The Star Spangled Banner as You've Never Heard It!
The oral history of the night that inspired our National Anthem, the Star Spangled Banner.
Listen to this story of our great Veterans during the war of 1812, have your children listen to this, your friends, your family, and your neighbors.
May God Bless and deliver safely our brave men and women who at this very moment are laying their lives on the alter of freedom so we may live without fear!
Subscribe to IY's free investment newsletter today. Just enter your e-mail address below:
Small Cap Company?
Are you a small cap company in need of exposure? If you are a "real" company with a promising product or service, let us know! Read more
Bob On How "World Improvers" are working their agenda concerning recreational fishing
Each year, our marine fisheries around the coasts get more and more regulated. This appears normal, and if you think about it, management of the fisheries is a very good idea. No one wants overfishing to the point where species are extinct. But, if you do a lot of fishing and a lot of listening, something becomes very clear. The rules aren't lining up with the facts, and each time that happens a bell should go off in your head that screams "Agenda alert! Agenda alert!".
This is nowhere more evident than in our Summer flounder fishery. Everyone enjoys eating flounder, they are firm, tasty, and easy to prepare. But here on the coast of NJ, and along the seaboard from NY down through MD, we are seeing catch rules that simply defy logic. In my mind, the minute you see that, you know someone somewhere has a big agenda and it's either their philosophical views on how the earth should be run, or there's money involved or both. In this instance, it's both.
First off let me tell you some facts, gathered by the hundreds of fisherman, charter captains and commercial fisherman I've had the privilege to know. The "biomass" of summer flounder might be in as good of shape as it's ever been. The "bulk" of the flounder population appears to range between 14 and 17 inches long, and historical landings prove that to be the largest population. Sure there are juveniles, and yes there are much bigger fish, but if you were to take an "average" they land in that category of size.
Yet each year they push the minimum size limit higher, and now resides at 18 inches in NJ, while it's a whopping 20 inches in neighboring states. Are there 18 and 20 inch fish? Yes indeed. But, because the body of the population is 14 - 17, you end up catching and releasing sometimes 40 short fish, to find one "keeper". This doesn't sound that great, because we know that "some" percentage of the release fish will die from either stress, overexertion, or bleeding. So, why on earth would they continue to hike the mimimum taking size, if they know we are damaging the population with all the releases?? It simply makes no sense. Ahh, but it does Grasshopper it does. See, "they" have a plan, and that plan is to simply eliminate the recreational taking of this fish. Huh??? Well that's silly talk Bob! That can't be, you must be smoking wacky weed.
No, unfortunately there's no wacky weed involved. What is involved however is the "Marine Fisheries advisory committe" and the PEW foundation. These are two very powerful organizations, and are prominent in creating policy.
So, here is a little something to chew on. Please read this carefully and when you're finished, you'll know exactly why our rules dont' make any logical sense, but they make perfect sense as they roll out their agenda.
For most topics political, or economic, I'm the "conspiracy nut". So, I do try and keep my opinions to myself so that I don't alienate potential friends. But, my opinions are simply projections of what the future will bring, based on my research into global economics, and trends, based upon the groups that have big agenda's for our world. It's what I do.
With that in mind, we just got our fluke rules. In typical fashion, they don't seem to make sense to a lot of people. If he stocks are so healthy (they are) and the average of the biomass is 14 - 17 inch fish (it is) why the draconian rules such as a short season, an 18 inch limit, and 6 fish?
From the AC press article we see this misleading quote:
Last year anglers had both Memorial Day and Labor Day during a season that ran from May 24 through Sept. 7. But this year the state was ordered to cut landings by 4.2 percent because of overfishing in 2008, and the Marine Fisheries Council considered 10 options to accomplish that goal.
Well we all know that to be not true as 4 dollar gas kept marina's full, and most couldn't do better than 1 keeper in 40+ fish. So, where do these numbers that are used to make policy come from? And, what is the "agenda" of the people that make that policy?
In 2007 the "Final report of the marine fisheries committee" was delivered to the US Dept of Commerce. So first, who are these guys?
The Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee (MAFAC) advises the Secretary of Commerce on all living marine resource matters under the purview of the Department of Commerce. MAFAC members evaluate and assess national programs, recommend priorities, and provide their views on future directions. MAFAC members have a wide range of expertise, including but not limited to, commercial and recreational fishing, aquaculture, seafood processing, seafood marketing and sales, consumer interests, coastal communities, and environmental advocacy. MAFAC was established in 1970 to serve as a federal advisory body, complying fully with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Okay, so these are one of the big hitter groups that offer up "guidance" to the Commerce Dept, and that Dept has oversight Via the "National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration" over all things marine.
