Senator Pangelinan Implores Congresswoman to Participate in DEIS Review
Guam - Senator Ben Pangelinan has sent a letter to congresswoman Madeline Bordallo imploring her "participation in the review and analysis of the draft environmental impact statement."
Specifically Senator Pangelinan wants to draw the congresswoman's attention to the testimony submitted by the guam fisherman's co-op. The fisherman's co-op is concerned with the proposed dredging of the Apra harbor whereby the dredged materials which may contain contaminants will be dumped elsewhere in the ocean. The fisherman's co-op is asking that the "no action" alternative be selected as the establishment of an ocean dredged material disposal site in the waters of Guam will greatly affect the pristine condition of these waters.
Written by :
Clynt Ridgell
Showing posts with label Fishing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fishing. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Monday, September 28, 2009
Native group meeting
Native group meeting
Tuesday, 29 September 2009 02:12 Variety News Staff
(TNR)—The Taotaomona Native Rights group will meet on Oct. 3, from 2:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. at Plasan Maga' Lahi Hurao in Anigua near Adelup to discuss updates on the “Aboriginal Indigenous Native Fishing Rights” and the strategies for self-determination efforts.
For information, call Trini Torres at 477-0638, or email: trinit@ite.netThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
Tuesday, 29 September 2009 02:12 Variety News Staff
(TNR)—The Taotaomona Native Rights group will meet on Oct. 3, from 2:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. at Plasan Maga' Lahi Hurao in Anigua near Adelup to discuss updates on the “Aboriginal Indigenous Native Fishing Rights” and the strategies for self-determination efforts.
For information, call Trini Torres at 477-0638, or email: trinit@ite.netThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Marine Preservers Based on Faulty Analysis
Marine preserves based on faulty analysis
By John S. Calvo • August 12, 2009
Guam PDN
The Bill 190 opponents state that the Marine Protected Areas have been successful. The only thing successful has been their propaganda.
In the absence of a thorough review of important maps, a field trip around the island shows various obstacles (accessibility, natural boundaries, military bases, private property) inadvertently but effectively create marine preserves. If we already have natural, political and social marine preserves that take up 50 to 75 percent of our coastal areas, then what is the need for additional preserves?
The creation of Guam's marine preserves in Public Law 24-21 primarily focused on regulating only one user group -- the fishing community. The proponents of the MPAs will state that they used the best available science. According to the Marine Preserve two-year report to the Legislature in July 5, 2005, "Harvest and participation data obtained through the Inshore Fisheries Survey Project (F-1R, Subproject F-1, Study 1, Job 2) were used to justify the establishment of the marine preserves."
There are some major failures of the survey analysis. Why were only so many fish caught? Why were the conditions of harvest not part of the survey? Why were the variables such as water quality, runoff, etc., not also studied to rule these factors out in the determination that fish stocks were down due to overfishing? Why wasn't the habitat studied to rule out the health of the habitat as the reason for a reduction in fish stocks?
Science is a process of deduction. The best available science existed at the time to do these things; why it wasn't done or considered is baffling.
Wolanski and Richmond's 2004 study on Fouha Bay notes, "Until recently, the major strategy for coastal reef management is to rely on marine protected areas. Managers draw a line around coral reefs on a map, inside of which extractive and destructive activities are prohibited or regulated. ... This management practice has proven insufficient where coral reefs are found near land and where human activities within adjacent watersheds contribute to the decline of water and substratum quality."
This study indicates that even if fishing is eliminated, an area will continue to decline if other threats are left unabated. It also indicates a failure of government of Guam agencies to work together to solve the island's land use problems. Why must the fishing community suffer for the effects of land use practices and poor natural resource agency management?
Division of Aquaric and Wildlife Resources staff has frequently noted at public meetings that the marine preserve areas provide a "spillover" effect, where fish stocks within the preserve area will continue to reproduce and essentially fill up the preserve, causing fish to "spill over" into adjoining areas. Another version of the theory is that protecting fish stocks within an area will allow those fish to reproduce and the larvae would be transported out of the area and settle in adjoining areas.
Marine preserve areas do not work for all species. Ken Longenecker and Ross Langston presented at the 2007 Hawaii Conservation Conference on the biomass of three fish species in Haunama Bay and Maunalua Bay in Hawaii. Their findings suggest that in order for MPAs to be a beneficial tool for fisheries enhancement, biomass in the closed area must be at least double the open area. In their study, they found this is not happening in Hawaii's most famous and oldest no-fishing area. Their study suggests that MPAs are not a beneficial tool for fisheries management for the species that were studied.
