By DON CUDDY
doncuddy@s-t.com
May 12, 2012 12:00 AM 

Popular Today

• Art prodigy is a Star at the age of 13
• SouthCoast scrap metal companies sued for water pollution
• Lucien A. St. Amand
• Anthony L. Enos, Jr.
• Mediator summoned as Pilgrim plant strike looms
• Soares starts new role as lead promoter of cranberries
• School Committee tables $1.7 million budget gap

An emergency action by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Friday closing a large area off the coast of Delaware, Maryland and Virginia to scallop fishing was welcomed by the fishing industry.

"This is a benefit to me," said local scallop boat owner Dan Eilertsen, who has one trip to the Delmarva remaining on his boat Justice. "It's a long steam down there and it was getting a little scratchy," he said. Eilertsen held off on making that last trip, hoping that such a move would be approved.

"This is the first news I've heard of it," he said when informed by The Standard-Times of the decision Friday. "But it's good news for me."

Scallop boats such as Justice with unused trips will now be compensated with trips to Closed Area 1, a New England scallop ground much closer to New Bedford that opens to fishermen on June 15. The New England Fishery Management Council had asked the National Marine Fisheries Service to take this action and to move quickly to prevent economic losses to the boats that still had Delmarva trips.

According to a new release from NOAA late Friday, the closure is intended to prevent high levels of fishing in the area that could reduce the catch and affect the overall health of the scallop biomass in Delmarva. Fisheries managers, and the industry, feared that weakened stocks could compromise the rotational management program that has successfully rebuilt the scallop fishery.

The Delmarva closure remains in effect for the rest of the 2012 fishing year, which runs through March 1, 2013.

The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources acted this week to close waters along the Gulf Coast to shrimping due to [EDIT: amidst] widespread reports from scientists and fishermen of deformed seafood and drastic fall-offs in populations two years after the BP oil spill. ['Official' reason is now reported to be smaller than average shrimp.]

All waters in the Mississippi Sound and Mobile Bay, and some areas of Bon Secour, Wolf Bay and Little Lagoon were closed to shrimpers. Reports of grossly deformed seafood all along the Gulf from Louisiana to the Florida panhandle have been logged with increasing urgency, but Alabama is the first state to actually close waters to the seafood industry.

The bottlenose dolphins of Barataria Bay, Louisiana, are showing signs of severe ill health, according to a report from NOAA.

Based on comprehensive physicals of 32 live dolphins from Barataria Bay in the summer of 2011, preliminary results show that many of the dolphins in the study are underweight, anemic, have low blood sugar and/or some symptoms of liver and lung disease. Nearly half also have abnormally low levels of the hormones that help with stress response, metabolism and immune function. Researchers fear that some of the study dolphins are in such poor health that they will not survive. One of these dolphins, which was last observed and studied in late 2011, was found dead in January 2012.

March 2012 will go down as the warmest March in the United States since record-keeping began in 1895, NOAA said Monday.

In addition, the three-month period of January, February and March was the warmest first quarter ever recorded in the Lower 48 states. The average was 42 degrees Fahrenheit, a whopping 6 degrees above the long-term average.

A staggering 15,292 warm temperature records were broken, (7,755 record highs and 7,517 record high overnight lows), according to Chris Vaccaro, spokesperson for NOAA. “That’s tremendously excessive. The scope and the scale of warmth was really unprecedented

 

The Republican Party isn’t exactly known for its environmental activism.

Reagan refused to take action on one of the biggest environmental issues of his era-acid rain-and systematically weakened the clout of the EPA. George H.W. Bush ended his term with a freeze on environmental regulations, and his son refused US support for the Kyoto Protocol.

Yet rarely have Republicans been so overtly hostile to existing environmental protections as the current legislators in the 112^th Congress.

Since the most recent election, Republicans in the House of Representatives have led a series of unprovoked assaults on the EPA. The attack has been two-pronged, with one focus on the EPA’s budget and the other on its powers of regulation.

The Republican’s budget proposal would slash the EPA’s budget by an unprecedented $30 billion—one third of the EPA’s budget, and the biggest cut to any other federal agency.

It would also do away with the critical posts of the energy and climate advisor to the President and the State Department envoy to UN climate negotiations.

As if slashing funding weren’t enough, Republicans are also working to dismantle the EPA’s regulatory powers.

I don’t think this is a democratic or republican issue at all. It is rather the result of an attack from the environmental industry and Wall Street to change the ownership of an immense, renewable resource from public to private with the consequent introduction of mobile alien capital and a radical change in the relationships among fishermen workers, fishermen boat owners and communities in general, culminating in the disappearing of fishing communities. We care about preserving communities, investors do not.

Fishing in New England is a centuries old activity. It’s been based on an original and pragmatic economic system (Sharing) that exploits a natural resource held in common. Boats and equipment are owned by local capital and the revenues are Shared among boat owners and workers, all fishermen. There are no wages: good catches mean good take home pay, low or no catches mean low or no pay. Surplus stays in the community, allowing it to thrive and prosper.

The inefficiencies and nimbleness of the individual, small enterprise, independent American fisherman has allowed him flexibility to change fisheries and survive, as required by oscillations in individual species abundance. As opposed to the gargantuan need and momentum of the big foreign corporate and state operations that operate with taxpayer funded subsidies and occasional bailouts and consistently have exploited fish stocks worldwide to complete collapse .

We can trace the deterioration of the status of the stocks in New England to the surge of investors in the 1980’s, injecting outside capital in the fishery. Of course, for the tax benefits. The poor condition of the stocks was never generated by owner operators, like in a huge fleet of boats with the owner on board. To manage fish stocks sustainably, we believe in keeping the “production units” (boats) in the hands of single boat owner operators, with Total Allowable Catches, Individual non transferable Quotas and Accountabilitiy Measures. Of course, investors and profiteers love it, IF the fish is “tradable”.

Investors, speculators and some smart people consider the traditional Share system, with a large number of small time “capitalists” (individuals and families owning fishing boats) inefficient, unsophisticated and archaic, a prime prey for takeover.

Catch shares privatized a public resource and deeded most of it to a few investors. Real fishermen boat owners are now left with shares so small that it is not economically feasible to go fishing. The choice is to lease or sell one's shares to the few big players. In turn, these charge the remaining employed fishermen crew members for the cost of leasing and buying shares.                          

Often, change to private ownership of the resource is claimed to protect the resource from the “Tragedy of the Commons”. This refers to the problem created when individuals using a resource do not themselves contribute to its maintenance. The term was coined by Garret Harding, an American scientist, on a treaty dealing with human overpopulation. It has nothing to do with property or privatization. The "commons" is the gene pool, the “tragedy” is the ability of anyone to add to the population, and the solution is state-controlled human reproduction.

The privatization of the resources is the true Tragedy of the Commons. It is the easy way out for regulators and lawmakers that are simply inept at maintaining a sustainable and orderly fishery and succumb to the predatory assault (from within and without) of the greedy. It is a striking example of the government abdication of public resource management in favor of privatization, guided by the utopic belief that the “markets” can be trusted to produce optimum yield!

Fisheries throughout the world have suffered from overfishing. Basically, if left unregulated, fishing eventually depletes the resource, irrespective of its property system being public, private or even stolen.

After two decades of learning curve management, New England fish stocks are fine. We did not need to immerge into a system that requires substantial money to rent or buy fish shares from investors and to administer?

Everywhere they have been implemented (Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada) they have proved more costly to the participants including the government (taxpayers, public); advocates arguments used to be along the lines "we give them the fish, they become good stewards of the resource"; reality is "we give them the fish; they laugh all the way to the bank". As to overfishing, under ITQ, IFQ, Catch Shares, etc, (basically private ownership of a renewable resource) the tail wags the dog.

In New England, the stocks are rebuilt and there is no overfishing. We HAD a market based approach: any American could be permitted to harvest fish as a public resource; some failed, others were successful. When the Government gave investors tax incentives and guaranteed loans with low interest rates to build fishing boats, fishing become a tax heaven zoo, to offset gains in other investments. The fish stocks suffered. The tax incentives and financing guaranties are still in force (at cost to the treasury) and the resource was gifted to “fishermen”.

Each “fisherman” now “owns” a piece of the fish in the ocean. Those pieces are called Catch Shares. “Fishermen” under “Catch Shares” are not real fishermen in the sense that the term does not refer to “someone who captures fish and other animals from a body of water, or gathers shellfish”. It refers to corporations and individuals that own Catch Shares.

A corporation or individual that, somehow, ended up with a yearly share of 20 million pounds of fish, sends his fleet to work alongside a coastal real fisherman that has a share of 50 thousand pounds or even less, because he gave the stocks a break to help rebuilding. Fishermen have been given the privilege of selling or leasing or trading “their” shares. The corporation or individual with the 20 million pounds share can afford to lease an extra 10 million pounds of fish for $10,000,000 ($1/lb). The initial 20 million pounds were free (a take of a public resource) therefore the average cost for the individual or corporation, comes out to a bit over 33 cents per pound. The fisherman with low quota will always average too high or not be viable with “his” share.

What we have after one year of Catch Shares:

Some investors already "own" 20 to 30% of single species.

Offshore boats that used to employ 6 people for a daily catch of 6 to 10 thousand pounds on 6 to 10 day trips are now going out with 4 men for the same or higher catches. Smaller crew, offshore, handling higher catches, implies more working hours with consequent more fatigue. It makes the activity more dangerous instead of safer. The possible higher catches are due to the rebuilding of stocks that occurred before Catch Shares and to the now legal use of smaller mesh in particular circumstances.

