The Environmental Defense Fund, The Wall Street darlin' of environmental organizations has an aggressive plan to privatize the citizens resource, your fish, and destroy a relationship that has served resource owners, and those that harvest it for them, that operate on a percentage of the market price you pay.
The green washing corporate friendly group of lawyers, investment savvy free market environmentalists have it all figured out. They have developed a plan that is in line with Goldman Sachs commodity development, and it will cost us all a bundle.
Its killing jobs, and driving the cost of your fish through the roof.
Maybe this ruling will change the game.
A ruling by a federal court in California threatens to upset a controversial new fishing management plan embraced by environmental groups, including the Environmental Defense Fund and The Nature Conservancy.
In 2011, the regional council overseeing marine fisheries on the Pacific Coast instituted a kind of cap-and-trade program for the Pacific whiting fishery and the groundfish fishery, which includes fish such as Dover sole and petrale sole
In order to figure out each fisherman's - or corporation's - share, the Pacific Fishery Management Council reviewed catch level history from 1994 to 2003. Those who caught the most fish during those years got the biggest shares.
But a group of small-boat operators said they thought the way the council had divvied up those shares was unfair. So they sued the government, and last week, the judge ruled in their favor.
"The original allocation was illegal," said James Walsh, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, the operators of the Pacific Dawn and Chellissa, James and Sandra Schones, the Da Yang Seafood company and Jessie's Ilwaco Fish Co.
It "did not include the more recent history of harvesting and processing," he said, "thereby short-changing" those who have been consistently fishing the resource, "in favor of those who left the fishery prior to 2003."
He said the allocation favored fishermen who gamed the system by leaving in 2004 to build shares in an Alaska fishery that was structuring a similar management plan, as well as "certain environmental groups that bought permits but haven't used them for fishing."
The EDF/NOAA/Lubchenco goal is to convert 270 US fisheries to catch shares, which save not one fish, but cause job and infrastructure losses in fishing communities. What it does create is consolidation of opportunity ito the hands of a few permit holders.
These shares can be bought, sold, leased or traded like any commodity.
The allocation process determines who gets what based on historic individual activity.
In other words, those that drained the most from the resource historically, get the biggest chunk! Sounds fair,eh? Um, no.
The idea behind the change is that if a fisherman "owns" a piece of the resource, he or she will be a better steward of it.
Speaking of fair, and fishermen, there seems to be a disconnect of the terminology, fisherman.
Through this buy and sell process, the Nature Conservancy owns some fishing permits on the East Coast, and in the West Coast Trawl fishery! Can Nature Conservancy now be called a fisherman?
There were actually some nit wit permit owners that sold this ENGO fishing rites. NatCon has leased out the quota to a few West Coast share croppers, but the question is, and remains to be answered, what is the cost, and does NatCon realize net income from renting the quota? These arraignments are not public record.
I like that name. NatCon. Anyway.
There has been a flaw in turning the fishery in New England into Catch Shares, and it is included in an appeal to abolish the Catch Share scheme, and Congressman Barney Frank being the smart sob he is, included into the re authorization of Magnuson, Magnuson- Stevens Act, that the scheme could only be implemented with a 2/3 majority vote by fishermen. But what fishermen?
All fishermen that work in the industry!
That's only fair. After all, all fishermen have a vested interest in the operation. They only get paid for the catch.
Its not an hourly, weekly, or monthly salaried position. They get a share after the expenses are paid. Only if expenses are paid!
NOAA Administrator skirted that buy changing wording. Sector Management. Same thing only different.
The reason for this scheme is well documented, and its not a secret. Its not discussed by EDF unless its in the proper arena.
You won't see it in the fancy EDF web pages, or four colored glossy handouts with happy faces and polar bears.
If you were to follow them to the conferences held at the Milkin Institute or to the Economist's "World Ocean Summit", more in depthinformation is displayed. There must be a reason to do that, though, and most people are happy with the website!
I follow because I'm sick of the lie's, and the damage caused by the ENGO lie's. The EDF lie's. Lubchenco lies.
"Doing good while doing well" that's the fund raising slogan of the "free market environmentalists". This is a "Murphy Game" that makes Bernie Madoff's look like tidily winks.
Fred boasts that he brought the Environmental Defense Fund,from a paltry $3 million to now over $190 million in a mere 9 years---by "partnering with industry". What industries? Well, when St. Krupp was pressed by Charlie Rose during a TV interview he admitted that he favored extended Outer Continental Shelf oil drilling and the burning of "clean" coal---and "greenwashing" corporate monsters like the China Fishery?
There is one item that they haven't lied about,
And although a brief in the court case mentions that the Environmental Defense Fund owns permits, no evidence could be found to support that statement, and a spokesman for the organization denied any ownership.
"This allegation - that EDF owns permits - is flat-out wrong," said Tom Lalley, a spokesman for the Washington D.C.-based organization. "EDF does not, and has never, owned permits. Permit ownership is public record, and there are no records showing that EDF has owned quota or permits."
They don't want permits. They want investment opportunity.
Speaking of lies. There were two conflicting events held Feb 22-24. One in Capella,Singapore, and one in Utah.
The World Ocean Summit, and World Ocean Science Meeting.
As far as scientific representation, in attendance as a featured speaker speaker, Daniel Pauly,a real prize winner of various prizes and awards, and our own NOAA administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco.
She has served on several commissions, including the Pew Oceans Commission, the Joint Oceans Commission Initiative, the Aspen Institute Arctic Commission and the council of advisers for Google Ocean.
No mention of her EDF affiliation as a Vice President and Board Member.
We are under the impression that this The Economist’s World Ocean Summit would be about stewardship, and revitalization of the sea, correct? Hmm.
This conference was not about conservation, or science. This was about real money. Commodity money. Fish and Carbon.
As it turns out, this couldn't possibly be less about Marine Science as there were few Marine Scientists if any, in attendance.
Why would that be?
Because they excluded, and ignored 4300 ocean scientists who were attending the World Oceans Science Meeting in Utah, that, as luck would have it, were having their own convention.
“Media attention on has been diverted away from any cutting edge ocean science being presented here in Utah,” Professor Holly Bik told the Daily Telegraph.
“We’re all shaking our heads in disbelief. The bad timing of the Economist summit is simply inexcusable,” she added.
This certainly was an oversight!
Economist’s Asia Pacific editorial director Charles Goddard ruled out claims of a conspiracy to prevent the scientists from challenging the private sector's first debate on how to keep the oceans profitable.
Conspiracy? Claims of conspiracy??
“We are very, very sorry if the scientists felt excluded. But we never knew about their meeting,” he said.
Sorry Charlie. You brought up conspiracy. Professor Bik says its simply inexcusable. She's right.
How could world renowned but continuously disputed Daniel Pauly not know about such an important marine science event, and not mention the scheduling conflict. Surely he was aware of the World Oceans Science Meeting. He is not really my concern, though.
Jane Lubchenco, Under-secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is my concern, and should be every ones concern. Surely she was aware of the World Oceans Science Meeting.
NOAA had a presence at the World Oceans Science Meeting, but not hers.
She was where the money is.
This is about money. nothing more, nothing less.
http://dicky-g.newsvine.com/_news/2012/02/24/10499648-edf-the-china-fishery-and-the-theft-of-a-vital-resource
