Saturday, February 26, 2011
Article 21/14 UN LOST Plan; to include Sector Separation and Catch Shares
Catch-share idea a disaster for fishing families, the oceans.(Local Opinion): An article from: The Register-Guard (Eugene, OR)
Friday, February 25, 2011
Fishermen meeting focuses on saying "no" to catch shares
Fishermen meeting focuses on saying "no" to catch shares: "Three weeks after their initial meeting at a local restaurant, a group of concerned fishermen now has major leaders behind their cause." Fishing Matters To Me; We Fish, We Vote! A Rally at the NMFS Building to was a statement that anglers across the nation are to coming together to put a stop to Agenda 21, taking away all American rights to public areas of interest, as well your angling rights too. Stay Tuned more to follow!
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
On Catch Shares - Ahab's Journal
On Catch Shares - Ahab's Journal
At the 2009 Milken Institute Global Conference, which was held in Los
Angeles, the new EDF vice president, David Festa, pitched catch shares
to wealthy, would-be investors by projecting a 400% return on their
investments.
At the 2009 Milken Institute Global Conference, which was held in Los
Angeles, the new EDF vice president, David Festa, pitched catch shares
to wealthy, would-be investors by projecting a 400% return on their
investments.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Gary Anderson; a right of center Modern Florida Whig Party, grassroots political action activist
WAKE UP AMERICA!
The public does not want catch shares, recreational charter boats do not want catch shares, the majority of commercial fishermen do not want catch shares, so why does EDF, PEW and NOAA support what KNOW BODY WANTS? Catch shares have been proven to skew fisheries toward industrial production, decrease job opportunities and wages for workers, and devastate coastal and fishing communities as they are now doing along our New England coastline. Just ask one of the two thirds of the boats sitting in the harbor why they cannot compete in feeding their families? They are not part of the program and have been cast aside like yesterdays newspaper. NOAA today, is asking for a bailout of one million dollars to fight against court challenges from fishermen and recreational organizations as the RFA or FRA but what about the displaced fisherman who is about to lose his house, car, family and be on the street. No bail out for him I guess, just get out because we are taking over your fish, your welfare and your lives and if they can do it here America, they can do it near a home where you live too! Stand up against such tyranny, help out our government in throwing out what is no longer needed. As President Obama said, We have to trim the budget and cut spending. Well, at earmaks to tax shelters, NOAA has close to 850 million plus the 54 million allotted to them. Gut the to following storms, they still can't get that right and put the trimmings back into social security. It is time to wake up people before our country is stolen from us and sold the the highest bidder! Gary Anderson
Whigs of Florida 1845-1854
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
IFQ's (Catch Shares); Do They Work?
IFQ's (Catch Shares); Do They Work?
Under the direction of Dr. Jane Lubchenco’s NOAA, catch shares have become her Achilles' heel to most of the general public, Waterman, Charter Captains and recreational anglers, not to mention the trickle down economics in closing bait shops to boat builders. Then there are those to whom reflect her attitudes, having adopted IFQ's as a mechanism to make the nation's fisheries a sustainable resource, regardless to who it sinks. To this, there is still light at the end of the tunnel, according to a press-release of recent, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, by the Lenfest Ocean Program, IFQ's can result in a more consistent - or stable - fishery but do not necessarily improve ecological conditions. It could be summed up with a statement by Dr. Tim Essington, of the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, Washington; "Many proponents of catch share programs presume that they improve the health of fisheries, but our research indicates a much different expectation: They work very well to avoid erratic swings. They generally do not lead to more fish to catch, as catch shares are one potential method for improving fisheries management, but we shouldn't expect these programs to be a panacea;” a term used figuratively as something intended to completely solve a large, multifaceted problem. NOAA, PEW and the EDF along with their working henchmen the Councils of the Pacific, Gulf and Atlantic all believe, Catch Shares are a one fix all solution, no matter the science that is or is not behind it, with a “...build it and they will come” attitude!
The Lenfest Ocean Study Program is the most current, in-depth, comprehensive catch share evaluation in North America today. In a nutshell, it stated that IFQ's or Catch Shares help stabilize swings in fish landings and populations, but do not result in larger fish populations. They then must be of benefit to the stakeholders but not to saving fish. This study, which was actually bought and paid for by the Pew Environment Group, was not to their hopes and was thus discarded like by-catch. The study evaluated 15 Catch share participants in the United States and Canada, looking at factors such as population fishing rate, status and landings. Comparisons between fisheries with IFQ's and without them were evaluated and before to after the implementation of a catch share to them.