In what concerns the remaining fishermen, they are going the way of the Passenger Pigeon. With less active boats, employing fewer fishermen each, there are simply less active fishermen. And, far from what was advertised, the ones remaining are making far less money. The labor supply is now higher than the available jobs. Crews are being charged for quota at a rate that reduces the crew share to about 20% of the fish sales, as opposed to the before Catch Shares customary 40%. These charges and the actual cost of quota leasing are private. The guardians of the integrity of the Catch Share policy instruct quota owners and Sector managers to keep it secret, "because it's none of the Government business". Single boat owner operators do not "own" enough Share to operate their boats and keep their crews. Their remaining option is to lease out their Share to the fleet owners, and work for them.  Fleet owners are the "smart" individuals that bought permits from owner operators, while crafting the Catch Share policy. Really smart.

This fisheries policy is simply puzzling. It is reducing employment, eliminating century’s old jobs, and destroying one of the human activity's niches where free enterprise and professional excellence allowed hard working individuals to grow, prosper and share wealth. It is shocking that our President and elected Representatives have not reacted swiftly to the privatization of an immense renewable public resource. Some cherished concepts, ideals and tangibles like freedom, liberty and public property cannot defend themselves. The public at large and future generations depend on current institutions to guaranty their continuity.

Wine for my friends!

ABOLISH CATCH SHARES NOW!           

DISMANTLE CORPORATE FLEETS!

On October 14th, 2011, Republicans on the U.S. House Science Committee sent budget cut recommendations to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. 

These recommendations are curiously focused on eliminating most (or all) funding for climate change research and green technologies development at the EPA, the Department Of Energy, NASA, NOAA, the National Science Foundation, and other scientific agencies. 

The full letter can be seen here.  It was signed by:

• Rep. Ralph M. Hall (R-Texas) Chair
• Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin), Vice-Chair
• Rep. Paul Broun (R-Georgia), Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
• Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-Mississippi), Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
• Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Alabama), Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
• Rep. Andy Harris (R-Maryland), Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
• Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas)
• Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Illinois)
• Rep. Todd Akin (R-Missouri)
• Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), and
• Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-Illinois)

ClimateScienceWatch has identified some of these cuts. 

They are astounding.

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy  (EERA): Currently funded at a level of $1.8 billion, EERA funds solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and other technologies. Proposed cut from current $1.8 billion to $1.2 billion.

In other words, mostly or completely eliminated.

Department Of Energy (DOE) Fossil Energy: “The vast majority of this [research] funding is directed toward advancing carbon capture and sequestration efforts.  ...we recommend restoring DOE’s Fossil Energy program to its prior focus on fundamental R&D to advance oil and gas exploration and production technologies  and enable near-term environmental improvements, such as increasing power plant efficiency and research on non-greenhouse gas related pollution abatement technology.”

Completely eliminated, and funds diverted to fossil fuels.

NASA:  Cancellation of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO)-2 environmental satellite. Reduce by 20% ($74 million) the “Other Missions and Data Analysis” account within the Earth System Missions account, including many instruments and missions related to climate change.

Satellite eliminated, other related budget items slashed.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): “We do not support any funding for NOAA’s proposed Climate Service. Despite the claim that this is a budget neutral proposal that would include assets consolidated from other line offices, we have serious concerns regarding the objectivity  and utility of a new line office that will place greater strain on existing resources. Furthermore, we are concerned about the tendency that this line office would be used for advocacy as opposed to providing real services.  The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology launched an investigation into NOAA’s Climate Services on September 21, 2011, and will not support the creation of a climate service until that investigation is complete.”

Worse than eliminated - prohibited.

National Science Foundation (NSF):  “we recommend elimination of the $10 million Climate Change Education program". 

Eliminated.

Meanwhile, the EPA will be restrained from using any  funds to research climate impacts.

Worse than eliminated - prohibited.

This ongoing Republican War On Science (and climate/green science in particular) comes at a pivotal moment in our history.  There is no longer any question that the planet is warming.  Even sceptics agree on that.

Must we not, then, focus our research capabilities on determining the source and impact such warming will have?  Are we not morally obligated to do so?  Do we not have a responsibility to future generations?

Nearly two years ago, The U.S. Military Advisory Committee released this statement in regards to their study "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change":

"We will pay for this one way or another.  We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind.

Or, we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll."

The Pentagon listened, and began drawing up plans to address the National Security Threat of climate change.  But House Republicans are ignoring not just the science - they are ignoring our military as well.  They are ignoring what our own Pentagon calls "a threat to National Security".  There can be no greater disservice to the American people.

The October 14th House Republican letter's opening paragraph includes this remarkable line:

We believe that the attached recommendations prioritize research and development programs that protect our national security and leadership, allow private investors and the marketplaceto thrive without undue Federal influence, and have the most potential for sustained long-term growth.

I could not possible disagree more.

Fishy Farms: The Government’s Push for Factory Farming in Our Oceans

Over the past decade, people have become increasingly conscious about the environmental, cultural and economic repercussions of their food choices, and a movement has emerged to support more diverse, sustainable options. This movement has extended to choices about seafood, as people take note of issues such as overfishing and the environmental ramifications of different types of fish farming.

Despite this, the U.S. government continues to subsidize the development of open ocean aquaculture, a type of factory farming that threatens the health of our oceans, coastal communities and consumers. Factory fish farming involves the production of as many as tens of thousands of fish in cages off the coastline.

Read the full report.

This report revisits the four U.S. taxpayer-supported factory fish farming experiments — in Hawaii, New Hampshire and Puerto Rico — that are described in Food & Water Watch’s previous reports, Seas of Doubt and the first edition of Fishy Farms. Because all of these research and demonstration projects have previously received government funding to advance the industry, we have traced the operations’ histories for lessons that can be drawn about the feasibility of ocean fish farming.

The Santa Cruz tow surfers who were fined $500 in March for using a jet ski out of bounds at Moss Landing had their fine increased to $2,500 Wednesday.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration sent a uniformed officer to surfer Jeff Martin's Santa Cruz house to give him notice of the increased fine and tell him he had 30 days to fight it.

Martin and his surfing partner, Scott Jarrett, have gone public in local media to complain that the NOAA limits on jet skis were unscientific. They claim the area where the vehicles are permitted at Moss Landing leads right to where marine mammals go to escape big waves, not to the waves themselves.

NOAA put out a press release Wednesday about the raised fine, saying that it went to $2,500 because NOAA's attorney, Paul Ortiz, believed that Martin had "intentionally violated the regulation."

The release says:

"Both men were initially issued reduced fines of $500 each through NOAA's Summary Settlement program. Summary settlements are used by NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement to address less egregious violations and allow recipients to pay a lower penalty than is recommended by NOAA's penalty policy in lieu of contesting an alleged violation. 

"In both cases, the men chose to contest the charges, and the cases were referred to NOAA's Office of General Counsel for review and the assessment of penalties pursuant to the NOAA Penalty Policy."

The release also notes a $1,000 fine to jet ski rider Leo Morelli at Seascape Beach in October 2010.

"This penalty should send a strong message that we put a high priority on protecting the resources of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary," said Don Masters, special agent in charge of the southwest division of NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement, in the release.

  This should be an ideal time for both New England's fishermen and conservationists. Decades of sacrifice have caused the loss of (according to some reports) over 80 percent of fishing and fishing related jobs. This period of continuous decline has ended with the rebuilding of most of the fish stocks and the stabilization of the fisheries to sustainable catch levels. The ocean has healthy populations of marine mammals where just a couple of decades ago there were few. The plan to rebuild all fish stocks to optimum levels at the same time was considered by many to be biologically impossible but nature sure showed them...didn't it?  

 Many anecdotal reports indicate that all is not well in the ocean off of New England. Reports of undersized cod, scrawny haddock, tuna with low fat content and other quality issues indicate a lack of nutrition in the fish stocks that many have attributed to a lack of forage fish like sea herring. A lack of herring and especially large herring attributed for the most part to fishing activity by the herring boats has been put forth as an underlying cause. The discovery that the herring are going hungry and have seen the same type of size and quality declines related to being under-nourished as the other fish puts these misguided claims into perspective. Over-fishing of sea herring would leave plenty of food available for the remaining herring but such is not the case.

  An ecosystem as vast as the ocean is difficult to understand due to the large amount of predator prey relationships and the constantly changing conditions of those relationships and the environment itself. Understanding what is going on with some of the individual species is in many ways the best method to gain insight into what is going on with the system as a whole. The Department of Marine Resources in Maine has been studying the sea herring population for the last fifty years and have recently presented a new study that describes the decline of herring size, weight and quality over the last four decades. I was lucky to have attended this excellent presentation and was very surprised by their findings as to both the depth of the decline and the strong evidence supporting the cause of it.

 The presentation was called, "Where are all of the big herring? Atlantic Herring (Clupea harengus) size at age decreases over time in the Northwest Atlantic." It was the inspiration of James Becker a marine resource specialist two with the Department of Marine Resources in Boothbay Maine. It was also the work of Adam St. Gelais a marine resource specialist one. For the study they used data from the DMR Atlantic Herring Historical Database with it's fifty years of data from over 1.2 million individual fish. The age, lengths, whole weights, gonad weights, spawn condition, dates, gear type, catch locations and even stomach contents are all contained in the database. A wealth of historical information that can be used to spot trends and changes in the state of the Atlantic herring.