In their report titled "Vision 2020" They lay out the situation concerning our fisheries, the projections for it's taking and allotments, and plans on what they consider the right thing to do, to keep things sustainable. All good stuff right? Sure. Until you read the whole act. Then something glaring hits you right between the eyes. You start seeing labels like "LAPP" being tossed around. What's that? "limited access Priveledge Programs". In shorthand, licenses granted by the Feds, to certain "groups" that allow harvest.
Okay, maybe that's just mumbo jumbo for regulating the Comm's, right? Maybe. But what about direct reference to the Rec's? Ahh, the plot thickens.
In Appendix IV of their recommendations concerning Recreational fishing, we see this:
Issue Statement 1: Growth in populations and coastal tourism are resulting in increasing numbers of recreational fishermen. Therefore, the impact these fishermen are having on fish stocks is increasing. As this demand for recreational fishing continues to increase, recreational fishermen will request increases in fish allocated to the recreational sector.
Okay, that seems like a harmless assessment right? Sure. So, what do we read next?
Fisheries Statistical Survey data from the years 1981 to 2005 shows a near doubling nationally of marine recreational anglers from 6.9 million to 11.2 million or a growth rate of approximately 3 percent per year. The value of recreational fishing as an economic engine for coastal communities should be recognized and exploited to a greater degree. The recreational fishing experience could rival or exceed recreational fishing catch as a prime motivator for recreational fishing.
Ut oh. What is that last line about? "The recreational fishing experience could rival or exceed recreational fishing catch as a prime motivator for recreational fishing." The fishing experience? Excuse me? In other words, the "act" of fishing, not catching. Catch and release or photo shoots exceeding fishing "catch" as a motivator. Hmmm. Lets continue with their assesment before jumping to conclusions:
The current rate of increase in the angling population creates new management concerns. If the rate of recreational fishermen continues to increase at 3 percent per annum, by 2020 the number of recreational fishermen will increase by 7.3 million to a projected level of 18.5 million. This change will result in a significant increase of fishing effort and catch (i.e., mortality), all else equal. By 2020 continued growth in recreational angling will require that anglers focus more on the fishing experience and less on the number of fish landed. However, while post-release mortality in catch and release fisheries is usually low (often 2-5 percent), as fishing effort increases, post-release mortality will become an increasing proportion of total mortality. It is conceivable that the cumulative total of post-release mortality could increase to levels equal to the total allowable mortality for a fishery.
Ut oh again. Now we see two VERY interesting things happening here. First they say that By 2020 continued growth in recreational angling will require that anglers focus more on the fishing experience and less on the number of fish landed". That folks, is a major change from their paragraph right above it. In the first paragraph they say the "experience" could rival or exceed "catching" as a motivator for going fishing. Now they say it "will REQUIRE that anglers focus more on the "experience" than in the catch. That is a huge change from one paragraph to another. HMMM.
But wait.. they also mention that Catch and release has the problem of increased overall mortality, and "It is conceivable that the cumulative total of post-release mortality could increase to levels equal to the total allowable mortality for a fishery." Therefore, they are saying quite literally that catch and release "dead fish" could equal the allowable "take" and thus the fishery has then exceeded it's allotment. Remember this point, I'll get back to it.
Then we get down to the nitty gritty in their very next bullet point. In the next paragraph labeled "Preferred state in 2020" We read this incredible line : By 2020, angler satisfaction is derived from the recreational fishing experience rather than the take or “kill” fish.
Well there it is. It can be stated no clearer in any language. What this body prefer's is that everyone gets their jollies from the "act" of fishing, not taking any fish. If you combine that, with their statement of catch and release mortality equaling the actual fish allotment, you come to an interesting question.
Is it possible that this insane 18 inch minimum, which MAKES us put back 40 Average sized fish to keep 1, is their way of making sure that in the near future, release mortality will be their "proof" that we are still killing too many fish, and we must cut back even more?? It's not possible folks, its THE PLAN.
So, consider all this when you're "all in" for obeying their BS laws, and forever getting the shaft on allocations, dates, and sizes. People with big agenda's have a plan and that plan is to make recreational fishing something like bird watching, where the experience of going on the boat and making believe you're fishing is the same as giving up your shotgun and "photographing" the ducks instead.
Am I a conspiracy nut? Not really, everything all these global improvers want to achieve is in print, I just connect the dots. It's what I do.
Oh, here's the link to the actual PDF so you can read it all for yourself, and know I didn't just make this up.
So, there you have it. The plan to eliminate the recreational take of our oceans flounder, so that more are available for a select group of Commercial fishermen, with political ties. Now you understand why every time I hear of something that doesn't make sense to the average country boy, it's probably because there's an underlying agenda, and the rules were indeed laid out to further their plans, no matter how bizarre they sound.
|< Prev||Next >|