Mark Tupper of the University of Guam Marine Laboratory studied the "Spillover of commercially valuable reef fishes from marine protected areas in Guam, Micronesia." He notes that "for most species and sites, biomass was significantly higher within the MPA's than in adjacent fished sites. Movement of fishes into and out of the MPAs were determined by mark-recapture experiments, in which fishes were tagged both inside and outside of MPAs. Four out of five species studied showed little or no net movement out of the MPAs."
This study demonstrates that MPAs can enhance export of fish biomass to fished areas, but spillover is species-specific and depends on factors such as species size and mobility. The study notes: "For the combination of all species, overall spillover was lowest at the Tumon MPA, where only 1.7 percent of all tagged biomass was exported."
Another problem with the "spillover" theory is that it can't be assumed to work in any area that becomes protected. Spillover may work for certain species, but only if the boundaries and locations are chosen correctly.
The study by Tupper mentioned previously also noted that "Patterns of spillover were strongly influenced by physical habitat barriers, such as channels, headlands, or other topographic features. MPAs that are physically connected by contiguous reef structures will likely provide more spillover to adjacent fished sites than those that are separated by habitat barriers."
Tupper's conclusion states: "Knowledge of fish movement patterns with respect to reef topography may be useful for choosing MPA boundaries in order to maximize spillover of target species."
In determining the location of any marine protected area, it is also beneficial to consider those areas that already are least accessible due to the natural, political and other obstacles. For centuries these have provided for natural spillover, which have made the cultural and traditional fishing areas productive. Mitigation of land use detriments and a review and possible reassignment of coastal development and tourism activities to more suitable locations will enhance the natural resource and provide opportunity for sustainable use.
The decision to make these areas MPAs were primarily due to their "productivity," however, their productivity may have been caused by the fact that these areas were the spillover points from the less accessible and more dangerous fishing areas that surround them.
The spillover theory does have some merit, as it will work for certain species, if the location is chosen correctly and the boundaries are appropriate. However, applying the spillover theory to Guam's current marine preserve areas is far-fetched. The creation of the MPAs was not able to take into account these findings and the MPAs were put in places that the people of Guam used for fishing.
The Legislature should look at repealing or amending Public Law 21-24 so that other management tools (or proper MPAs) can be developed to protect Guam's coastal resources.
There are some problems with Bill 190, which can be fixed, but it does put the MPA discussion back on the table. Our natural resource agencies need to stop avoiding their responsibilities. We need accountability.
John S. Calvo is resident of Tamuning-Tumon.
By John S. Calvo • August 12, 2009
Guam PDN
The Bill 190 opponents state that the Marine Protected Areas have been successful. The only thing successful has been their propaganda.
In the absence of a thorough review of important maps, a field trip around the island shows various obstacles (accessibility, natural boundaries, military bases, private property) inadvertently but effectively create marine preserves. If we already have natural, political and social marine preserves that take up 50 to 75 percent of our coastal areas, then what is the need for additional preserves?
The creation of Guam's marine preserves in Public Law 24-21 primarily focused on regulating only one user group -- the fishing community. The proponents of the MPAs will state that they used the best available science. According to the Marine Preserve two-year report to the Legislature in July 5, 2005, "Harvest and participation data obtained through the Inshore Fisheries Survey Project (F-1R, Subproject F-1, Study 1, Job 2) were used to justify the establishment of the marine preserves."
There are some major failures of the survey analysis. Why were only so many fish caught? Why were the conditions of harvest not part of the survey? Why were the variables such as water quality, runoff, etc., not also studied to rule these factors out in the determination that fish stocks were down due to overfishing? Why wasn't the habitat studied to rule out the health of the habitat as the reason for a reduction in fish stocks?
Science is a process of deduction. The best available science existed at the time to do these things; why it wasn't done or considered is baffling.
Wolanski and Richmond's 2004 study on Fouha Bay notes, "Until recently, the major strategy for coastal reef management is to rely on marine protected areas. Managers draw a line around coral reefs on a map, inside of which extractive and destructive activities are prohibited or regulated. ... This management practice has proven insufficient where coral reefs are found near land and where human activities within adjacent watersheds contribute to the decline of water and substratum quality."