 Some highlights from the presentation were herring whole weights declining 40 to 60 percent and herring lengths declining 1 to 2 inches across all age classes. The overall condition factor (A ratio of length to weight that indicates how nourished a fish is) of all age classes of herring is in a declining trend as well. The reduction in size at age is not particular to herring and has been documented in other species in the gulf of Maine. The possibility that the fishery is selecting for smaller fish or that these trends are the result of fishing activity is ruled out by the fact that the downward trend is present in all of the age classes of fish and the mean age of fish landed remains constant over time.

 The hypothesis that these declines are due to environmental factors is supported by a strong correlation between fish weight and length declines and sea surface temperature variations that are part of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, an oscillating fluctuation in sea surface temperatures with a period of about 60 years. Similar environmental fluctuations across the globe have been shown to impact fish populations and set a strong precedent for the correlations shown in this study. The mechanisms for this could be food limitations or alteration of trophic composition that have an impact on both the reproductive ability and the overall condition of the fish. The availability of plankton or the lack there of was noted but not a part of the study.

 I found the explanations offered in the presentation to be extremely plausable. In the last ten years there has been a remarkable decline in the amount of feed in the ocean off of New England. On herring vessels we have excellent sounding equipment and used to drive over shoals of plankton that seemed like they would never end. Today that would be a rare thing indeed to see that much feed in the water. As a kid I remember old fishermen telling me the rise and decline of fish populations is cyclical and not under the control of managers and legislators. These claims were from observations made during life times spent at sea catching fish and not from any amount of academic study, it is interesting to learn of science that seems to indicate a cyclical pattern like they described. One thing is certain if the so called "Forage fish," do not have enough to eat, there is going to be problems in the rest of the food chain.

 I would like to thank the scientists at Maine DMR for their diligence and thorough efforts. It is through excellent work in the marine sciences like theirs that the future of our marine resources and ocean ecology are preserved.

 All images and video are copyrighted works all rights reserved. The graphics and science were brought to you by the scientists at Maine Department of Marine Resources and are published here with their permission.

If you didn’t know better, you might think that forage fish like sardines and squid are on the brink of destruction in California.

That’s what some activists imply.  However, nothing could be further from the truth.

California’s coastal pelagic ‘forage’ fisheries are the most protected in the world, with one of the lowest harvest rates.
 
In addition to strict fishing quotas, the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) has implemented no-take reserves, including many near bird rookeries and haul out sites to protect forage for marine life.
 
But activists are pushing even more restrictions in the form of Assembly Bill 1299.

California already provides a science-based process to manage forage species.  The federal Pacific Fishery Management Council is also developing a California Current Ecosystem Management Plan, covering the entire West Coast, not just California state waters.  Further, the federal Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan that governs these fish adopted an ecosystem-based management policy more than a decade ago.
 
To initiate new legislation like AB 1299 as if no regulation exists is fiscally irresponsible and disrespectful of California’s management history.
 
The National Marine Fisheries Service voiced concern about the bill’s redundancy and overlap with federal management, pointing out that it could actually impede ecosystem-based management

Detailed images taken by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellites over the last several days enabled weather forecasters to provide a fairly precise picture of just when and where Hurricane Irene was headed and how strong she would be. The satellites also relayed this critical information early enough so that people along the storm's path had days to stock up on food and water and, if necessary, move to higher ground.

               See animated map --------->

"A difference of five or 10 miles per hour in a hurricane can make a difference in as much as a foot of flooding," said Dan Satterfield, a weatherman in Huntsville, Ala. "And every mile of accuracy you can get makes the forecast that much more accurate, allowing you to tell people where to evacuate."

But with the recent decision by Congress to allocate less than half of the billion dollars of funding needed to maintain and upgrade the fleet, officials warn of an upcoming gap in the service relied upon by weather forecasters, as well as the armed forces, search-and-rescue teams, energy companies and climate modelers.

In 2016, NOAA anticipates that the polar-orbiting satellites most critical in forecasting extreme weather events will die out. And without enough money to keep research and construction on track over the next couple of years, Kathryn Sullivan, deputy administrator for NOAA, noted that they will not be ready in time to launch replacements.

Proponents of catch shares have cleverly obfuscated their greed, jealousy, and crude survival instincts with high-minded baloney like the yarn that private ownership fosters good resource stewardship.
Its all smoke and mirrors!

Predictions of a record-size dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico did not come to fruition today (Aug. 1) when the results of the annual survey were released.

Instead, scientists charted a large, but not unprecedented, expanse — 6,765 square miles (17,521 square kilometers) — within the gulf where water was low on oxygen. The dead zone, which peaks in summer, creates suffocating conditions for animals living within it and threatens the fishing industry in the region.

This expanse is above average, but not as large as predicted, according to Nancy Rabalais, executive director, Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium.

Earlier this year, scientists predicted the dead zone would meet or exceed its record from 2002 — more than 8,400 square miles (21,756 square km) — because of spring flooding along the Mississippi River. This flooding carried more nitrogen pollution, much of it from fertilizer used in agriculture, into the gulf.

...Storms can whip up waters, and so disrupt this two-layer system. Tropical Storm Don, which made landfall in Texas on Friday (July 29), appears to have done just that, reducing the size of this year's dead zone, according to Rabalais, who spoke to reporters during a conference call today.

The USS Arthur W. Radford, a 563-foot naval destroyer, once rode the waves. Now it will break the tides.Private contractors are preparing to sink it into the Atlantic Ocean, the latest addition to a Navy recycling program that turns outworn battleships into marine life habitats.

They’re throwing debris down there and saying it’s an economic opportunity, but they’re not looking into the environmental impacts,” said Colby Self, who is the green ship-recycling coordinator for the Basel Action Network and co-authored a recent report on the Navy’s sinking program.

The EPA, which issued guidelines for ship sinking in 2006 along with the Transportation Department’s Maritime Administration, requires that any ship destined to become an artificial reef not contain PCB levels above 50 parts per billion. But some fish can accumulate PCBs in their bodies over time as they consume smaller fish, causing their contaminant levels to rise above that threshold

A Washington, D.C., gathering reveals nuanced levels of belief.

The degree of skepticism expressed at the conference ranges from downright denial to a belief that humans are modestly contributing to climate change. The question is by how much.

"I think there's anthropogenic global warming to some extent," Greenleaf said. "But what we don't know is if it's 90 percent or 10 percent."

He has a feeling that it's closer to the lower number.

The view that climate change is occurring, to some degree, also surfaced frequently among speakers yesterday.

Applause for 'moderate' climate regulation

One acknowledged that rainfall was getting a bit heavier and that heat waves are on the rise. But the speaker, Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at George Mason University and the author of a new book promoting skepticism, said the changes are too mild to justify a major global response.

Humans are affecting the climate somewhat, he said, "But it's not the end of the world."

Meanwhile, Robert Mendelsohn, an economist at Yale University, told the conference of free market conservatives that some mild government interaction is needed to prevent financial damages from future climate effects. He argued that the effects of greenhouse gases are too obvious to ignore, though the alarmism of many environmentalists is overblown.

"You really want to be thinking about moderate rates of regulation -- cheap things," Mendelsohn said, pointing to the European cap and trade system as an example. "We do know enough about the science that we do want to begin to regulate. The world needs to get started."

He was not booed off the stage. The crowd even applauded his presentation.

Extreme weather events have become both more common and more intense. And increasingly, scientists have been able to pin at least part of the blame on humankind's alteration of the climate. What's more, the growing success of this nascent science of climate attribution (finding the telltale fingerprints of climate change in extreme events) means that researchers have more confidence in their climate models—which predict that the future will be even more extreme.

Are we prepared for this future? Not yet. Indeed, the trend is in the other direction, especially in Washington, D.C., where a number of members of Congress even argue that climate change itself is a hoax.

Scientists hope that rigorously identifying climate change's contribution to individual extreme events can indeed wake people up to the threat. As the research advances, it should be possible to say that two extra inches (five centimeters) of rain poured down in a Midwestern storm because of greenhouse gases, or that a California heat wave was 10 times more likely to occur thanks to humans' impacts on climate. So researchers have set up rapid response teams to assess climate change's contribution to extreme events while the events are still fresh in people's minds. In addition, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is preparing a special report on extreme events and disasters, due out by the end of 2011. "It is important for us emphasize that climate change and its impacts are not off in the future, but are here and now," explained Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, during a briefing at United Nations climate talks in Cancún last December.

The message is beginning to sink in. The Russian government, for instance, used to doubt the existence of climate change, or argue that it might be beneficial for Russia. But now, government officials have realized that global warming will not bring a gradual and benign increase in temperatures. Instead, they're likely to see more crippling heat waves. As Russian President Dmitry Medvedev told the Security Council of the Russian Federation last summer: "Everyone is talking about climate change now. Unfortunately, what is happening now in our central regions is evidence of this global climate change, because we have never in our history faced such weather conditions."

Industrial ocean fish farming is a filthy way to produce fish, and contrary to NOAA’s claims, it is not a sustainable means to supplement the U.S. seafood supply, protect ocean resources, or promote a healthy economy in the United States.

Establishing a $5 billion fish farming industry in the United States, which NOAA has previously indicated is its aim, could generate an amount of fish waste equal to the untreated sewage of about 17.1 million people — over twice the population of New York City. And waste isn’t the only thing leaking from fish farms: the open water salmon farms in the North Atlantic result in 2 million fish escapes each year, weakening wild fish stocks and spreading disease.

The planet has already warmed roughly 1 degree Celsius since preindustrial times, thanks to CO2 and other greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere.

And for every 1-degree C (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) rise in temperature, the amount of moisture that the atmosphere can contain rises by 7 percent, explains Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the U.K. Met Office's Hadley Center for Climate Change.

