Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force - Findings???
- Thread starter hotajax
- Start date
Doc Stressor
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 1,186
- Reaction score
- 295
- Points
- 83
- Location
- Homosassa, FL
- Model
- Seafarer
The period for public comment on the Interim Report ended about a month ago. The final report should be done pretty soon.
Regardless of all of the political nonsense that has been posted on the web about this topic, the Task Force was not charged with developing a specific plan for marine spacial planning or ocean zoning. They were not asked to make recommendations about shutting down fisheries. Their job was to make recommendations on the planning process. Because so many different federal agencies would be involved, the Task Force is supposed to recommend ways in which they can work together. Their main suggestion so far is just a broad set of principles to provide guidance.
The Task Force is to be dissolved once the Final Report is submitted.
Here is the Interim Report where you can see the original charge to the Committee in the Executive Summary. If you wade through the rest of the document, you will see that it's nothing more than a bureaucratic planning document that doesn't say anything about shutting down fisheries.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/09_17_09_Interim_Report_of_Task_Force_FINAL2.pdf
Regardless of all of the political nonsense that has been posted on the web about this topic, the Task Force was not charged with developing a specific plan for marine spacial planning or ocean zoning. They were not asked to make recommendations about shutting down fisheries. Their job was to make recommendations on the planning process. Because so many different federal agencies would be involved, the Task Force is supposed to recommend ways in which they can work together. Their main suggestion so far is just a broad set of principles to provide guidance.
The Task Force is to be dissolved once the Final Report is submitted.
Here is the Interim Report where you can see the original charge to the Committee in the Executive Summary. If you wade through the rest of the document, you will see that it's nothing more than a bureaucratic planning document that doesn't say anything about shutting down fisheries.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/09_17_09_Interim_Report_of_Task_Force_FINAL2.pdf
For Doc Stressor
I respectfully disagree with you, on all levels.
First, what is the motivation behind the study? Who was the driving force that put the bug in Lord Barry's ear? Certainly not the tree huggers, right?
Secondly, you referred to "political nonsense" that was posted on the web. I think not. In my lifetime I have seen government expanision to the point of interfering in just about any activity you can imagine. There are already state fishing commissions, the EPA, NOAA, Department of the Interior, and on and on. Do we really need another governing body to regulate us?
Lastly the Task Force: it won't go away, but I do hope I am wrong. When was the last time you saw any government entity close itself out? I'll believe it when I see it.
I respectfully disagree with you, on all levels.
First, what is the motivation behind the study? Who was the driving force that put the bug in Lord Barry's ear? Certainly not the tree huggers, right?
Secondly, you referred to "political nonsense" that was posted on the web. I think not. In my lifetime I have seen government expanision to the point of interfering in just about any activity you can imagine. There are already state fishing commissions, the EPA, NOAA, Department of the Interior, and on and on. Do we really need another governing body to regulate us?
Lastly the Task Force: it won't go away, but I do hope I am wrong. When was the last time you saw any government entity close itself out? I'll believe it when I see it.
Doc Stressor,
I as well respectfully disagree with you, however, I do so on a substantive basis. Tempting as it is I will pass on your comment regarding “political nonsense”.
You wrote “They were not asked to make recommendations about shutting down fisheries. Their job was to make recommendations on the planning process.” From your own posting of the Presidential mandate section 1A states.
1. “Within 90 days of this memorandum, the task force shall develop recommendations that include:
a. A national policy that ensures protection, maintenance and restoration of the health of ocean, coastal, Great Lakes ecosystems and resources………………………….”
This is not being asked for a recommendation on a planning process it is 100% clear that they are being asked to submit policy. How do you read this any other way? I am open to enlightenment as to my miscomprehension of the article, please.
I as well respectfully disagree with you, however, I do so on a substantive basis. Tempting as it is I will pass on your comment regarding “political nonsense”.
You wrote “They were not asked to make recommendations about shutting down fisheries. Their job was to make recommendations on the planning process.” From your own posting of the Presidential mandate section 1A states.
1. “Within 90 days of this memorandum, the task force shall develop recommendations that include:
a. A national policy that ensures protection, maintenance and restoration of the health of ocean, coastal, Great Lakes ecosystems and resources………………………….”
This is not being asked for a recommendation on a planning process it is 100% clear that they are being asked to submit policy. How do you read this any other way? I am open to enlightenment as to my miscomprehension of the article, please.
Doc Stressor
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 1,186
- Reaction score
- 295
- Points
- 83
- Location
- Homosassa, FL
- Model
- Seafarer
Well, Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) is an idea that goes well beyond fisheries. It certainly isn't a product of the Obama administration. It's a method for resolving conflict between multiple conflicting users of ocean resources.
NOAA started working on MSP during the Bush administration. The idea is to use science (or at least the best available science) to designate specific areas of the ocean for the most efficient and productive uses. Other countries are also beginning to implement ocean zoning for such conflicting activities as wind farms, wave farms, ocean mining, oil and gas production, mariculture, commercial and recreational fishing.
Here is a link to some NOAA info on MSP:
http://www.msp.noaa.gov/
The recent dust up over the Task Force started when a few web and TV personalities began accusing the government of planning to ban fishing. ESPN recently published an opinion piece by a writer with a political agenda.
ESPN has already apologized for publishing the article without vetting the facts.
http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/salt ... man_stev...
NOAA has responded with a point by point rebuttal:
http://www.flyfishinsalt.com/news/news/ ... 81572.html
This was an issue that was originally started by commercial fishermen, who are opposed to ocean zoning and IFQs. They are trying to gain support from recreational fishermen. If you check the facts yourself, you'll see that there is really nothing there.
There is no doubt that MSP is going to affect sport fishermen. If it's done right, it can improve fishing by making it sustainable. If it's done wrong, it might lead to unnecessary closures and restrictions. The problem is that there are just too many people pursuing limited resources. As sport fisherman, we are going to need to stay on top of all of this stuff. Partisan politics just confuses the issue and makes it harder to understand.
NOAA started working on MSP during the Bush administration. The idea is to use science (or at least the best available science) to designate specific areas of the ocean for the most efficient and productive uses. Other countries are also beginning to implement ocean zoning for such conflicting activities as wind farms, wave farms, ocean mining, oil and gas production, mariculture, commercial and recreational fishing.
Here is a link to some NOAA info on MSP:
http://www.msp.noaa.gov/
The recent dust up over the Task Force started when a few web and TV personalities began accusing the government of planning to ban fishing. ESPN recently published an opinion piece by a writer with a political agenda.
ESPN has already apologized for publishing the article without vetting the facts.
http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/salt ... man_stev...
NOAA has responded with a point by point rebuttal:
http://www.flyfishinsalt.com/news/news/ ... 81572.html
This was an issue that was originally started by commercial fishermen, who are opposed to ocean zoning and IFQs. They are trying to gain support from recreational fishermen. If you check the facts yourself, you'll see that there is really nothing there.
There is no doubt that MSP is going to affect sport fishermen. If it's done right, it can improve fishing by making it sustainable. If it's done wrong, it might lead to unnecessary closures and restrictions. The problem is that there are just too many people pursuing limited resources. As sport fisherman, we are going to need to stay on top of all of this stuff. Partisan politics just confuses the issue and makes it harder to understand.
The Task Force is to be dissolved once the Final Report is submitted.
Highly doubtful, maybe renamed but not dissolved.
Highly doubtful, maybe renamed but not dissolved.
Doc Stressor - thanks for the information. Always nice to have a little rationality provided with some back up.