This study indicates that even if fishing is eliminated, an area will continue to decline if other threats are left unabated. It also indicates a failure of government of Guam agencies to work together to solve the island's land use problems. Why must the fishing community suffer for the effects of land use practices and poor natural resource agency management?
Division of Aquaric and Wildlife Resources staff has frequently noted at public meetings that the marine preserve areas provide a "spillover" effect, where fish stocks within the preserve area will continue to reproduce and essentially fill up the preserve, causing fish to "spill over" into adjoining areas. Another version of the theory is that protecting fish stocks within an area will allow those fish to reproduce and the larvae would be transported out of the area and settle in adjoining areas.
Marine preserve areas do not work for all species. Ken Longenecker and Ross Langston presented at the 2007 Hawaii Conservation Conference on the biomass of three fish species in Haunama Bay and Maunalua Bay in Hawaii. Their findings suggest that in order for MPAs to be a beneficial tool for fisheries enhancement, biomass in the closed area must be at least double the open area. In their study, they found this is not happening in Hawaii's most famous and oldest no-fishing area. Their study suggests that MPAs are not a beneficial tool for fisheries management for the species that were studied.
Mark Tupper of the University of Guam Marine Laboratory studied the "Spillover of commercially valuable reef fishes from marine protected areas in Guam, Micronesia." He notes that "for most species and sites, biomass was significantly higher within the MPA's than in adjacent fished sites. Movement of fishes into and out of the MPAs were determined by mark-recapture experiments, in which fishes were tagged both inside and outside of MPAs. Four out of five species studied showed little or no net movement out of the MPAs."
This study demonstrates that MPAs can enhance export of fish biomass to fished areas, but spillover is species-specific and depends on factors such as species size and mobility. The study notes: "For the combination of all species, overall spillover was lowest at the Tumon MPA, where only 1.7 percent of all tagged biomass was exported."
Another problem with the "spillover" theory is that it can't be assumed to work in any area that becomes protected. Spillover may work for certain species, but only if the boundaries and locations are chosen correctly.
The study by Tupper mentioned previously also noted that "Patterns of spillover were strongly influenced by physical habitat barriers, such as channels, headlands, or other topographic features. MPAs that are physically connected by contiguous reef structures will likely provide more spillover to adjacent fished sites than those that are separated by habitat barriers."
Tupper's conclusion states: "Knowledge of fish movement patterns with respect to reef topography may be useful for choosing MPA boundaries in order to maximize spillover of target species."
In determining the location of any marine protected area, it is also beneficial to consider those areas that already are least accessible due to the natural, political and other obstacles. For centuries these have provided for natural spillover, which have made the cultural and traditional fishing areas productive. Mitigation of land use detriments and a review and possible reassignment of coastal development and tourism activities to more suitable locations will enhance the natural resource and provide opportunity for sustainable use.
The decision to make these areas MPAs were primarily due to their "productivity," however, their productivity may have been caused by the fact that these areas were the spillover points from the less accessible and more dangerous fishing areas that surround them.
The spillover theory does have some merit, as it will work for certain species, if the location is chosen correctly and the boundaries are appropriate. However, applying the spillover theory to Guam's current marine preserve areas is far-fetched. The creation of the MPAs was not able to take into account these findings and the MPAs were put in places that the people of Guam used for fishing.
The Legislature should look at repealing or amending Public Law 21-24 so that other management tools (or proper MPAs) can be developed to protect Guam's coastal resources.
There are some problems with Bill 190, which can be fixed, but it does put the MPA discussion back on the table. Our natural resource agencies need to stop avoiding their responsibilities. We need accountability.
John S. Calvo is resident of Tamuning-Tumon.
Monday, August 10, 2009
An Independent Guam
EGuam on its own
Monday, 10 August 2009 00:31 Letter to the Editor .
THIS is the picture of an independent Guam that I have in my mind. The United States keeps Anderson Air Force Base here simply as a military outpost in the Pacific and as our security. All other lands in military inventories are reverted to GovGuam, being distributed and used at our discretion.
American dollar remains to be our currency, like other independent Pacific nations that have this form of security and currency arrangement. With a stable government and currency comes investors’ confidence. All existing free enterprises continue. All jobs are retained. Mortgages and bills get paid. Now we invest in our selves.