"That's quite dramatic," he says. In some places, the increase has been much larger. Data gathered by Gene Takle, professor of meteorology at Iowa State University in Ames, show a 13 percent rise in summer moisture over the past 50 years in the state capital, Des Moines.

The physics of too much rain:

The increased moisture in the atmosphere inevitably means more rain. That's obvious.

But not just any kind of rain, the climate models predict. Because of the large-scale energy balance of the planet, "the upshot is that overall rainfall increases only 2 to 3 percent per degree of warming, whereas extreme rainfall increases 6 to 7 percent," Stott says.

The reason again comes from physics. Rain happens when the atmosphere cools enough for water vapor to condense into liquid. "However, because of the increasing amount of greenhouse gases in the troposphere, the radiative cooling is less efficient, as less radiation can escape to space," Stott explains.

"Therefore the global precipitation increases less, at about 2 to 3 percent per degree of warming." But because of the extra moisture, when precipitation does occur (in both rain and snow), it's more likely to be in bigger events.

Scientists used to say, cautiously, that extreme weather events were "consistent" with the predictions of climate change.

No more.

"Now we can make the statement that particular events would not have happened the same way without global warming,"  says Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo.

That's a profound change—the difference between predicting something and actually seeing it happen. The reason is simple: The signal of climate change is emerging from the "noise"—the huge amount of natural variability in weather.

Food and Water Watch, the consumer group, also issued a strong warning against any acceleration in U.S. marine aquaculture.

"Industrial ocean farming is a filthy way to produce fish, and contrary to NOAA's claims, it is not a sustainable means to supplement the U.S. seafood supply, protect ocean resources or promote a healthy economy," the organization's statement said.

Congressman Don Young, D-Alaska, has filed a bill to bar new ocean aquaculture programs without explicit congressional approval And among the co-signers are Congressmen Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat and North Carolina Republican Walter Jones, who have led the defense of the commercial fishing industry on the Atlantic coast.

The industry itself seems resigned to finding growth opportunities elsewhere — in less politically charged and developed waters.

On the domestic front, NOAA has already taken numerous steps to ensure the fish is managed as responsibly as possible. Bluefin would all stay in our exclusive economic zone, within 200 miles of our shores, if they were clever enough to recognize international boundaries and remain where they’re treated best. The U.S. fishery has the strongest conservation requirements in the world, which prevented us from even harvesting our internationally negotiated quota for most of the last decade until we did meet our full allotment in 2009 and 2010.

U.S. fishermen’s inability to catch our quota had nothing to do with their skill or the fish’s scarcity and everything to do with NOAA’s conservation efforts. The agency banned fishermen using longlines—miles-long strings of fishing line set with hundreds of individual hooks—from targeting bluefin in its breeding grounds in the Gulf of Mexico. It also increased minimum size limits to prevent the catch of juvenile fish, reduced trip limits (the amount of legal-sized fish a boat can catch in a day), and most recently, required longliners targeting swordfish and other tunas in the Gulf to use so-called weak hooks designed to straighten and release a fish under the amount of tension a bluefin can create.

Well, I'll be damned. NOAA is doing some science! Congtratulations! Now keep doing it.

The ruling drew extensive support.

"It was the right decision based on sound science," Molly Lutcavage, director of University of Massachusetts' Large Pelagics Research Chester, told the Times. The center is now based in Gloucester.

Lutcavage said the research and assessments done by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna, or ICCAT, indicated that an endangered species listing wasn't warranted.

"This is a serious problem," said Barbara Schroeder, national sea turtle coordinator at NOAA's Office of Protected Resources, adding that federal scientists have established a connection between the recent turtle deaths and the shrimp fishery. "And it's a problem that there's a solution to."

Elizabeth Griffin Wilson, Oceana's senior manager for marine wildlife, questioned why federal authorities have not done more to curb the problem.

"New information is showing that the shrimp fishery is likely to be the cause of death for large numbers of sea turtles," said Wilson, whose group obtained the documents under the Freedom of Information Act. "Now that we have a feel for the scope of the problem, we're absolutely shocked that the U.S. government hasn't taken steps to solve it."

NEW ORLEANS — Scientists say it is taking far too long to distribute millions of dollars in BP funds for badly needed gulf oil spill research, and it could be too late to assess the crude's impact on pelicans, shrimp, and other species by the time studies begin.

 .The spring nesting and spawning season is a crucial time to sample the reproduction rates, behavior, and abundance of species, all of which could be altered by last year's massive spill. Yet no money has been made available for this year, and it could take months to determine which projects will be funded.

"It's like a murder scene,'' said Dana Wetzel, an ecotoxicologist at the Mote Marine Laboratory in Florida. "You have to pick up the evidence now.

Researchers in Alaska are planning a strategy to attack an invasive species with a heck of a nasty nickname: rock vomit.

Known scientifically as Didemnum vexillum, it's a type of sea squirt discovered in a harbor near Sitka last June — the first confirmation of the non-native anywhere in Alaska.

Rock vomit is so named for its penchant for spreading over hard surfaces such as piers, ship hulls, large seashells and rocks. It feeds on the tiny plankton and decaying plant material it filters from seawater, and can be lethal to other creatures — including commercially important species of fish.

"It’s a crazy organism," Linda Shaw, a biologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said in a NOAA release. "It smothers other creatures while producing acidic toxins that in turn prevent anything from growing on it.

"Rock vomit creates a type of barrier between groundfish and their food," she added. "It’s been causing problems worldwide."

Divers searched the harbor last fall and again in January but could not cover the entire area due to the depths.

That led to the deployment of a remotely operated submersible, which videotaped much of the area and areas just outside.

"We can say that there are no big infestations outside the harbor," said Shaw. "But there are some things we want to take a closer look at as we review the video."

Once that review is complete, NOAA and state officials will launch an eradication campaign.

Maine in 1993 became the first state to detect rock vomit, which was probably introduced by ships dumping their water ballast. Since then the species has spread to other parts of New England.

On the West Coast, California, Oregon and Washington also have infestations.

Dead baby bottlenose dolphins are continuing to wash up in record numbers on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, and scientists do not know why.

More Seeds :: JCAtom

As panic ensued about the possibility of empty seafood menus, Dr. Ray Hilborn of the University of Washington penned "Faith-Based Fisheries." It was a sharp rebuke of not just Worm, but the entire scientific publishing community, which he accused of accepting "articles on fisheries not for their scientific merit, but for their publicity value."

“We know who the culprit is, we just can’t prove it – yet.” Detective Dick Tracy

The Case. That statement could have been uttered by climate scientists. They know global warming is the cause of the more extreme weather events we are experiencing, but it is hard to prove it. Global warming has increased the energy and moisture in the atmosphere, and that combination makes conditions ripe for severe storms and floods. Certainly, hurricanes occur and intensify over low-pressure areas fed by moisture and warmer oceans. To be accurate, however, climate scientists could only say, “When weather events occur, global warming is likely to make them more extreme.” However, the case against global warming is growing stronger. A number of recent research papers have shown global warming is the cause of extreme weather events, and the business community, particularly insurers, are beginning to take notice. (1)

The Link. The vapor pressure of water is one of the most important factors in determining weather. Water will evaporate from the surface until the air above it reaches its saturated vapor pressure. The saturated vapor pressure depends only on the temperature, which makes temperature the determining factor controlling the amount of moisture that the air can hold. (2) If a mass of air saturated with moisture moves to higher altitudes or encounters a cold front and is cooled, the air becomes supersaturated, which leads to precipitation. Over the last century, the Earth’s average temperature has increased by about 0.8°C, which translates into an increase in the saturated vapor pressure of water of about 7%. When precipitation occurs, on the average, 7% more moisture is available. It is a reasonable conclusion that when it rains, it will rain more and when it snows, it will snow more. So strangely enough, global warming could actually lead to greater snowfall. However, it has been very difficult to prove, and certainly even more difficult to convince skeptics that that might be the case.

Floods. Two recent research papers have established a link between global warming, increased rainfall, and flooding. A recent paper in Nature (3) reported that the observed increase in rainfall in the Northern Hemisphere in the past 50 years and climate change are linked. The researchers analyzed the rainfall data in areas prone to flood and found that the rainfall has increased due to the warmer temperatures of the Earth. Their results “were based on a comparison of observed and multi-model simulated changes in extreme precipitation over the latter half of the twentieth century analyzed with an optimal fingerprinting technique.” They also found that the models seem to underestimate the observed increase in heavy precipitation with warming temperatures. Extreme precipitation in the future may be even more severe than now predicted.

The second paper, also published in Nature (4), has linked the increasing floods in England and Wales and global warming. The researchers generated several thousand climate model simulations of the autumn 2000 weather by using actual conditions and also by assuming conditions as they would have been had no greenhouse gas emissions or global warming occurred. They concluded that “the precise magnitude of the anthropogenic contribution remains uncertain, but in nine out of ten cases our model results indicate that twentieth-century anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions increased the risk of floods occurring in England and Wales in autumn 2000 by more than 20%, and in two out of three cases by more than 90%.

