bluster, can you point out which part of this 'admission' is sinister, or is an admission to something you think is sinsister? I assume you will concede that funding scientific research comes under the 'scientific' bit. It seems to me more like stating the bleeding obvious rather than admitting to anything.

Interestingly, I googled that extract, and this forum came out on top. I couldn't see anything that looked like a Pew site in the top 20.

freediver wrote on May 17^th, 2010 at 8:06pm:

Got it. Quote: ‘is to award grants to other organizations as well as direct planning and conducting projects and initiatives that carryout the organizations religious, charitable, scientific, literary and educational purposes.’ Now that we have taken what they actually said away from the bluster, can you point out which part of this 'admission' is sinister, or is an admission to something you think is sinsister? I assume you will concede that funding scientific research comes under the 'scientific' bit. It seems to me more like stating the bleeding obvious rather than admitting to anything. Interestingly, I googled that extract, and this forum came out on top. I couldn't see anything that looked like a Pew site in the top 20.

You really must have a comprehension problem. To paraphrase it says that they award grants to carry out the organisations purposes. Elsewhere they state their purpose is to 'save' the oceans through the promotion of marne parks.  

Quote:

Elsewhere they state their purpose is to 'save' the oceans through the promotion of marne parks.

Would you mind quoting them?

Also, do you have any reason to believe that their position on marine parks is leading their scientific enquiries rather than following them?

[]
Quote:

Elsewhere they state their purpose is to 'save' the oceans through the promotion of marne parks.

Would you mind quoting them?

Their literature is full of it. I have already put up quotes and information about their campaigns as well eg to make the whole coral sea a marine park.

Also, do you have any reason to believe that their position on marine parks is leading their scientific enquiries rather than following them?
[/quote]

The articles I put up explain it. Also the reefgate affair is a good example.

Quote:

Their literature is full of it.

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to back up what you said, should it? Also, the single quote you have provided has not been directly linked back to Pew either. All of your evidence to back up that claim so far comes from comically extreme anti-pew web postings, not a single piece comes from Pew itself.

Quote:

The articles I put up explain it.

I'm sure they do, but do you have any reason to believe their conspiracy theories reflect reality, other than the fact that they said it does?

[]
Quote:

Their literature is full of it.

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to back up what you said, should it? Also, the single quote you have provided has not been directly linked back to Pew either. All of your evidence to back up that claim so far comes from comically extreme anti-pew web postings, not a single piece comes from Pew itself.

Quote:

I did when you asked last time, eg regarding their campaign for the Coral Sea.   The articles I put up explain it.

I'm sure they do, but do you have any reason to believe their conspiracy theories reflect reality, other than the fact that they said it does?[/quote]

It's called circumstantial evidence FD, and they do offer evidence, contrary to your suggestion. Aside from the articles here reefgate (ie the point of my original post), is a good example of Pew influence.

Quote:

It's called circumstantial evidence FD

You have only circumstantial evidence that they 'admitted' to something?

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2010 at 6:51pm:

Quote: It's called circumstantial evidence FD You have only circumstantial evidence that they 'admitted' to something?

I have a reference to a published quote. What are you saying - I would have witness the Pew official typing it on the keyboard?

Quote:

I have a reference to a published quote. What are you saying - I would have witness the Pew official typing it on the keyboard?

What kind of reference? An over opinionated piece you found online that implies that Pew admitted that their motives for funding science are scientific? I think you are stretching things to the point of absurdity there PJ.

Perhaps I was reading too much into your accusation that they admitted to something. Were you merely pointing out that Pew hopes to encourage scientific research into the impact of marine parks?

]
Quote:

I have a reference to a published quote. What are you saying - I would have witness the Pew official typing it on the keyboard?

What kind of reference? An over opinionated piece you found online that implies that Pew admitted that their motives for funding science are scientific? I think you are stretching things to the point of absurdity there PJ.

If it's a genuine quote then it does more than imply that Pew pays scientists to push it's agenda. Are you suggesting the quote is a fabrication? PS: Your pushing things to absurdity FD if you think my case rests on one article.

Perhaps I was reading too much into your accusation that they admitted to something. Were you merely pointing out that Pew hopes to encourage scientific research into the impact of marine parks?[/quote]

So why did the reefgate scientists break the rules of the PNAS journal? Eg Not considering conflicting evidence, even -oops- their own findings?