We can take advantage of our proximity to the ocean. We can invest and develop the following initiatives:
A storage facility to accommodate fish harvests from the entire Micronesian region;
A fish cannery;
A transit point for distribution of Micronesian fish to the world;
A fueling and replenishment point for the fishing fleets. In addition to fueling, vessels can replenish supplies such as food, fishing inventory and labor.
Because of our proximity to Micronesia and Asia, these ideas are feasible and will stimulate the development of more businesses. Thousands of new jobs will be created and new monies will be infused into our economy. With new monies we will live better.
Our hospital, utilities, roads, trash and other services will be better maintained. And the domino effect will touch individual lives.
I am not talking about going back to coconut huts and grass skirts. We can leave those for the tourists to marvel at. I like my computer, cell phone, the mall, movies and my car, but I also feel that it is our destiny as a people to decide our fate, for better or worse. It is our birth right.
Caged things must be set free at some point. As with our children, even with all our investment, time and love, there comes the time when we have to let them seek their own path.
Ben “Sinahi” del Rosario
Mangilao
Monday, 10 August 2009 00:31 Letter to the Editor .
THIS is the picture of an independent Guam that I have in my mind. The United States keeps Anderson Air Force Base here simply as a military outpost in the Pacific and as our security. All other lands in military inventories are reverted to GovGuam, being distributed and used at our discretion.
American dollar remains to be our currency, like other independent Pacific nations that have this form of security and currency arrangement. With a stable government and currency comes investors’ confidence. All existing free enterprises continue. All jobs are retained. Mortgages and bills get paid. Now we invest in our selves.
We can take advantage of our proximity to the ocean. We can invest and develop the following initiatives:
A storage facility to accommodate fish harvests from the entire Micronesian region;
A fish cannery;
A transit point for distribution of Micronesian fish to the world;
A fueling and replenishment point for the fishing fleets. In addition to fueling, vessels can replenish supplies such as food, fishing inventory and labor.
Because of our proximity to Micronesia and Asia, these ideas are feasible and will stimulate the development of more businesses. Thousands of new jobs will be created and new monies will be infused into our economy. With new monies we will live better.
Our hospital, utilities, roads, trash and other services will be better maintained. And the domino effect will touch individual lives.
I am not talking about going back to coconut huts and grass skirts. We can leave those for the tourists to marvel at. I like my computer, cell phone, the mall, movies and my car, but I also feel that it is our destiny as a people to decide our fate, for better or worse. It is our birth right.
Caged things must be set free at some point. As with our children, even with all our investment, time and love, there comes the time when we have to let them seek their own path.
Ben “Sinahi” del Rosario
Mangilao
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Senator Pass Indigenous Fishing Rights Bill
Senators pass Guthertz's fishing rights bill
By Brant McCreadie
KUAM
Published Dec 23, 2008
Senator Judi Guthertz's Bill 327 provides indigenous fishing rights, which went up for a public hearing Monday. "I am very committed to the intent of this bill and I believe it sets a program where finally indigenous fishing practices and traditions can be recognized," said the Democrat policymaker.
The vote for the bill's passage was unanimous. The new law mandates the Department of Agriculture and a fishing council made up of grassroots organizations to develop rules to allow indigenous fishermen to practice traditional forms of fishing within the preserves.
Related links
Bill 327
By Brant McCreadie
KUAM
Published Dec 23, 2008
Senator Judi Guthertz's Bill 327 provides indigenous fishing rights, which went up for a public hearing Monday. "I am very committed to the intent of this bill and I believe it sets a program where finally indigenous fishing practices and traditions can be recognized," said the Democrat policymaker.
The vote for the bill's passage was unanimous. The new law mandates the Department of Agriculture and a fishing council made up of grassroots organizations to develop rules to allow indigenous fishermen to practice traditional forms of fishing within the preserves.
Related links
Bill 327
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
First Our Land, Now Our Ocean
ben's Pen: First our land, now our ocean
28 October 2008
by Sen. Ben Pangelinan
Guam Variety News
First they liberated us from the Japanese. It was a brutal occupation where lives were lost and the people suffered tremendously at the hands of the oppressors and occupiers.
For this the people were eternally grateful and when they said they needed our lands to ensure that such an occupation would never occur again in our lifetime, willingly, a grateful generation surrendered up the lands.