Brian Rothschild, of the University of Massachusetts School of Marine Technology and Science, was exasperated at NOAA in its adaptation of catch shares. At a fishing forum held in New Bedford, Mass., Rothschild publicize NOAA's decision to IFQ's as, “ this policy is adopted illegally and hurried along without proper planning and analysis. It is difficult to consider the catch share system as having any function other than economic allocation as its sole purpose,” he stated, according to the Gloucester Times. Continuing with thoughts pertaining to Magnuson-Stevens Brian Rothschild said “conservation and management measure shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose. Projecting this trajectory to the end of the fishing year places the crisis in bold relief as we translate these dry statistics into lost livelihoods and collapses of small businesses.”He also, at another time suggested that Catch Shares were an "experiment conceived in blithe ignorance that is on track to wreak unnecessary cultural, social and economic havoc.”
An example in answering the question of 'Do catch Shares work', might be in the letter sent from Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, to U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, in correlating the economic problems of the Northeast Groundfish catch share program to its reality; 10 percent of the boats had acquired 65 percent of the fishing revenue, while 90 percent of the boats shared the remaining 35 percent! Catch shares, which is a system that rations shares, or percentages of, in a total allowable catch to individual fishermen, have been used around the world, for years but before these catch shares came to be, economic feasibility studies were done for each and every affected area. IFQ's are generating controversy as to whether they lead to better environmental stewardship over the present systems in place or other fishery management options. As IFQ's are being put into place now, it is too quick, to fast, to soon without further study. One should never gamble with the environment because once you change something, it may take years to recover, if at all. There are ways to which IFQ's do work but not as an across the board solution. Tell your Congressman, Representative or news media that you are a voter. Fishing Politics is important to you and your 25 million brothers and if IFQ's are put into place without all points considered first, well, you lost my vote and someone out there is bound to listen!
Don't Take Public Media from the American People
Extremists in Congress are pushing for a vote in the House on Thursday to slash all funding for NPR, PBS and other public media.
This is the closest they have ever come to pulling the plug on the news and cultural programming that a vast majority of Americans say they support.
A few brave members of Congress have spoken out against this assault on our media. With your help, we can get more members to take a stand:
- The proposed bills would zero out the $430 million federal appropriation for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting — a cost that averages a mere $1.39 per person. By comparison, we spent approximately $19.40 per ca-pita to subsidize ethanol production in 2010.
- More than 70 percent of that funding goes to local stations around the country, providing the lifeblood for broadcasters in rural or economically hard-hit areas where there are fewer sources of news and programming.
- Public media have become a vital resource for Americans at a time when commercial journalism is in decline: U.S. print newsrooms have shrunk by 25 percent in the past three years alone. Local television stations have lost more than 1,500 jobs since 2008. In some parts of the country, public media are the only source of local news and public affairs programs.
Once we get enough signatures from your district, we'll deliver the letter to your representative. After that, we'll begin a call-in campaign urging your rep to stand with the American people against political efforts to undermine popular programs like PBS NewsHour, Frontline, Point of View and On the Media.
Public pressure works. Last week, Rep. Steve Rothman (D-N.J.) said, "It is critical that Congress continues to support funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting... Defunding CPB will significantly hurt National Public Radio news stations in less affluent areas because those communities rely on the vital federal funds set aside for public broadcasting."
We need to encourage more elected officials to join Rep. Rothman. By signing this letter, you're putting Congress on notice: Don't play politics with public media.
Please take action now.
Thank you,
Josh Stearns
Associate Program Director
Free Press Action Fund
www.freepress.net
P.S. In an era of media consolidation, fewer national and foreign bureaus and mass newsroom layoffs, NPR is one of the only media outlets actually bringing listeners more reporting from around the country and around the world. Despite its fulfilling that important need, the United States spends a mere pittance on public media, compared to other industrialized countries.
P.P.S. Public broadcasting is local: Stations are locally licensed and governed, locally programmed, and locally staffed. They are part of the communities they serve, and understand the needs of the people in their audience. In many rural areas, public broadcasting is the only source of free local, national and international news, public affairs, and cultural programming.
Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Learn more at www.freepress.net
Congress is scheduled to vote on Thursday on a bill that could slash all federal funding for NPR, PBS and other public media. If political extremists get their way, we could be deprived of our country's most respected sources of news and cultural programming.
Free Press and our allies have collected nearly one million signatures in support of efforts to restore funding. Please join us. Sign our letter now and urge your member of Congress not to play politics with public media.
Thanks —Gary Anderson
Friday, February 11, 2011
Think About Catch Shares, Sector Separation & R.I.C.O.
