We’ve heard it oft plenty that it’s expire a cliché, Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels’ supposed advice that
“If you lot say a prevarication large plenty in addition to proceed repeating it, people volition eventually come upwards to believe it. The prevarication tin alone live maintained for such fourth dimension every bit the State tin shield people from the political, economical and/or state of war machine consequences of the lie. It so becomes vitally of import for the State to purpose all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, in addition to so past times extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
The tilt itself may live apocryphal; at that spot is goodness argue to believe that Goebbels never said it, in addition to that it was genuinely a created out of a combination of Hitler’s before writings in addition to a Goebbels speech communication attacking English linguistic communication politics. Nevertheless, the chilling cynicism expressed inwards those words transcends the interrogation of when in addition to past times whom they were showtime uttered.
The philosophy is live in addition to good inwards the footing today, in addition to if you lot but supplant “military” amongst “ecological,” in addition to “the State” amongst “the fishing in addition to boating industry, in addition to the anglers’ rights groups,” you’ve got the H.R. 200/Modern Fish Act fence inwards a nutshell.
From the really start, the Modern Fish Act proponents maintained, at best, a distant, nodding acquaintance amongst the truth. Even though H.R. 2023, the Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act—which was the original “Modern Fish Act” bill—did non comprise a unmarried provision that would explicitly deter overfishing or speed the rebuilding of overfished stocks, its proponents tried to sell the pecker past times proverb that it would
“promot[e] conservation of our natural marine resources.”
“alternative [to annual select grip of limit] management for recreational fishing, reexamining fisheries allocation, smartly [i.e., to a greater extent than slowly] rebuilding fishery stocks, establishing exemptions where annual select grip of limits don’t gibe in addition to improving recreational information collection,”
none of which, except perchance the latter, promote conservation at all, although most could easily frustrate conservation efforts.
Ironically, ane Modern Fish Act advocate, who claimed to be
actually went so far every bit to say that
“Nothing inwards the Modern Fish Act undermines the fisheries conservation or sustainability tenants [sic] of [the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation in addition to Management Act]. It simply looks to strengthen MSA…”
At that point, the truth got upwards in addition to walked out the door.
But, since we’ve already accepted the tenet (and non the “tenant”) that “truth is the greatest enemy of the lie, in addition to so is the greatest enemy of the” Modern Fish Act supporters, that ought to live no surprise.
What the Modern Fish Act is intended to practise is growth anglers’ landings, in addition to if you lot e'er acquire around to reading the fine print, you'll larn that Modern Fish Act folks are genuinely trying to sell the proffer that a bigger recreational kill benefits conservation.
“Another victim of the scheme is conservation…A considerable constituent of the overall funding for the nation’s conservation efforts is inwards fact generated past times recreational fishing licenses in addition to excise taxes. This should non live taken lightly. It would devastate our natural resources if anglers in addition to boaters—who contribute $1.5 billion annually to fisheries in addition to habitat conservation through excise taxes, donations in addition to license fees—decided to throw inwards the towel due to lack of access.”
“Lack of access” is how Modern Fish Act proponents say “inability to overfish.”
So what the Center for Sportfishing policy is genuinely proverb is
“We take away hold to overfish our fish stocks inwards gild to conserve them.”
That doesn’t seem truthful to me, or fifty-fifty biologically feasible.
But if the repeat it oft enough…
And, past times the way, federal fisheries management, which is what Magnuson-Stevens and, ultimately, the Modern Fish Act addresses, is non funded past times fishing license or excise revenue enhancement revenues, so raising that number inwards a Modern Fish Act context is to a greater extent than than a picayune misleading, too.
But the really large prevarication told past times Modern Fish Act has alone emerged inwards recent months, afterward the House of Representatives marked upwards H.R. 200, the Strengthening Fishing Communities in addition to Increasing Flexibility inwards Fisheries Management Act, a pecker so bad that some conservation groups are referring to it every bit the “Empty Oceans Act” because of the effect it would take away hold on our natural resources.
H.R. 200 is most definitely not the House version of the Modern Fish Act; that’s H.R. 2023. But because H.R. 2023 never made it out of Committee, in addition to some of its provisions were added to H.R. 200, the anglers' rights, tackle manufacture in addition to boatbuilding groups trying to weaken Magnuson-Stevens started calling H.R. 200 the Modern Fish Act, inwards gild to convince recreational fishermen to back upwards the legislation.