For most of that grateful generation, time is now eternal. They have passed from this earth and are now in a place of eternal rest.
Those remaining behind have seen the truth, no longer colored with gratefulness. The treatment and injustices have erased the goodwill of liberation.
And now they come for more. This time, they want our ocean and deny us of its bounty, which have supported our lives and our families through thousands of years. They want to preserve and conserve, but we have done this for centuries. The only reason they can make such a case today is because we have successfully done so for hundreds of years. But they want to dictate once again on their terms.
But this time, we are not hampered by gratefulness. Among us are vigilant citizens and responsible stewards of our resources.
Mr. Manny Duenas of the Fisherman's Co-op and the other members of the fishing community of Guam who took the initiative to learn about and spread the information regarding President Bush's proposed establishment of a Conservation Area surrounding the Marianas Trench are such.
Ever watchful, the recent meeting was not called by any federal or local government office or elected official, but was organized solely by the community-minded efforts of Manny and others.
Manny and others printed colored maps of the areas potentially affected, comment forms, the August memorandum from President Bush initiating the process, and other relevant information so that we on Guam could quickly educate ourselves and comment before the deadline which was only days away.
His direct efforts resulted in the attendance of NOOA officials, a representative of the federal Council for Environmental Quality, Congresswoman Bordallo, and many of our local fishermen and community members.
The information Manny presented at the meeting, and in particular the President's memorandum, immediately confirmed that restrictions resulting from the establishment of a conservation area of such great scale and without little input on the eve of the largest increase in military activity and equipment in US history affecting the same land and ocean area would "not limit the Department of Defense from carrying out the mission of the various branches of the military stationed or operating within the Pacific."
I object to any further restriction of the local people, especially Guam fishermen, from access to these areas while the military and other international or US commercial access continues.
A matter with tremendous significance for not only the fishermen but for ALL of the people of Guam should have been brought to us and our input solicited by government representatives with more resources for public education purposes, and especially by the federal agencies purporting to work with Guam on matters regarding our oceans, our environment, and our economic viability.
I am proud of and commend these private citizens who despite the odds against the people of Guam having an impact on federal action by the President in this case, are not only brave enough and love Guam enough to stand up for themselves but to also make the great effort to invite and assist all of us on Guam to speak up for ourselves.
They are truly public servants and public leaders.
ben pangelinan is a Senator in the 29th Guam Legislature and a former Speaker now serving his seventh term in the Guam Legislature. E-mail comments or suggestions to senbenp@guam.net.
28 October 2008
by Sen. Ben Pangelinan
Guam Variety News
First they liberated us from the Japanese. It was a brutal occupation where lives were lost and the people suffered tremendously at the hands of the oppressors and occupiers.
For this the people were eternally grateful and when they said they needed our lands to ensure that such an occupation would never occur again in our lifetime, willingly, a grateful generation surrendered up the lands.
For most of that grateful generation, time is now eternal. They have passed from this earth and are now in a place of eternal rest.
Those remaining behind have seen the truth, no longer colored with gratefulness. The treatment and injustices have erased the goodwill of liberation.
And now they come for more. This time, they want our ocean and deny us of its bounty, which have supported our lives and our families through thousands of years. They want to preserve and conserve, but we have done this for centuries. The only reason they can make such a case today is because we have successfully done so for hundreds of years. But they want to dictate once again on their terms.
But this time, we are not hampered by gratefulness. Among us are vigilant citizens and responsible stewards of our resources.
Mr. Manny Duenas of the Fisherman's Co-op and the other members of the fishing community of Guam who took the initiative to learn about and spread the information regarding President Bush's proposed establishment of a Conservation Area surrounding the Marianas Trench are such.
Ever watchful, the recent meeting was not called by any federal or local government office or elected official, but was organized solely by the community-minded efforts of Manny and others.
Manny and others printed colored maps of the areas potentially affected, comment forms, the August memorandum from President Bush initiating the process, and other relevant information so that we on Guam could quickly educate ourselves and comment before the deadline which was only days away.
His direct efforts resulted in the attendance of NOOA officials, a representative of the federal Council for Environmental Quality, Congresswoman Bordallo, and many of our local fishermen and community members.
The information Manny presented at the meeting, and in particular the President's memorandum, immediately confirmed that restrictions resulting from the establishment of a conservation area of such great scale and without little input on the eve of the largest increase in military activity and equipment in US history affecting the same land and ocean area would "not limit the Department of Defense from carrying out the mission of the various branches of the military stationed or operating within the Pacific."