When it was passed in 1970, the RICO Act was primarily intended to eliminate the influence of the Mafia in the nation's economy. Though today, it could as well be compared to eliminating the NOAA's control of the fisheries, through the Trust Funds set up by PEW and the EDF. This should be the first priority of the U.S. Justice System.
Research shows that advocacy, community organizing, and civic engagement by nonprofit groups makes a substantial, measurable difference in the lives of families and communities. Nevertheless, many philanthropists harbor the view that working with government is not an effective or appropriate role for them to play, and they mistakenly believe that U.S. law prohibits them from doing so.
Philanthropy is fine when it is in bed with the government for reasons to help and benefit mankind. If on the other hand, an organization is involved with criminal infringement of intellectual property rights, it walks a fine line to the tune of R.I.C.O. to which much ado about nothing can be about something and PEW along with the EDF are dancing a tune with NOAA in possible infringement of the Jones Act as well RICO. Would not wish to be in their boat anytime soon.
The Peter G. Peterson Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget announced Wednesday they are forming the new bipartisan Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform. Now PEW is deciding our budget too?
Guess what else PEW is into:
1 The number of unmarried Americans as a whole has risen dramatically, according to a recent Pew Research Center Social & Demographic Trends report.
2 The Energy and Natural Resources, Environment and Public Works and Commerce panels hold meetings hosted by the Pew Charitable Trusts.
3 Pew Hispanic Center keeps tabs to numbers on, jobs held by illegal foreign workers.
4 Carroll Doherty, associate director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
5 PEW Internet and American Life Project are trying to use social media to be more responsive to citizens, said Aaron Smith, senior research specialist.
6 PEW -Peterson Commission
7 PEW Forum
8-PEW Center on Global Climate Change
9 PEW Research Center
10 PEW Health Group
11 PEW Global Attitudes Project
12 PEW Environment Group’s U.S. Arctic Program
13 PEW Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, a nonpartisan journalism watchdog organization
14 The Peter G. Peterson Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget announced Wednesday they are forming the new bipartisan Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform. Jan. 14, 2009
15 PEW Environment Group Dec. 9, 2008 was worried how Bush gave back the rights the councils have today, so how did the councils take it away?
16 PEW Center for the People and the Press
That is a whole lot of Government!
NOW THINK R.I.C.O. and how these terms could reflect to and within the fisheries industries from Catch Shares, Sector Separation and closures of various fish on the whim of old flawed data to no data at all in driving the prices of fish up and driving the Waterman out!
Courts look more favorably upon RICO claims based upon true criminal behavior, such as bribery, kickbacks, extortion, obstruction of justice, and clearly criminal schemes that are advanced by the use of the mails and wires. - A RICO claim cannot exist in the absence of criminal activity. “South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council had even admitted to having flawed data on which they based potential limits and closures.” Could this be construed as a criminal act?
- RICO addresses long-term, not one-shot, criminal activity. The formation of councils with bought and paid for Representative of EDF in voting regulations and rules in their favor in different councils and times might fall and apply here too.
- A RICO claim may be barred by the statute of limitations if you discovered or reasonably should have discovered your injury four or more years ago. It is happening now, has in the past and I believe it passes this question too.
Although the RICO Act can be used in many contexts, the statute is most easily understood in its intended context: NOAA. In the context of the NOAA, the defendant person (i.e., the target of the RICO Act) is Dr. Jane Lubchenco. The "racketeering activity" is the criminal activities in which NOAA engages, e.g., extortion, bribery, loan sharking, Catch share sales, false documentation, etc. Because the NOAA family has engaged in these criminal actions for years, the criminal actions constitute a pattern of racketeering activity. The government can criminally prosecute the Jane Lubchenco under RICO and send her to jail even if Jane Lubchenco has never personally killed, extorted, bribed or engaged in any criminal behavior. Jane Lubchenco can be imprisoned because she operated and managed a criminal enterprise that engaged in such acts. Moreover, under section 1964(c) of the RICO Act, the victims of the NOAA family (i.e., the extorted businessman, the employers whose employees were bribed, debtors of the loan shark, the family of a murder victim) can sue Jane Lubchenco civilly and recover the economic losses they sustained by reason of the NOAA's pattern of racketeering.