Quote:

If it's a genuine quote then

Well, is it?


Quote:

PS: Your pushing things to absurdity FD if you think my case rests on one article.

I am just asking you to back up your claim about Pew admitting to something.

]
Quote:

If it's a genuine quote then

Well, is it?

I doubt they would have made it up. They would be open to a lawsuit from Pew if they did, and Pew has deep pockets.


Quote:

PS: Your pushing things to absurdity FD if you think my case rests on one article.

I am just asking you to back up your claim about Pew admitting to something.

What do you mean - that I should 'prove' the quote is genuine? What if they have changed their website in the intervening years?

Quote:

What do you mean - that I should 'prove' the quote is genuine? What if they have changed their website in the intervening years?

You claimed that Pew admitted to something. You have zero evidence of this. You have a quote that isn't actually a quote and does not say anything anyway and comes from an absurdly dodgy article to begin with. If that is all it takes for you to believe something then you would believe anything.

Why is it that every time I question you on any specific part of your argument you try for a few pages to change the topic before finally revealing it has no basis at all? How many times would I have to do this before you start to check your facts first?

]
Quote:

What do you mean - that I should 'prove' the quote is genuine? What if they have changed their website in the intervening years?

You claimed that Pew admitted to something. You have zero evidence of this.

I have put up a published article quoting Pew - that's not zero evidence. What do you want me to do next - my own fisheries research?

You have a quote that isn't actually a quote and does not say anything anyway and comes from an absurdly dodgy article to begin with.

It is a quote - what have you got for a brain?

If that is all it takes for you to believe something then you would believe anything.

Are you saying they falsified the quote? Why don't you come out and say it?

Why is it that every time I question you on any specific part of your argument you try for a few pages to change the topic before finally revealing it has no basis at all?

I have backed up everying I have said, where practical. PS: Talking about changing the subject it was mean't to be about the GBRMPA sponsored paper in PNAS. You haven't said one word about the technical and economic criticisms - who is the one that has no basis?
How many times would I have to do this before you start to check your facts first?

Say what you mean - is the quote a fabrication or not?

Quote:

I have put up a published article quoting Pew

How do you even know it was quoting Pew? Do you think that the fact that the article was 'published' gives it some sort of credibility, like because something is in writing it must be true and you are thus absolved of any responsibility to think for yourself? Are you still talking about this 'quote':


Quote:

‘is to award grants to other organizations as well as direct planning and conducting projects and initiatives that carryout the organizations religious, charitable, scientific, literary and educational purposes.’

Quote:

What do you want me to do next - my own fisheries research?

I was hoping you might either back up your claim about Pew's 'admission' or retract it.


Quote:

It is a quote - what have you got for a brain?

Tell me this PJ, who is it quoting?


Quote:

Are you saying they falsified the quote? Why don't you come out and say it?

No. I am saying it could be falsified. It could have come from anywhere.


Quote:

Say what you mean - is the quote a fabrication or not?

I am asking you to say that PJ. You are the one who relied on it unquestioningly just because it was 'published'. It is not up to me to figure out whether it is BS. It is your argument, not mine.

Anyway PJ, now that your alleged 'admission' by Pew has been exposed as a bit of a joke, maybe we should get back to basics. After so many pages of discussion, I am still not sure what you are even accusing Pew of. Would you mind clarifying whether you believe the following three statements about Pew, and whether you have any evidence to base this belief on (beyond "I read it somewhere on a dodgy website")?

1) Pew has a special interest in marine parks, above and beyond all the other issues they are involved with.

2) Pew's interest in marine parks goes beyond funding research to help uncover the truth about them.

3) Pew is guiding the outcome of the science, rather than simply responding to the facts as they emerge.

]
Quote:

I have put up a published article quoting Pew

How do you even know it was quoting Pew? Do you think that the fact that the article was 'published' gives it some sort of credibility, like because something is in writing it must be true and you are thus absolved of any responsibility to think for yourself? Are you still talking about this 'quote':

If it is in writing and offers what pupports to be a direct quote from Pew then they are subject to litigation if it's false. On top of that who in their right minds would publish a 'gotcha' piece on made up quotes.


Quote:

‘is to award grants to other organizations as well as direct planning and conducting projects and initiatives that carryout the organizations religious, charitable, scientific, literary and educational purposes.’

Quote:

What do you want me to do next - my own fisheries research?