Rivers in the Sky. Normally, when an air mass saturated with water moves ashore and is forced upward, it cools and precipitation falls until the clouds are no longer over-saturated. However, that is not the case for “rivers in the sky, weather patterns that carry a stream of air saturated with water into coastal regions continually for days. These “rivers in the sky”, cause flooding rains in coastal and inland mountains causing untold costs in property damage and human lives. One such river produced more than 40 inches of rainfall in the mountains of southern California in only four days in early January 2005. It caused widespread flooding and massive mudslides such as the one in La Conchita, California, which took 10 lives. The researchers say these “rivers in the sky” will become more common as global temperatures rise since warmer air means that the atmosphere can hold more water vapor. That is, unless global warming changes the weather patterns that produce them. (5)

Droughts. The link between global warming and droughts has not been yet established by research. Areas that receive little moisture from the oceans would not benefit from the fact that the air can hold more water. Though higher temperatures mean that more water evaporates into the air, it also means that the air can hold more moisture before becoming saturated. Areas that normally experience droughts are much more likely to have less rainfall in the future. This past year has seen droughts in Russia, China, and South America that have limited the production of grain and increased the chances that some species may become extinct. The heat waves in Europe in 2003 and 2010, that caused widespread crop failure and wildfires, may have been the worst in 500 years. Certainly, more frequent and extensive droughts may occur in a warming world. (6)

The Smart Money. The widespread damage caused by weather events related to global warming has caught the attention of the business community, particularly those who pay out insurance claims or invest large sums of money. Insurance companies ranked 2010 among worst years ever for climate disasters. Climate change is the culprit in many of the catastrophic natural disasters in 2010, according to insurance company Munich Re, one of the largest global insurance carriers. It added that trends are pointing to more frequent and riskier events in the future. (7) Recently, a group of International investors, responsible for more than $15 trillion in assets, issued a global warming warning. (8) They called for the world’s nations, particularly the United States, to move decisively to combat climate change or face the possibility of economic disruptions even worse than the global recession of the last two years. They also pointed out that “The economic opportunities are enormous for nations with the foresight to seize them while the risks of inaction are potentially catastrophic.”

(1) http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/intelligent-energy/studies-prove-link-between-human-activity-and-extreme-weather-events/4835/

(2) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/relhum.html#c3

(3) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09763.html

(4) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09762.html

(5) http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2529.htm

(6) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110318091141.htm

(7) http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=insurance-ranks-2010-worst-for-climate-disasters&page=2

(8) http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-climate-financiers-20101117,0,6204171.story

(C) 2011 J.C. Moore

"The results indicate that an important component of the chemical dispersant injected into the oil in the deep ocean remained there, and resisted rapid biodegradation," said scientist David Valentine of U.C. Santa Barbara, one of the investigators in the study.

The findings contrast with what the Environmental Protection Agency has asserted about the dispersants, which the agency allowed BP to use in unprecedented quantities.

"We do have information about the individual components of the dispersant," the EPA says on its website. "The available peer-reviewed literature indicates that the components biodegrade fairly rapidly

Judging by the weather, the world seems to have flipped upside down.

...while people in Atlanta learn to shovel snow, the weather 2,000 miles to the north has been freakishly warm the past two winters. Throughout northeastern Canada and Greenland, temperatures in December ran as much as 15 to 20 degrees Fahrenheit above normal. Bays and lakes have been slow to freeze; ice fishing, hunting and trade routes have been disrupted.

More Articles

As the torrential rains cause havoc in Australia and Brazil - (and the under reported Sri Lanka where officials say floods have affected over 1 million and killed 23)- it seems that natural disasters are becoming an everyday occurrence. But are they really all that natural? Climate scientists say man-made global warming is the sudden force behind the forces of nature.

Last year tied with the warmest on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Derek Arndt, chief of NOAA’s Climate Monitoring Branch in the National Climate Data Center, said 2010 was “an exclamation point on several decades of warming”

Speaking to ABC News in the US he added that NOAA is tracking disasters like the floods in Brazil and Australia. “We are measuring certain types of extreme events that we would expect to see more often in a warming world, and these are indeed increasing,” Arndt said.

The added moisture in the atmosphere also explains the phenomenon we’ve seen this week at home – where snow blanketed the ground in 49 of 50 states. During yesterday’s snowstorm, Hartford, Conn. and Albany, N.Y. both set records for snowfall in a single day

Richard Sommerville, a climate scientist at the University of California, San Diego and author of “The Forgiving Air: Understanding Environmental Change” concurs with this analysis:

“If left unchecked, global warming will continue so the things that we’re having hints of now, foretastes of now, will come stronger,”

The extreme weather the world has seen is part of a larger trend, he said. “The world is warming up … It’s warming for sure and science is very confident that most of the warming is due to human causes.”

Every time we burn fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas, Sommerville said, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Now, climate scientists see “the changed odds, the loaded dice that favours more extreme events and more high temperature records being broken,” he said.
“The decade that just ended saw nine of the 10 warmest years on record, and warmer temperatures mean more moisture in the air. That moisture can fall as torrential, flooding rains in the summertime or blizzards in the winter.”

Summervilles argument is that the whole water cycle speeds up in a warming world, there’s more water in the atmosphere today than there was a few years ago on average, and that you’re seeing a lot of that in the heavy rains and floods for example in Australia and elsewhere.

“This is no longer something that’s theory or conjecture or something that comes out of computer models. We’re observing the climate changing,” Somerville said. “It’s happening, it’s real, it’s a scientific fact.”

Hundreds of experts are studying the BP spill's impact on the Gulf, one of the richest ocean ecosystems in the world. What these scientists conclude will help determine how much money—potentially billions of dollars—BP will pay in environmental damages. Their conclusions also could shape future rules governing industries crucial to the Gulf economy, such as fishing and oil-and-gas drilling

Exacerbating a horrendous situation, with the blessing of the feds the people at BP sprayed and injected millions of gallons of chemical dispersants, chemicals the use of which has been outlawed abroad because of their toxic environmental effects, into the Gulf waters that they had already done such a thorough job of contaminating to "break up" the oil in some totally misguided effort based on "out of sight, out of mind."

Needless to say, none of this was particularly good for the flora or fauna of the Gulf. This fact was brought home by the 600 or so dead turtles that were collected from the areas affected by the spill and by the dispersants used to "control" it.

However, according to Jane Lubchenco, head of NOAA, in a statement in the Miami Herald on Dec. 30, in her estimation it wasn't BP and the biggest accidental oil spill that the world has ever seen or the wanton use, with her approval, of toxic chemical dispersants that was responsible for the dead turtles.

It was fishermen.

The heightened scrutiny of the Gulf of Mexico during the oil spill brought to light the need for stronger cooperation between NOAA, the Gulf states, and the fishing industry to address the significant ongoing problem of sea turtles drowning in fishing operations. More enforcement is needed for TED requirements and tow time limits.

"One word for Jane-COREXIT. It is well known to take oxygen out of the air."

"So let me guess-the pelicans in the Gulf that are pooping blood right now, must be those criminal fishermen"

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/12/29/v-fullstory/1992396/oil-spill-clarifies-road-map-for.html#ixzz1AG85DMVH

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/12/29/v-fullstory/1992396/oil-spill-clarifies-road-map-for.html#ixzz1AG6Iw2Z9

NOAA and the Gulf states also helped the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other partners to move more than 25,000 sea turtle eggs from the northern Gulf shoreline to the Atlantic coast of Florida, to prevent hatchlings from entering oiled waters. NOAA, state wildlife agencies, and other partners also collected dead stranded sea turtles to determine, when possible, their cause of death.
Jane, you have blood on your hands!

The fate of the oil
On 15 July, BP finally succeeded in capping the well, but there were still major questions about what had happened to all the oil that had escaped over the past three months. In early August, NOAA and other agencies released an 'oil budget', which tallied the fate of all the released oil. Carol Browner, director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, announced on television that three-quarters of the oil was "gone". But that did not match the government's own numbers.

An e-mailed letter from Peter Baker, manager of Pew Environment Group's New England Fisheries Campaign, had urged the governor to remain uncommitted to the law suit, which alleges Obama administration fishing policies have intentionally displaced small boat owners and given the fishery to the biggest operations.

Baker's theme on Pew letterhead was: "Governor Patrick: Don't waste my tax dollars to the detriment of our oceans."

His text said, in part, that "the governor does not seem to be paying attention to all Massachusetts fishermen, but just to the vocal ones out of the biggest ports of Gloucester and New Bedford.

The Conservation Law Foundation seems to think any role it had in this debacle ought to be kept secret from those who are challenging it — and from all of those who must live with its consequences.
And beyond that, the system for putting the process in place was likely rigged — with these and other environmental groups working from "the inside," as one 2005 EDF document even bragged, to influence federal policy that is clearly having an adverse effect on the fishing industry and the communities that call it home.

"I take issue with catch shares being described as only one tool. According to the (Pacific Fishery Management Council), that is the tool," said Tom Estes, who said he shares a family fleet with his sons. "The more we talk, the more frightened I get. My son says that this might be the nail in the coffin, and I agree."

Vivian Helliwell described catch shares as "social engineering and market manipulation" that "the little guys always lose out on." She added that they would take the "fishing out of our community," and "mean the end of the fishing industry on the West Coast

Day in, day out," Lang said, "I'm beginning to see the ravages of catch shares" to the fleet and "every ancillary industry. It's becoming a human crisis."

He was speaking to more than three dozen industry representatives coming from Rhode Island to Maine, along with representatives of federal lawmakers throughout New England.

"There are thousands of jobs being lost up and down the coast," Gloucester's Vito Calomo said of U.S. Sen. Scott Brown's community outreach for fisheries. "Sen. Brown understands that every boat that goes to sea creates jobs."

Calomo said Brown, a Republican, intended to maintain the link with Democratic colleagues.

Garth Patterson, who represents Congressman Barney Frank on fisheries issues, also reached across the aisle to acknowledge the efforts of Congressman Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican, as the House shifts to Republican control in January and the 2-year presidential election begins.

