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


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:


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:


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:


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

A long way for an individual.

Quote:


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:


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:


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:


I did not intend to leave you out.

Quote:


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:


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:


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:


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:


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.

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


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.

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?

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 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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

Quote:


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

What did I falsely attribute to you?

Quote:


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:
   

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:


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

Quote:


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

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



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


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:


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:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Got it.

Quote:


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.

Quote:


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:


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'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:


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

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.

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


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.

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


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).

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


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