As a practical matter, the closer a plaintiff's case is to the Mafia scenario described above, the better chance the plaintiff has in succeeding under the RICO Act. Given the diverse factual scenarios that may confront attorneys and parties under RICO, it is always helpful to analogize non-Mafia factual scenarios to the prototypical RICO claim against the Mafia. It is always helpful to ask: who stands in the position of the Godfather, i.e., the defendant person? What is the equivalent of the Mafia family, i.e., the enterprise? This will give you a good start in evaluating the merits of any RICO claim you confront. If the facts are well-suited to the Mafia analogy, you likely have a stronger claim.
http://www.ricoact.com/ricoact/nutshell.asp Without the element of racketeering activity, a RICO claim would be difficult to prove, but because one must also prove racketeering activity in addition to pattern, enterprise, operation and management, etc., a RICO claim is among the most difficult violations to establish. It has been said that the need to prove racketeering activity essentially requires a plaintiff or prosecutor to prove a crime within a CRIME. A plaintiff or prosecutor has no chance of proving the "greater" CRIME, i.e., the RICO violation, unless they can first establish a "lesser" crime, i.e., an act of racketeering (sometimes called a predicate act).
A RICO claim cannot exist in the absence of criminal activity. The simplest way to put this concept is: no crime - no RICO violation. This rule applies even in the context of civil RICO claims. Every RICO claim must be based upon a violation of one of the crimes listed in 18 U.S.C. s 1961(1).
Section 1961(1) of the RICO Act lists all of the crimes upon which a RICO violation must be predicated. Spool, 520 F.3d 178 at 183. A RICO claim can be predicated on not only numerous federal criminal violations, but also on violations of certain state criminal laws. With regard to the state crimes, the RICO Act states that a violation can be predicated upon "any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance . . . which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year." Thus, to prove a RICO claim, a plaintiff or prosecutor must first allege and prove an entire murder case, kidnapping case, arson case, robbery case, etc. Only if the evidence supports these "lesser" charges, can the plaintiff or prosecutor proceed with the remaining elements of the "greater" RICO claim, e.g., pattern, enterprise, operation and management. A RICO claim can also be predicated upon the violation of many, many federal criminal statutes. The federal crimes relate to a number of areas, including: counterfeiting, extortion, gambling, illegal immigration, obscenity, obstruction of justice, prostitution, murder for hire, interstate transportation of stolen property, and criminal infringement of intellectual property rights. These are but a few of the areas of federal criminal law out of which a RICO claim can arise.
Mail and Wire Fraud
The extensive use of RICO in the civil context is almost solely attributable to the inclusion of mail and wire fraud as predicate acts. Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 500 (1985). The mail and wire fraud statutes essentially make it criminal for any one to use the mails or wires to advance a scheme to defraud. Note that the fraudulent statements themselves need not be transmitted by mail or wire; it is only required that the scheme to defraud be advanced, concealed or furthered by the use of the U.S. mail or wires. See 18 U.S.C., sections 1341, 1343. Because every business or corporation in the United States uses the mails or wires to make money, any business who allegedly engages in common law fraud arguably violates the federal mail and wire fraud statutes. As a result, almost any business that allegedly engages in common law fraud can theoretically be sued under the RICO Act.
- Extortion
- Whoever in anyway or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
As used in this section:
(1) The term "robbery" means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining.
(2) The term "extortion" means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.
(3) The term "commerce" means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States, all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof, all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State and all commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.
- Extortion under Color Of Official Right JANE'S BOAT?
- CONSPIRACIES TO VIOLATE RICO - SECTION 1962(d)
- A RICO claim is broad but a RICO conspiracy claim is even broader. Anyone who agrees or conspires to pursue the same criminal objective can be held liable for a RICO violation. Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 22, 63-64 (1997). "If conspirators have a plan which calls for some conspirators to perpetrate the crime and others to provide support, the supporters are as guilty as the perpetrators." Id. at 64. A conspirator must simply intend to further an endeavor which, if completed, would satisfy all elements of a civil RICO claim. Id. at 65. Thus, there are two ways to effectively defend against a RICO conspiracy claim: 1) the defendant must prove he never intended to further the criminal endeavor; or 2) the defendant must prove that the endeavor did not satisfy the elements of a civil RICO claim. Because the first defense is fact based, it is seldom an appropriate defense to raise in a dispositve motion. The best way to undermine a claim for conspiracy on a dispositive motion is to undermine the legal sufficiency of the allegations supporting the substantive offense. See Howard v. American Online Inc., 208 F.3d 741, 751 (9th Cir. 2000) (a claim under section 1962(d) may not stand unless the plaintiffs can sustain a viable claim under another subsection of section 1962).
Now that I have signed my death warrant, I hold you the public as witness as an American citizen, it is my right, through free speech to educate the general public of a possible wrong which needs to be set right. The Federal Justice System, unless it too was bought by PEW, needs to view the recent adaptations of NOAA of late. Why would a high payed executive of the EDF, take a lower scale job by the U.S. government, NOAA unless there are priorities of a higher matter. Jane Lubchenco has proprietary data from years past, to which she uses to cripple the U.S. Fishing industry, WHY?