For all his talk of job creation, Presi dent Obama has targeted many occu pations for extinction. Using un elected bureaucrats to implement a host of job-killing measures, his administration is generating piles of pink slips:

The Gloucester Daily Times Sun Dec 05, 2010, 10:44 PM EST

When Congressman Barney Frank, fellow Massachusetts Democrat John Tierney and North Carolina Republican ally Walter Jones called for NOAA chief Jane Lubchenco's resignation or ouster this past July, they cited the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration leader's "hostility" toward the American fishing industry.

Less than 48 hours later, Frank mysteriously backed off that call, saying Obama administration officials had assured him that changes within NOAA's embattled enforcement wing and its regulatory policies could be carried out with Lubchenco still in place. And there seemed to be signs of hope.

With Lubchenco seemingly pushed to the background, her Cabinet-level boss — Commerce Secretary Gary Locke — stepped up assure the federal lawmakers, Gov. Deval Patrick and industry leaders that he would adjust allocations built upon NOAA's usual mad-science catch data if the state and industry could show the need for emergency action.

One of the most striking features of the comparison between the days-at-sea system and the catch-share system is the failure of the catch-share system to eliminate gross underfishing. Under the days-at-sea system, only 30% of the total allowable catch (TAC) was landed. This wasted $280 million each year. Under the catch-share system we project that the fishery will continue to catch only 30% of the TAC. (The absolute waste will be less because the TACs are much lower.)

USF's first NOAA-sponsored voyage to take samples after Deepwater Horizon, the one that turned up evidence of the undersea plumes, was designed to gather evidence for use in an eventual court case against BP and other oil companies involved in the disaster. At the end of the voyage, USF turned its samples over to NOAA, expecting to get either a shared analysis or the samples themselves back. So far, Hogarth said, they've received neither.

NOAA's top oil spill scientist, Steve Murawski, said Monday that he was "sure we will release the data" at some point. However, he said, because NOAA has collected so many samples over the past three months, when it comes to the samples from USF's trip in May, "I'm not sure where they are."

~ By Craig Pittman, Times Staff Writer
In Print: Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Step Right Up, ladies and gentlemen! Be the first on your block to jump into the latest NOAA Rage! COD FUTURES!!
Industrialized, cage raised fish farms, engineered through asset commoditization or fishery catch shares and further consolidation and decimation of the independently owned fleet, will eventually result in a few big corporate investors controlling and owning the fish (same as other areas of the food supply); and this will give us a "steady uniform supply" of ---Garbage. It will be the end of a healthy local food, and the end of a healthy local fish industry

Oceana asserted that the "Hookers," which practice lower impact fishing with hook and line or fixed gillnets, were profiting by selling to mainstream fishermen.
An EDF strategic planning document from 2005, obtained by the Times, highlighted the value in investing in the Chatham-based Hookers along with having one of their own — senior staffer Sally McGee — appointed to the council to help the organization work from the inside to bring in the catch share system and bringing corporate investment dollars and market dynamics to the fishing world.

The market report detailing the Cape Cod group's more than 400 sector-to-sector transfers — or leases — was posted on the NOAA Web site for less than a week in October, then taken down.

No explanation was posted, but NOAA spokeswoman Maggie Mooney-Seus, responding to a query from the Times, said the decision to withdraw the report was made after a legal determination that the listing of individual transactions contained "proprietary information."

Oceana drew its conclusion from the announcement last month by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that eight fishery management plans — including the one for New England groundfishing — were "likely to adversely effect, but not jeopardize" four endangered species of whales and four species of turtles, including the loggerhead.

The commercial fishermen have already paid a heavy price this year, and the few that remain are struggling just to make ends meet.

I don't know of many things that are any sadder than the look on a man's face that is capable, willing and standing ready to go to work, and having to be told, "I'm sorry, you can't work today. The government is paying someone to watch me, and I can't bring you both."

Job Losses, Loss of Access to Fish Expected Under Federal "Rationalization" Scheme

San Francisco, October 28 – A regional fishing organization and two locally-based port organizations – in California and Oregon, announced today they have filed suit against the Department of Commerce to halt a plan that will consolidate much of the fishing fleet, privatize public fish resources, deny many fishing ports access to fish in adjacent waters and cause massive job losses.

"Dr. Lubchenco and her EDF pals have openly stated their belief that fishing is a privilege which can be sold out from under us for the right price and under the right market conditions, where RFA and our allies don't believe that anyone has the right to corner the market on fishing."
While Andy Rosenberg keeps getting more money.

And the president's Commerce chief — really Lubchenco's superior, though he embarrassingly stood by her lack of any response and respect to and for the likes of Congressmen Barney Frank, John Tierney and others who requested similar changes earlier this year — vowed late last month to revisit NOAA's excessive enforcement against fishermen and related businesses in past cases. That was an open slap to Lubchenco's chief NOAA legal counsel, Lois Schiffer, whose position to not revisit and right past NOAA wrongs had stood as an affront not only to the fishing industry and its backers, but to any sense of American justice.

The editor and publisher of an influential daily Internet report on the fishing industry has issued a mea culpa and acknowledged that looking more deeply into the newly minted groundfish catch share system in New England reveals a potentially "fatal flaw."

The failing that John Sackton concedes he had previously missed finding was "hyper-consolidation" of the industry, as the New England fishery was converted in May to the catch-shares market in which fishermen are essentially encouraged to buy, sell or trade their "share" of a total allowable catch with other fishermen, or larger companies and outside investors.

Federal government responders may be correct in stating that low flow-rate estimates did not negatively affect their operations," said one of the commission's working papers. "Even if responders are correct, however, loss of the public's trust during a disaster is not an incidental public relations problem."

In the wake of the BP oil spill, scientists are closely monitoring the unassuming menhaden — more commonly known as pogy — which has wound its way into a web of products on dry land.

Millions of pounds of the shiny, oily fish are hauled from the Gulf each year, processed into meal and oils that end up in food for pets, dairy cows and farm-raised salmon, fish oil pills and butter substitutes on the grocery shelf

WHAT IS A CATCH SHARE?

The New England Fishery Management Council, NOAA, and The Environmental Defense Fund have installed the Amendment 16 management scheme of Catch Shares or Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQ's), or Individual Transferrable Quotas (ITQ's). The various terms and acronyms for the program can all be defined by the concept of transferrable percentages of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) by individuals, or groups, or corporations, or organizations, or cooperatives. A "Sector" is a cooperative of Catch Share holders.

(23 Sept 2010 hydrocomgeo@gmail.com)

~~~~~~~Reuter Sun Sep 19, 2010 3:58pm EDT.

With a final shot of cement, BP Plc permanently "killed" its deep-sea well in the Gulf of Mexico that ruptured in April and unleashed the worst oil spill in U.S. history, the top U.S. spill official said on Sunday.

Some 153 days after the Macondo well ruptured, the U.S. government confirmed that BP had succeeded in drilling a relief well nearly 18,000 feet below the ocean surface and permanently sealing the well with cement.

"The Macondo 252 well is effectively dead," retired Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, who has overseen the U.S. government's response, said in a statement. "We can now state, definitively, that the Macondo well poses no continuing threat to the Gulf of Mexico."

~~~~~~~~~~~quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A hollow victory speech indeed as even those who reported the official news do not really believe in the “good news” themselves. How credible can such a claim be, given the many lies that had been exposed? Could this “permanent killing” of the zombie well have been so simple and so fast to kill, all along? If it was, why had there been so much hesitation with so many postponements before this? Why could this “permanent killing” not be done sooner? Although the wish for a quick and permanent solution to this disaster is universal, it is just wishful thinking that such a disastrous runaway gushing well could be tamed so easily. But how are we to judge in the absence of verifiable technical data that BP holds so close to heart?

The answer is quite simple actually. The recently announced “permanent kill” is a farce and nothing more than a PR stunt. Otherwise, why was there a need to deceive? Why would there be a need for the crooked ROV coordinates scheme to create a confused picture of the oil and gas seeps and well locations?

The crooked ROV coordinates scheme is another component of BP’s Art of Mass Deception, foiled once again by the lowly bathymetry data. With the final piece of the jigsaw puzzle in place, BP’s cloak of mass deception is as exposed as the Emperor’s invisible golden clothes (Emperor’s new clothes – from Hans Christian Andersen’s Fairy Tale).

Figure 120-1 shows the plot of some ROVs’ position with the date and water depth. The water depth is obtained by adding the altitude and the depth of the ROV. Figure 120-2 gives the tabulated ROVs’ details extracted from video footage or captured images available in the public domain. If this obvious falsification of data can be found in almost all of the video footage reviewed (picked randomly), there must be a lot more ROV video footage with falsified coordinates.

1.Video proof of oil gushing out of casing at S20BC – the unreported third well that blew on 20 April 2010.

This and many other video footage publicly available from mid May till the first week of June, is the video proof of the oil gushing out of a sub-horizontal casing within a crater at S20BC location; the unreported and unapproved third well that blew on 20 April 2010. This is the only well (out of the 3 drilled) that reached the reservoir at 18,303 ft below mudline (bml).

This location was publicly revealed on 13 Aug 2010 in the diagrammatic illustration of the CSI of the Deepwater Horizon Blowout (Why-It-Could-Not-Have-Happened-As-Reported-By-Bp). From the forensic analysis, S20BC location was determined to be approximately 720ft NNW of Well A. The coastguard log confirmed the location 9 days later; giving it a more precise location of 714 ft NNW of well A.