I was hoping you might either back up your claim about Pew's 'admission' or retract it.

I have no reason to retract it. It is hard to back it up further if Pew's website has changed. The current website talks about Pew Fellowships being to promote marine conservation and most tellingly preservation. What do you think preservation means in this context but no take marine parks?


Quote:

It is a quote - what have you got for a brain?

Tell me this PJ, who is it quoting?

Pew.  


Quote:

Are you saying they falsified the quote? Why don't you come out and say it?

No. I am saying it could be falsified. It could have come from anywhere.

Witnesses can lie in court too, be we still use them.


Quote:

Say what you mean - is the quote a fabrication or not?

I am asking you to say that PJ. You are the one who relied on it unquestioningly just because it was 'published'. It is not up to me to figure out whether it is BS. It is your argument, not mine.

It seems unlikely that it would be fabricated. Anyway so what. What about Pew's present website and activities?

]Anyway PJ, now that your alleged 'admission' by Pew has been exposed as a bit of a joke,

No it hasn't so stop playing with yourself.

maybe we should get back to basics. After so many pages of discussion,

Actually the 'basics' were the 'GBRMPA' sponsored paper on green zones of the GBR.

I am still not sure what you are even accusing Pew of.

You must be pretty obtuse then.
Would you mind clarifying whether you believe the following three statements about Pew, and whether you have any evidence to base this belief on (beyond "I read it somewhere on a dodgy website")?

1) Pew has a special interest in marine parks, above and beyond all the other issues they are involved with.

They are involved in a lot of other issues besides our oceans. But in the marine area yes, they are obsessed with marine parks. This is compounded by a neglect of other issues such as marine pollution.  

2) Pew's interest in marine parks goes beyond funding research to help uncover the truth about them.

They incessently promote the idea of marine parks. Their agenda on this is barely hidden, if at all.

3) Pew is guiding the outcome of the science, rather than simply responding to the facts as they emerge.[/quote]

Yes, and my original reefgate topic is a rather good example of how this is occuring.

Here's another article on Pew's anti-fishing efforts, in the US. It also highlights the grassroots campaign of fishing communities compared to the astroturf of Pew:

Another Perspective
December 20, 2009

The Times They Are a-Changin' - by Nils Stolpe

Fishermen have finally concluded that it's time for long overdue changes, and that the place to go is Congress.

It's been a long time coming, but it appears as if a critical number of fishermen have finally reached the conclusion that the way things are heading, there's not going to be an acceptable fishing future for any of us, that it's time for some long overdue changes, and that the place to effect those changes is in Congress.

It's really difficult to identify all of the major factors responsible for this, but among them I'd list the excessive and in-your-face obvious influence on the Obama Administration's NOAA/NMFS by foundations with a long track record of actions inimical to fishermen, the looming crisis (of management, not of fish) in the New England groundfish fishery, the sorry state of the economy for us mere mortals who haven't benefitted and won't benefit from any bail-out $billions, massive fishery closures or cutbacks without adequate science behind them, an ongoing investigation of what appears to be institutionalized strong-arm tactics in the federal fisheries enforcement branch, and most importantly, the unnecessary and incessant erosion of our ability to fish - either recreationally or to earn a living - by a management system that is focused solely on the fish and that we as fishermen are now effectively isolated from.

And I can't forget the role that a long list of coastal legislators - most have already been mentioned here - in Washington and elected and appointed officials in Massachusetts have played in demonstrating that the ongoing overzealous, verging on punitive, management of fishermen is becoming far more of a threat to fishing communities than declining stocks ever were.

One of the most edifying byproducts of the management morass that the majority of U.S. fishermen are mired in is the growing cooperation between people in the commercial, recreational and party/charter industries, the businesses that depend on them and the communities that they support. Are we one big happy family? No, and we probably never will be, but every day more of us are realizing that there's a common enemy that we've allowed to take control of the management process while we've been almost totally focused on throwing rocks at each other.

What's the payoff of this nascent spirit of cooperation? On Capitol Hill, in no particular order of importance:

. New Jersey Congressman Frank Pallone and twenty-four co-sponsors reintroduced the Flexibility in Rebuilding America's Fisheries Act. New York's Charles Schumer introduced corresponding legislation in the Senate.

. Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank announced a caucus of East Coast legislators to discuss the modifying the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Congressman Frank said "the effort was justified because of the unrequired harm being done to the fishing communities along the Atlantic coast by regulators who misinterpret the legal principle imbedded in the Magnuson-Stevens Act to balance ecological with economic and sociological interests."

. Fourteen House Members and twelve Senators sent letters to the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior objecting to the CITES listing of spiny dogfish.


. Thirteen House members and five Senators sent a letter to the Secretary of Commerce expressing "extreme disappointment" in the New England Council's decision to severely cut back sea scallop landings.


. The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee unanimously approved Maine Senator Olympia Snowe's International Fisheries Agreement Clarification Act (S. 2856), relieving the management of trans-boundary groundfish stocks in U.S. waters from the irrationality of what the Magnuson management regime has become. Companion legislation has been introduced in the House.


. Florida Congressman John Mica and 16 cosponsors introduced legislation to prevent the Secretary of Commerce from closing the red snapper fishery without further analysis.

There is a core group of federal legislators from Texas to Maine who now realize that things are far from well in fisheries management, and that the problems don't lie with the fishermen but rather with what the Magnuson-Stevens Act has been turned into by foundation funded activists and how it is being interpreted by NOAA/NMFS.

It's up to all of us to capitalize on that.

Inspired in part by the successful fishermen's demonstration at NOAA/NMFS Northeast Regional Office that was organized by Amanda Odlin, a fisherman's wife and business partner in Scarborough, Maine, a number of fishermen's groups from both sides of the recreational/commercial fence are organizing a demonstration on the steps of the Capitol on February 24. With fishermen of every stripe participating, the message to Congress will be straightforward; put the original flexibility back in the Magnuson Act that will allow the needs of the fish to be balanced with the needs of the fishermen.

And make no mistake; this is a result of grass roots activism at its most pure. No massive corporations, no "charitable" trusts, no foundation funded ENGOs are behind it, just commercial and recreational fishermen, the businesses that they support and the trade organizations that support them.

But what's the other side up to?

They're sure not about to enter into a public discourse, seek acceptable compromises with the aggrieved fishermen or find some middle ground that will let fishermen fish and let fishing-supported businesses remain viable while stocks continue to rebuild. That's not what their billions are for. Instead those organizations that have made life so miserable for so many fishing dependent people for so long are going to respond as they have since they became involved in "saving the oceans from fishermen." They're going to throw even more money at what they perceive as a growing problem; the increasing awareness in Washington that fisheries can be and should be rebuilt in a manner that is consistent with maintaining viable fishing communities.

Accordingly, we learn from the Careers@Pew website, since December 1 the folks at the Pew Charitable Trusts have been looking for a "Manager, Federal Fisheries Policy Reform Campaign." Among the responsibilities for this position:

. The campaign will provide financial support to key NGOs for campaign assistance. This project manager will be responsible for determining the nature and amount of this support

. Oversee and manage campaign staff and environmental, commercial fishing and recreational fishing NGO consultants. The campaign will provide financial support to key NGOs for campaign assistance.

. Working with PCT (Pew Charitable Trusts) and PEG (Pew Environment Group) public affairs staff on messaging and media strategy, the project manager will help ensure that communications and outreach are used to advance the campaign's overall goals.

. The project manager will be responsible, in consultation with the project director, for identifying and contracting with scientists, legal experts, economists, polling firms, communications and other technical specialists as necessary to provide information, prepare reports, brochures or other documents as required to advance the campaign goals (from http://jobs-pct.icims.com/jobs/1971/job).

(editor's note -- Lee Crockett, director of Federal Fisheries Policy at the Pew Environment Group, contacted on Friday, December 18 at his office, described this position as an assistant, which will allow these responsibilities to be moved from his job description to the new manager's freeing him to work on other matters.)

What greater example do we need of the difference between real grass roots and astroturf? Need a fisherman, a scientist or an environmentalist to help you spin? Write a check. Buy one or two or a dozen. Want to manipulate the media? The Pew PR machine - backed by Pew's tens of millions of dollars of media grants - will lend a hand. With billions of Big Oil/high tech dollars to draw from, a couple of decades of expensive successes under their collective belt and access that few enjoy to what I'd guess are excessively sympathetic ears at the highest levels of NOAA/NMFS, why would we expect them to do otherwise? And they have a bunch of people in Congress from inland states who have proven more than susceptible to their well oiled anti-fishing spin machine in the past.