I object to any further restriction of the local people, especially Guam fishermen, from access to these areas while the military and other international or US commercial access continues.
A matter with tremendous significance for not only the fishermen but for ALL of the people of Guam should have been brought to us and our input solicited by government representatives with more resources for public education purposes, and especially by the federal agencies purporting to work with Guam on matters regarding our oceans, our environment, and our economic viability.
I am proud of and commend these private citizens who despite the odds against the people of Guam having an impact on federal action by the President in this case, are not only brave enough and love Guam enough to stand up for themselves but to also make the great effort to invite and assist all of us on Guam to speak up for ourselves.
They are truly public servants and public leaders.
ben pangelinan is a Senator in the 29th Guam Legislature and a former Speaker now serving his seventh term in the Guam Legislature. E-mail comments or suggestions to senbenp@guam.net.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Bill Will Waive Fishing and Hunting Fees for Veterans
Bill 354 seeks to waive fishing & hunting fees for veterans
by Ronna Sweeney, KUAM News
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Lawmakers have recently introduced a measure that seeks to waive fishing and hunting license fees for veterans. If Bill number 354 is passed into law, no fee, including application and issuance fees, may be charged to an applicant who is a veteran for a license, permit, stamp, tag, certificate to hunt, fish, trap or otherwise lawfully take fish or wildlife.
Under the proposed law authored by Senators B.J. Cruz, Frank Blas, Judi Guthertz, Rory Respicio and Tina Muna-Barnes, the veteran would need a copy of their military discharge form or DD-214, which they would then to present to the Guam Department of Agriculture for the waiver.
by Ronna Sweeney, KUAM News
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Lawmakers have recently introduced a measure that seeks to waive fishing and hunting license fees for veterans. If Bill number 354 is passed into law, no fee, including application and issuance fees, may be charged to an applicant who is a veteran for a license, permit, stamp, tag, certificate to hunt, fish, trap or otherwise lawfully take fish or wildlife.
Under the proposed law authored by Senators B.J. Cruz, Frank Blas, Judi Guthertz, Rory Respicio and Tina Muna-Barnes, the veteran would need a copy of their military discharge form or DD-214, which they would then to present to the Guam Department of Agriculture for the waiver.
Friday, August 01, 2008
Chamorro Fishing Rights Debated
Native fishing rights nets debate at Legislature
by Clynt Ridgell, KUAM News
Friday, August 01, 2008
The Guam Legislature was filled to capacity as activists and agriculture officials testified on legislation on Thursday that would provide special fishing rights to native Chamorros. Josephine Jackson has spearheaded several protests to promote native fishing rights.
She testified, "We're not saying anything about the preserve is bad but you know give us Chamorros the Taotaotano to go fishing in our own homeland. It's been 11 years since the preserve was open and just recently just last year two of our people got arrested and ever since last year they started opening the preserves little by little so what we're trying to do is open the preserve for the Chamorros here on Guam to go start fishing in our ocean waters.
Bill 327 would allow for special rights for chamorros to off-shore fishing and harvesting of resources. According to the Department of Agriculture's Acting Chief of the Aquatic and Wildlife Division Tino Aguon by allowing fishing in marine preserves it would hamper efforts to replenish fish stocks.
Aguon said, "We are at a stage in which we've set up these marine preserves areas and basically the way the bill is written will provide basically negate many of the accomplishments and land mark forward accomplishments and great strides that we've done to regain and restore a lot of the marine resources that we enjoy in those marine protected areas."
by Clynt Ridgell, KUAM News
Friday, August 01, 2008
The Guam Legislature was filled to capacity as activists and agriculture officials testified on legislation on Thursday that would provide special fishing rights to native Chamorros. Josephine Jackson has spearheaded several protests to promote native fishing rights.
She testified, "We're not saying anything about the preserve is bad but you know give us Chamorros the Taotaotano to go fishing in our own homeland. It's been 11 years since the preserve was open and just recently just last year two of our people got arrested and ever since last year they started opening the preserves little by little so what we're trying to do is open the preserve for the Chamorros here on Guam to go start fishing in our ocean waters.