In one of the first video footages of S20BC reviewed for the article (HERC 6 ROV video recorded from 06:09:42 - 06:11:26 hrs on 29 May 2010) the average coordinates of the ROV is E1,202,504 N10,432,303 with a water depth of 4,970 ±10 ft.

In figure 120-1, the water depths estimated from ROVs monitoring the “dispersant operation” at the vicinity S20BC vary from 4959 to 4965 ft. This agrees quite well with the contour value of 4950 – 4970 ft.

Although the ROV was visibly stationary there was periodic “jumps in the coordinates” either due to errors in reading the coordinates from the video or navigation data noise. The largest distance moved is 45ft in 2 secs (7m/s). Over the 2 minute video, the virtual position variation is 0 to 45 ft. This is the magnitude of random data scatter that can be expected although the physical movement would be much less and much slower than 3 ft/sec (1m/sec or 3.6km/hr). Movement is perceptible even at a low speed of 0.5ft/sec.

2.Deliberate Shifting of ROV position by applying offset and bearing

In any positioning system there is always some noise scatter. In (1) we established the noise scatter to be less than 50 ft with a fairly noisy ROV video recording. In some stable ROV videos, the noise scatter on the position is much less. Noise by definition should be random. Deliberate human interference either by changing one of the digit in the 7 digit Northing coordinate or by range (distance in feet) and bearing (angle in degrees) input; produces a distinct pattern of change. Most importantly, as there is no actual physical movement of the ROV, the physical attributes such as time, depth, altitude, heading and speed do not change. Although the realistic corresponding variation in these physical attributes can be altered as well, it is more difficult to do this online without a complicated computerized system or programme.

In the 25 seconds video recording (from 15:01:26 to 15:01:51 hrs) on 29 May, the adulterated position of the ROV moved from the vicinity of S20BC (video shows oil gushing out of the sub-horizontal casing) 730 ft to just 248 ft NNW of Well A. See the track for 29/5 4959. The ROV moved at a speed of 1.1 to 17.3 m/s (4 to 62.3 km/h) within this short interval of 25 seconds or a total distance of 483 ft. ROV cannot cruise at 60 km/h through water and still record the same image of the seabed crater with the oil gushing out of the same sub-horizontal casing. The possibility of successive “random noise positions” moving progressively towards Well A is practically zero. The only other possibility is - human intervention by range (distance in feet) and bearing (angle in degrees) input. Even if the coordinates are plotted in isolation, the depth of 4959ft in the video recording would fall short of 30 ft (see point 29/5 4959 at bathy chart).

In the review of a second video (9 seconds long) from 09:43:03 to 09:43:12 hrs on 31 May, the adulterated position of the ROV moved from the vicinity of S20BC 740 ft NNW to 200 ft SE of Well A. See the track for 31/5 4962. In this track, the Virtual Position of the ROV moved back towards S20BC in the reverse direction; at the same time maintaining the exact heading, depth and altitude. The maximum virtual speed was 260 m/s (936 km/h). Undoubtedly the automatic positioning of the ROVs had been manipulated. For what purpose, you might ask?

3. Falsified Northing coordinates – by changing first 4 digits from 1,430,xxx to 1,432,xxx (2,000 ft)

An easier method of fudging the ROVs’ position is to change the fourth digit in the 7 digit Northing coordinate. Changing the first to third digits, would plot the ROV position out of range. It would be difficult to recover the true position and prevent the position from jumping erratically if the 5^th to 7^th digits were manipulated.

It is no accident that the fourth digit was specifically chosen and changed from 0 to 2. It was deliberate and intended to confuse. And confuse it did for if one were to diligently plot all the ROVs’ positions, it would make no sense. But out of the apparent randomness, a forensic pattern did emerge if the ROVs’ positions were superimposed on the bathymetry.

On 11 May at 23:33:46 and 23:33:53 hrs, the HERC 6 ROV was recording a gas seep between S20BC and Well A (497 ft NNW of Well A) at a point along the NW-SE fault passing through both locations. Its initial position E1 202 659, N10 430 092 was 1,532 ft SSW of Well A. But the recorded water depth is only 4963 ft; almost 120 ft short of the 5080ft water depth at this southern position. The seabed seep also looked familiar with another image at approximately the mid-position between Well A and S20BC. When the coordinates were corrected to E1 202 659, N10 432 092, the gas seep point falls between the 4965ft and 5970ft contours; a perfect match with regard to the bathymetry.

Two other points at 03:45:57 hrs and 03:49:15 hrs on 19 July, showed the same matching results with the bathymetry. With the “adulterated” southern position (2000ft south), the depth of 4944.2ft and 4943.9ft seemed out of place between contour 5040-5050ft. By correcting 2000ft north, the depths matched with the 4950ft contour shown in the bathy chart.

The “correction of 2000ft north” on all the three points confirmed that the original ROVs Northing had been tampered with a 2000ft shift to the south. But apparently the recorded ROV depth and altitude were left unchanged. Perhaps they did not realise anyone would notice the little discrepancy in depth.

With the general bathymetry sloping 3º to 5º southwards, the water depth should increase not decrease. This proves once again the lowest denomination of the exploration world (the lowly Bathy) to be the mightiest of them all (The-Little-Mole-Hill-That-Is-Really-A-Mountain).

Conclusion

The two methods of manipulating position data (for whatever reasons) are fairly common practices that had been exposed time and time again, during the many QC review of past geohazards assessments. Many errant survey contractors used them for a variety of reasons. It just means that BP is no better than the errant survey contractors caught manipulating their data. Is it any wonder that disasters like BP’s oil spill occurs?

Andrew Cohen, the former federal fisheries agent in charge of law enforcement for the Northeast working out of Gloucester, continues to receive his annual salary of at least $123,000 after being relieved of virtually all previous duties, according to official communications.

I'm Sam Rauch. I don't actually oversee the enforcement branch of the Fisheries Service.
Perhaps he didn't read the same IG report I did. Perhaps he made the comments before the IG report was released. But as Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Mr. Samuel Rauch should have had a better grip on the issues involving the agency he purports to oversee. ML

NEW YORK - Now that BP's Deepwater Horizon oil well has been sealed, the long, hard work of assessing the damage begins even as the oil is dispersing throughout the Gulf.

A research team from Columbia University in New York returned this past weekend (Sept. 17 to 19) from a tour of duty in the Gulf of Mexico with new data to attempt to measure the location and magnitude of subsurface oil plumes, and their effects on the marine ecosystem, which have recently been the focus of much debate.

Lessons for Study of the Health Effects of Oil Spills, Annals of Internal Medicine (American College of Physicians)

The American College of Physicians (ACP) is a national organization of internists — physicians who specialize in the prevention, detection and treatment of illnesses in adults. ACP is the largest medical-specialty organization and second-largest physician group in the United States. Its membership of 130,000 includes internists, internal medicine subspecialists, and medical students, residents, and fellows.

When he started working on a crewboat for Guilbeau Marine in May cleaning up the Deepwater Horizon spill site, the 35-year-old Pierre Part native said, he became gravely ill. He can no longer work, medical bills and household expenses ate up a piddling settlement, and promised help from Kenneth Feinberg's Gulf Coast Claims Facility has yet to materialize.

As shown by the following videos, BP and government representatives are still keeping scientists and reporters away from areas impacted by oil.

WEAR ABC news documented yesterday that federal agents are preventing reporters from digging in the sand to look for oil:

Frank Patti, owner of Joe Patti Seafood in Pensacola, said he and most of his customers are not convinced seafood from the oil-impacted areas of the Gulf and bays is safe to eat.

"The government and the oil company is working hand-in-hand, and I don't care what they say, they are lying, lying, lying through their teeth," he said about Allen's declaration that Gulf seafood is safe. "BP has closed their eyes and the government has closed their eyes to what is out there."

Recently FOSL has been contacted by readers who are experiencing rashes that have yet to clear up after treatment and/or doctors are having trouble diagnosing their condition.

Media reports of the possibility of oil-eating microbes impacting humans have been on the rise.

Over the Labor Day weekend, the Perdido Bay Mullet Festival in Lillian, Alabama had to do something it's never had to do before -- substitute catfish for mullet. Why? Because, according to event organizer Bill Cornell, the company that supplies the mullet for the annual festival "didn't feel good about the fish" and "won't sell them for human consumption." The seafood supplier, Wallace Seafood, had found unusual white spots on some of the mullet being caught, and won't sell the fish until testing is completed to see if they're safe to eat. According to the company's Brent Wallace, "Mullet feed off the bottom and we don't know what's been down there."

Excerpts

"I hope the state wildlife is right, I hope the dead fish is just oxygen. I got 100 fishermen here say no way Jose, they been here their whole life and never seen so many species (of fish) in so many different areas, and is it a coincidence that all of those areas happen to have heavy oil," said Nungesser. …

What in the hell is going on with this country?? Watch the short video and ask yourself,"WTF?"

In the days after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, BP mobilized an army of cleanup contractors to combat the oil's assault on the Gulf Coast.

More than 150 private companies and government agencies were contracted for the beach cleanup, BP officials said. But the identities of the contractors and their roles in the cleanup have been largely concealed from public view.

Ocean Springs, MS -- A grandmother made me rethink all the bio-remediation hype. The "naturally-occurring oil-eating bacteria" have been newsworthy of late as they are supposedly going to come to the rescue of President Obama and BP and make good on their very premature statement that "the oil is gone."

We were talking about subsurface oil in the Gulf when she said matter-of-factly, "The bacteria are running amok with the dispersants." What? "Those oil-eating bacteria -- I think they're running amok and causing skin rashes." My mind reeled. Could we all have missed something so simple?