That's why we're in the position that we're in today, with a mutated Magnuson-Stevens Act that gives scant consideration to the people and businesses involved in fishing and every consideration possible to the fish - which time after time have been shown to be far more resilient (how many fish stocks are "recovered" or on their way to recovery? How many fishing businesses that have gone bankrupt have come back?)

As applied to fisheries management, without Congressional intervention government "of the people, by the people, for the people" might well perish, to be replaced with checkbook activism. We're most of the way there already.

When the Magnuson Act was written over 30 years ago, the intent wasn't to have fisheries managed from the Board Rooms of multi-billion dollar foundations but from the docks, the marinas and the beaches where fishermen - let's not call them fishers - were plying their trade or pursuing their sport. That's the way it was and that's the way it can be again, but not without your serious support and participation, no matter what your fishery.

Have a great holiday and I hope to see you in Washington.

Quote:

This is compounded by a neglect of other issues such as marine pollution.

 

You dont like checking your facts before posting do you PJ? All you had to do is google "Pew marine pollution" and you would have uncovered many examples, like this one:

http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=30035

freediver wrote on May 23^rd, 2010 at 6:51pm:

Quote: This is compounded by a neglect of other issues such as marine pollution.   You dont like checking your facts before posting do you PJ? All you had to do is google "Pew marine pollution" and you would have uncovered many examples, like this one: http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=30035

Do you call that 'checking the facts' FD? Yes the webisite makes a couple (2) of references to pollution - big deal. This hardly a breakdown of its activities. In any case the site is far more devoted to it's anti-fishing activities.  

So the pew website only makles 2 references to marine pollution?

freediver wrote on May 23^rd, 2010 at 7:13pm:

So the pew website only makles 2 references to marine pollution?

Thats all I saw on the link you put up. They mentioned they campaigned for a ban on cruise liners dumping waste and called for a maratorium on oil drilling in US waters after the gulf disaster, until safety issues are addressed (big deal as this has already been done by the President).

I see. I thought you meant the whole site. I only put it up as an example PJ. I obviously did not mean to imply that it encompassed all of their pollution related activity.

pjb05 wrote on May 23^rd, 2010 at 4:14pm:

Here's another article on Pew's anti-fishing efforts, in the US. It also highlights the grassroots campaign of fishing communities compared to the astroturf of Pew: Another Perspective December 20, 2009 The Times They Are a-Changin' - by Nils Stolpe Fishermen have finally concluded that it's time for long overdue changes, and that the place to go is Congress. It's been a long time coming, but it appears as if a critical number of fishermen have finally reached the conclusion that the way things are heading, there's not going to be an acceptable fishing future for any of us, that it's time for some long overdue changes, and that the place to effect those changes is in Congress. It's really difficult to identify all of the major factors responsible for this, but among them I'd list the excessive and in-your-face obvious influence on the Obama Administration's NOAA/NMFS by foundations with a long track record of actions inimical to fishermen, the looming crisis (of management, not of fish) in the New England groundfish fishery, the sorry state of the economy for us mere mortals who haven't benefitted and won't benefit from any bail-out $billions, massive fishery closures or cutbacks without adequate science behind them, an ongoing investigation of what appears to be institutionalized strong-arm tactics in the federal fisheries enforcement branch, and most importantly, the unnecessary and incessant erosion of our ability to fish - either recreationally or to earn a living - by a management system that is focused solely on the fish and that we as fishermen are now effectively isolated from. And I can't forget the role that a long list of coastal legislators - most have already been mentioned here - in Washington and elected and appointed officials in Massachusetts have played in demonstrating that the ongoing overzealous, verging on punitive, management of fishermen is becoming far more of a threat to fishing communities than declining stocks ever were. One of the most edifying byproducts of the management morass that the majority of U.S. fishermen are mired in is the growing cooperation between people in the commercial, recreational and party/charter industries, the businesses that depend on them and the communities that they support. Are we one big happy family? No, and we probably never will be, but every day more of us are realizing that there's a common enemy that we've allowed to take control of the management process while we've been almost totally focused on throwing rocks at each other.

Would you mind pointing out the bit about Pew for me?

freediver wrote on May 23^rd, 2010 at 7:43pm:

[ Would you mind pointing out the bit about Pew for me?

You have to keep reading. The last two & a half pages is about Pew, ie after: "but what's the other side up to?"