Bill 327 would allow for special rights for chamorros to off-shore fishing and harvesting of resources. According to the Department of Agriculture's Acting Chief of the Aquatic and Wildlife Division Tino Aguon by allowing fishing in marine preserves it would hamper efforts to replenish fish stocks.
Aguon said, "We are at a stage in which we've set up these marine preserves areas and basically the way the bill is written will provide basically negate many of the accomplishments and land mark forward accomplishments and great strides that we've done to regain and restore a lot of the marine resources that we enjoy in those marine protected areas."
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Iyo-ta Tasi
Our ocean, our life
Editorial
Marianas Variety
12/5/07
FISHERIES in the central and western Pacific region are not in good shape. The commercially important fish populations may not yet be “fully fished” at this point but they are in danger of heading toward that direction. Even the fishing industry cannot much longer ignore the obvious.
The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission’s Scientific Committee reported that the yellowfin stock is “fully exploited” with “a minimum 47 percent probability” that overfishing is occurring within the regulated zone. The stock of bigeye tuna, according to the committee, is “not in an overfished state” but overfishing of this specie has been observed.
Tuna fishing is a major industry for islands that export to Japan, which consumes a quarter of the world’s tuna supply.
The FSM’s own tuna stock is assessed at 130,000 tons valued at $3 billion. That’s the amount that the Micronesia region would lose if overfishing is not kept in check and would result in the depletion of the tuna stock.
What we need is a system of regional — or global — discipline.
With that in mind, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, an international commission representing 33 fishing nations and islands, is now in session to revisit its agreement to reduce the catch of yellowfin and bigeye tuna.
The efforts to reduce tuna catches and enforce fishing regulations, however, are hampered by lack of resources, such as fleets with adequate monitoring systems to detect illegal fishers. This is definitely one area that the regional commission must immediately address.
Another factor that pointlessly contributes to the destruction of marine ecology is “bycatching.” This is a process by which fish are inadvertently caught and thrown back, usually dead, because they are not the target fish to be sold in the market.
According to fishery experts, about 20 million tons of fish are wasted in this way.
The commission’s member-nations and islands must therefore see to it that only acceptable fishing methods and gadgets are allowed in their areas of responsibility. One of the most destructive fishing methods is the use of large drift nets, which was banned by the United Nations in 1991.
Enforcing tough restrictions on fishing is a logical step, so is imposing a quota on tuna catch. Along with these measures, developing restoration plans would not be a bad idea even though the region may not have yet reached the “overfished state.”
Why wait ‘till that happens?
Editorial
Marianas Variety
12/5/07
FISHERIES in the central and western Pacific region are not in good shape. The commercially important fish populations may not yet be “fully fished” at this point but they are in danger of heading toward that direction. Even the fishing industry cannot much longer ignore the obvious.
The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission’s Scientific Committee reported that the yellowfin stock is “fully exploited” with “a minimum 47 percent probability” that overfishing is occurring within the regulated zone. The stock of bigeye tuna, according to the committee, is “not in an overfished state” but overfishing of this specie has been observed.
Tuna fishing is a major industry for islands that export to Japan, which consumes a quarter of the world’s tuna supply.
The FSM’s own tuna stock is assessed at 130,000 tons valued at $3 billion. That’s the amount that the Micronesia region would lose if overfishing is not kept in check and would result in the depletion of the tuna stock.
What we need is a system of regional — or global — discipline.
With that in mind, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, an international commission representing 33 fishing nations and islands, is now in session to revisit its agreement to reduce the catch of yellowfin and bigeye tuna.
The efforts to reduce tuna catches and enforce fishing regulations, however, are hampered by lack of resources, such as fleets with adequate monitoring systems to detect illegal fishers. This is definitely one area that the regional commission must immediately address.
Another factor that pointlessly contributes to the destruction of marine ecology is “bycatching.” This is a process by which fish are inadvertently caught and thrown back, usually dead, because they are not the target fish to be sold in the market.
According to fishery experts, about 20 million tons of fish are wasted in this way.
The commission’s member-nations and islands must therefore see to it that only acceptable fishing methods and gadgets are allowed in their areas of responsibility. One of the most destructive fishing methods is the use of large drift nets, which was banned by the United Nations in 1991.
Enforcing tough restrictions on fishing is a logical step, so is imposing a quota on tuna catch. Along with these measures, developing restoration plans would not be a bad idea even though the region may not have yet reached the “overfished state.”
Why wait ‘till that happens?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)