“There’s a like pecker working through the U.S. Senate. On July 11, 2017, the Modern Fish Act—S. 1520 was introduced…That pecker was overwhelmingly approved on Feb. 28 past times the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, in addition to Transportation. From that stage, the pecker needs blessing past times the Senate…It volition so take away to live reconciled amongst the House bill, approved ane time to a greater extent than past times both chambers, in addition to so signed past times the president. [emphasis added]”
While the final judgement is a goodness in addition to honest description of the industry/anglers’ rights coalition’s strategy, the overall tilt is based on a big, blatant lie.
S. 1520, the Senate version of the Modern Fish Act, is not at all like to H.R. 200.
Let’s position it this way…
Depending on how you lot count the diverse titles, sections, subsections, etc., S. 1520, the Modern Fish Act, has well-nigh eleven provisions inwards mutual amongst H.R. 200. On the other hand, H.R. 200 contains well-nigh 30 provisions which are not in the Modern Fish Act.
Thus, to say that the so-called “Empty Oceans Act,” H.R. 200, is “a like bill” to S. 1520, the Modern Fish Act, is clearly a lie.
S. 1520 is far from a perfect bill, but it’s more-or-less innocuous, in addition to genuinely includes a worthwhile provision or two. If it passed, it would impose a few seemingly spiteful, nuisance provisions on the commercial fishing community, but it wouldn’t practise much, if any, existent in addition to lasting impairment to fish stocks.
On the other hand, many of the provisions that are unique to H.R. 200 would practise some existent harm. H.R. would exempt both the recreational in addition to commercial sectors from annual select grip of limits, designed to foreclose overfishing, inwards a number of fisheries. A far worse laid of provisions would practise vaguely-worded exceptions to the deadlines for rebuilding overfished stocks, exceptions so vaguely worded that they could arguably eliminate rebuilding deadlines for every federally-managed stock.
Thus, when Mike Leonard, the so-called “conservation director” for the American Sportfishing Association, the primary merchandise organisation for the fishing tackle industry, tries to discredit H.R. 200’s critics—remember, if they desire to sell the large lie, it is “vitally of import for the [industry in addition to anglers’ rights groups] to suppress dissent”—by saying
“It’s unfair in addition to inaccurate to characterize attempts to address the really legitimate problems amongst how the Magnuson-Stevens Act manages recreational fishing every bit ‘anti-conservation,’”
he runs into a really existent problem: Leonard in addition to his immature human being travelers take away hold enthusiastically embraced H.R. 200, in addition to there’s exactly no other agency to depict that bill, which assaults many of the pith conservation provisions of electrical flow law.
Trying to dismiss H.R. 200’s threat to the fishery management procedure past times saying
“most commercial in addition to recreational fishing organizations acknowledged that the pecker wasn’t perfect (no legislation is, for certain cypher so complicated in addition to amongst competing interests such every bit this), but supported it on the whole because it included provisions of import to each constituency,”
is a less-than-forthright whitewash.
H.R. 200 is an anti-conservation bill. A person, or an organization, tin live pro-conservation or pro-H.R. 200, but can’t live both.
If Leonard in addition to his confederates desire to avoid the “anti-conservation” label, they ought to halt supporting anti-conservation bills. And they take away to halt trying to convince anglers in addition to others that H.R. 200 is the “Modern Fish Act,” because that's a large lie.
To await at it from a dissimilar angle, of the roughly (again, depending on how you lot count them) 41 provisions of H.R. 200, it shares 11—or well-nigh 27%--of those provisions amongst the Modern Fish Act.
On the other hand, the average baboon shares well-nigh 91% of its deoxyribonucleic acid amongst humans.
Given those numbers, it becomes clear that an H.R. 200 supporter’s resemblance to a baboon is three times greater than H.R. 200’s resemblance to S. 1520, the real Modern Fish Act.
So don’t allow the manufacture in addition to anglers’ rights groups brand a monkey out of you. Don’t purchase their Big Lie.
Instead, contact both of your States senators, in addition to allow them know that you lot oppose S. 1520 because, every bit admitted inwards the quote above, passing that pecker volition allow H.R. 200 bypass the deliberative Senate procedure in addition to expire right away to conference amongst all of its anti-conservation provisions intact.
Magnuson-Stevens, our fish—and you--deserve ameliorate than that.
Tell folks that truth, in addition to prevail.
sa
Fishery Management's Big Lie
4/
5
Oleh
Admin