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Monday, February 7, 2011
Florida Keys fishermen won’t endorse controversial federal catch share program - Outdoors - MiamiHerald.com
Florida Keys fishermen won’t endorse controversial federal catch share program - Outdoors - MiamiHerald.com
Saying NO is the first step! Now let us oust Jane and get NOAA back into the clouds, where they belong.
Saying NO is the first step! Now let us oust Jane and get NOAA back into the clouds, where they belong.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Feudal Thinking in Catch Shares
Quoting Ronald Reagan inaugural address
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem , government is the problem."
I will attacked big government, big labor and big business, when it pertains to squelching the American worker, the American angler, the last of our frontiersman in preserving our natural resources to passing on a tradition, passed for centuries; fishing! Government spending today is far more out of control, so why do we spend all those extra dollars to NOAA in creating boards to councils to “Save our Fish” when private entities are already on the bandwagon of the charade or Ponzi scheme in saving the fish. My grandfather always said, “use someones else money in business, save your own and turn a dime on their money.” EDF and PEW have the money to “Save our Fish” but they must have known my grandfather too. We are spending money, in way too many places that the federal government has no business in. NOAA cannot even get the weather right, so why if you have too, pour money into a sinking ship of “Catch Shares” as our Government is now in bed with private foundations and businesses to turn a profit on the hard working men and women of the marine industry. Business makes a profit, not my Government in making to creating job loss to trickle down economics within the private sector. Feudal thinking, takes our country back before our country was even born. Surfs working plots of land, owned by Lords in an attempt to feed their families and work the land like it was theirs but under certain terms, to which, if the terms were not of merit to the Lords, the surf was kicked off his land only to have to find work under another surf as a laborer. Now we have Sectors, to which a special few are in charge, with Catch Shares and allotments, again, to a few selected feudal fisherman and in this process, if you read the rules, a stakeholder can lose his catch share if he does not produce whatever it is that is demanded. An angler could be sick, in hospital or whatever and because they did not fulfill the catch share agreement, it may be confiscated and assigned to another. Sound familiar and this is America in the 21st Century, to which you can thank President Obama to opening Pandora’s Box in ratifying the
This tier system or socialist order, is still present in some parts of the world and parts of Europe today. Born a shoemaker or a laborer, die a shoemaker or laborer with no expectations of reaching a higher standard of living. That is why, so many flocked to Ellis Island, in an escape to fulfill a dream to reach a higher goal. To be an American. To be Free and not have the burdens of a government telling you what you can and cannot be.
PEW, EDF and TIDE and the Ocean Conservancy and that is only naming a few of the alphabets in this fish soup. The time for talk has changed to a time for action! We must ALL band together and put a stop to this now. We, as anglers, stand for a lot of votes and votes are whats is needed in changing this country the way it is suppose to be done. We are not Egypt, we, as the Republic to which we stand, must send a message to all those that are in power now and of those who may wish to be this year and in 2012! Just in saltwater recreational anglers alone, we stand at 25 million and growing. Add to this our Charter Captains and Commercial Captains, we are an army to which can sway our leaders in a different direction of the now prevailing current but we must stand fast as there are those among us that are Judas to the cause, so by sticking to the rules given to us by our forefathers, we too, will succeed in turning this bedeviled cause to an act of the people, by the people for the people; take your stands now for a judgment is on the horizon.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Commercial & Recreational King Mackerel Fishing Closed
And of course the Back-Boneless States will follow in their waters and that means NO KING FISHING!
Closure of the Western Gulf of Mexico Zone:
Commercial King Mackerel Fishing
The western Gulf of Mexico zone is closed to
commercial king mackerel fishing, effective 12:00 noon
(local time) February 11, 2011, through June 30, 2011.
NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service has
determined the 2010/2011 western zone commercial
quota of 1.01 million pounds of king mackerel has been
reached. With this action, commercial king mackerel
fishing is prohibited in federal waters of the Gulf of
Mexico from the U.S./Mexico border to the
Alabama/Florida boundary.
Closure of the western Gulf of Mexico zone to
commercial king mackerel fishing complies with
regulations implemented under the Fishery Management
Plan for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the
Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic and is necessary to
protect the Gulf group king mackerel resource. In
cooperative actions, Gulf states (Texas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama) are expected to close
commercial harvest of king mackerel concurrently in
adjoining state waters.
During the closure period, no person aboard a vessel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)