NEW ORLEANS – Some independent scientists, who have been looking into oil spill contamination in the Gulf of Mexico, said they have received some unsettling phone calls from the federal government.

We can finally stop saying we "have no idea" of the long-term health effects for cleanup workers involved in the BP spill response. A new study out of Spain, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, details findings from a 2002 spill off Spain's northwest coast – and there are a host of disturbing concerns about the health impacts on cleanup workers.

As somebody who closely follows BP spill news, it's been educational (to say the least) to see the stark difference between national news coverage and our local and regional stories. At times, it seems that entirely different events are being covered.

The national coverage is very much top-down, meaning folks like BP and the Coast Guard and NOAA drive the coverage from the top. But local coverage takes more of a grassroots approach, citing Gulf residents and county-level sources…and what local fishermen are actually seeing out on the water.

James Fox – We spoke with government officials on September 15, 2010. They maintain that Gulf waters and beaches are safe and that there is no evidence to suggest the contrary. We then met with an independent lab and locals: what we found was not consistent with the governments position.

Today on The Intel Hub, award winning journalist Dahr Jamail reported some starling information on the situation in the gulf. The Gulf of Mexico has been poisoned beyond relief yet BP has continued to spray toxic dispersant. How is this happening in America?

Parish leaders say relationship with BP, feds becoming strained again, WWL-TV, September 17, 2010 at 7:24 p.m. EDT:

"I walked out of the meeting because they're lying. The Coast Guard is lying and BP is lying," [Plaquemines President Billy Nungesser] said. …

BP and the government decided that millions of gallons of dispersants should be dumped into the Gulf to sink and hide the oil.

They succeeded in sinking it. As ABC, CBS and NPR note, huge quantities of oil are blanketing the ocean floor, killing virtually all of the sealife which lives there.

And giant new underwater plumes have been found in the water column itself.

But officials don't want to hear about them. As one member of the oil spill recovery team said:

The so-called "Trawlgate" scandal of 1999-2000 was the embarrassing discovery by fishermen that the government had been using trawl equipment that was mismatched, radically undercatching and undercounting the stocks. Yet the government used the admittedly flawed surveys to set regulations.

Also, the limits of fish stock census-taking and the implications of those limits were highlighted this summer, when NOAA decided to adjust upward by 600 percent the total allowable catch of pollock, based on a number of factors, including a new trawl survey.

Wilma Subra, an environmental activist and patriot has documented thousands of cases of sick people in the Gulf. While the corporate news has continually refused to report the truth, people like Wilma and Project Gulf Impact have done everything in their power to document the horrors caused by the toxic combination of oil and dispersantt. BP, with the help of the federal government, has hired goon squads to terrorize independent journalists in an attempt to silence free speech.

Deborah Dupré of the Human Rights Examiner had this to say in her latest article:

Coastal Heritage Society of Louisiana Radio with Kindra Arnesen, September 14, 2010:

Transcript Summary

We're having more oil coming in today…

There's fishkills everywhere… all over Plaquemines…

My understanding is there's a lot of fresh, new oil coming in…

It's not dispersed oil…

The Environmental Protection Agency collected sediment samples on September 3, 2010 in coastal Louisiana and "three samples found nickel in exceedance of chronic aquatic benchmarks, and one sample found both nickel and vanadium in exceedance of chronic aquatic benchmarks." (See update at bottom)

NewsFeed is hardly an expert, but when the amount of dead fish floating in a river makes it look like a gravel road, there might be a problem.

The lower Mississippi River near the Gulf of Mexico was the site of a ghastly sight this weekend: scores of lifeless fish floating on the surface. Unusual for a large-scale fish death, the casualties were made up of many different fish species crabs, as well as crabs, eels and one dolphin.

As there has been confusion -- even in upper levels of the Federal Government -- as to whether the Secretary of Commerce has authority to raise catch limits on groundfish and other species under the "emergency" provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) asked the Congressional Research Service (CRS) for an opinion.

Tears and a feeling of helplessness from the nasty, mysterious harvest

When looking at a load of newly delivered crab, the smell "knocked us down," St. Bernard Parish seafood dealer Kevin Heier told Fox 8 New Orleans.

When Is Enough, Enough?

For nearly five months, the BP oil disaster has consumed the minds of millions of people worldwide. In addition to the horrific impacts that the crude oil and chemical dispersants have daily on the environment and the economy, a fatal threat has quietly slipped by the public's proverbial radar. The harm dealt by this silent enemy is beginning to creep into the lives of those living and working in the Gulf. The problem has been lurking in the Gulf since the first days of the BP oil spill and now has the potential ignite a disaster unlike any this country has ever seen.

ORANGE BEACH, Ala. — Wherever disaster strikes, there's always an associated crud.

There was the Exxon Valdez Crud. The Nine Eleven Crud. The Katrina Cough, and then the TVA coal ash cough.

Now, along the entire coast of the Gulf of Mexico, there is the BP Crud, afflicting workers and the general population from Louisiana to Florida.

"I expected to find oil on the sea floor," Samantha Joye, a University of Georgia marine sciences professor, said Monday morning in a ship-to-shore telephone interview. "I did not expect to find this much. I didn't expect to find layers two inches thick." …

"There's still pieces of warm bodies there."…

VENICE, La. – Thousands of fish and a dead whale on Monday were found dead at the mouth of a shipping channel in Venice.

Last week I had the opportunity to accompany Coastal Geologist Rip Kirby from the University of Southern Florida on a search mission. The quarry was oil, and Rip was confident that we would find it. Spurred on by the latest report from the Coast Guard that there was very little oil off of the Gulf Coast, where they found only two of 5,000 samples to contain oil, Rip was determined to test a hypothesis.

United in opposition to Obama's effort to re-engineer, modernize and recapitalize the industry in New England is a core of the president's East Coast congressional support group — including Congressmen Barney Frank, who represents New Bedford, and John Tierney and Sen. John Kerry. But they are joined by a number of key Republicans, including Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Scott Brown of Massachusetts.

Dr. Brian Rothschild is a professor at UMass Dartmouth's School for Marine Science and Technology. He was bypassed by Jane Lubchenco as director of NMFS. Instead of Rothschild, she gave the top slot to a connected Maryland state employed trout stocker,with no Marine fishery experience. A newsviner comment follows the article in the link.

NEW BEDFORD — A federal court judge Thursday set Feb. 9 as the date to hear oral arguments in the lawsuit against the U.S. Commerce Department by the mayors and fishing industries of New Bedford and Gloucester.

NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco was vice chairwoman of EDF when she was nominated by President Obama to take control of the oceans and fisheries. EDF also has a paid senior staffer, Sally McGee, on the New England Fishery Management Council, while the council's chairman, John Papalardo, now heads an organization of Cape Cod fishermen and lobbyists closely allied with EDF and other green groups.

You are driving down the road, and, in the rear view mirror, the pretty blue lights pop on,and you say, "ah sh!t. What the Hell does he want?! Damn it, I must have been speeding. No, I must not have come to a complete stop. Inspection sticker OK?" Could be any number of reasons, and if you are nice enough, or polite enough, or even totally mortified by whatever indiscreation you committed, there is a good chance that you will receive a warning. Sometimes even a verbal warning! Because you know the cops are only doing their job, and we all know some good cops. And we know by reading the papers, and watching the news, there are some very bad ones.

Some are human, and get caught up in things that become controversial, some get arrested for drunken driving. Still,some even really cross the Thin Blue Line. Drug peddling, fencing stolen goods, domestic abuse, and assult, pulling their weapons on wives,and girlfriends, even molesting children. Cover ups of criminal investigations are common place, and you also know that you feel confident while being stopped by the officer, pulled up behind you, knowing you are a good citizen, and you should be treated reasonably. You Hope!

You are not a citizen driving down the road though. You are a Commercial Fisherman. You are coming home from a grueling trip, that has been exceptionally rough. You left port, shorthanded, and the extra workload was made up by a crew of guys that know how to put their heads down, and work. You look forward to coming home. You can't wait to lump out the trip, get the boat cleaned, and ship shape for the next go'round. You know you and the gang have a full days worth of gear work, because you had to really work the edges of the hard bottom to get the fish you needed.

You have nothing but pressure. You are behind. On everything. Mortgage on the house that your children call home. Boat payment, behind. Fuel bill, behind. Insurance on everything. Behind. Its on your mind, stress.

You look at the guys on deck, and there is the typical fisherman's optimism. They are bantering about maybe getting a big price! They are chomping to get the chores done so they can go home to see their families. God! You miss everything! Gotta stop at the Crows Nest 'n have a couple while waiting for that settlement check! See everyone. God its good to be home! But wait one! there is a problem, and its obvious, The blue lights just came on!

We’re from the government and we’re here to shake you down

Nils E. Stolpe

http://www.fishnet-usa.com/NOAA_OLE_GCEL%20Shakedown.htm

If you believe in justice, and expect the Federal Government to insure justice, you must read this article by Nils Stolpe, one of the most knowledgeable fishing industry authors, in the country.

He exposes the truth about the ones that are supposed to be enforcing or Federal Laws on the high seas, and the truth should make you wonder,why you haven't heard of this before! Psst! I've been tryin' to tell ya!

At least 20 commercial fishing and scalloping boats owned or leased and crewed by members of the northern Maine-based Passamaquoddy Tribe have been working the heavily regulated Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank this summer with tribal but no federal permits, a tribal fisherman and broker said Thursday.