Quote:


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:


Well, is it?

Quote:


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

Quote:


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:


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:

Quote:


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

Quote:


Tell me this PJ, who is it quoting?

Quote:


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

Quote:


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.

] Quote:


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:

Quote:


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:


Tell me this PJ, who is it quoting?

Pew.  

Quote:


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:


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?

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.

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.

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.