PETITION TO PROTECT our American "RIGHTS", To use THE OREGON COAST FREE,With No user fee's

PETITION TO PROTECT Americans "RIGHTS", To use THE OREGON COAST




PETITION TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS ON THE OREGON COAST

Some of us support the idea of marine reserves; some
do not. We all want to keep the Oregon coast, ocean
seafloor and Oregon beaches available to all
Oregonians. Hasn't this all be debated once before. So
why are we to debate this again? This has to stop now!
So we oppose the creation of marine reserves which
sets aside even more coast, ocean seafloor and beaches
that, under federal law, much already very much like
marine reserves. In 2006, through Amendment 19, NO AA
Fisheries and the Pacific Fisheries Management Council
protected huge chunks of marine waters and seafloor
off the West Coast as Essential Fish Habitat (EFF).
There is EFF for ground fish, salmon, migratory
species and for other food resources. For ground fish,
it is from the high tide line to the 3,500 meter line.

Habitat areas of particular concern include reefs,
kelp, estuaries, sea mounts and undersea canyons. In
these previously established (2006) areas, regulators
may close off some or all fishing.

This is essential fish habitat that provides needed
food resources (lets not forget when Katrina destroyed
Louisiana, National Guards against their will were
required to arrest people for no more than catching
fish to feed themselves, according to media reports).

What exactly are the proposed new marine reserves
protecting? Financing a study of the existing areas
would show what works, what doesn't and what
corrections are needed. To close these areas to
fishing without clear knowledge of what has worked
seems harmful. What information and studies justify
closing these areas for fishing and showing people
have done more harm then what is being proposed. For
that matter what harm have people done in fishing and
enjoying their beaches? Don't these same people clean
the beaches annually and actively participate in
seeing to it they are kept from pollutants, filth, and
chemical endangerment.

Certainly without an independent study closing further
areas to fishing and human presence simply isn't
justified. Worse, yet, all this may be a preview of a
coming federal and/or state effort to zone and
privatize, resulting in closing off much of our
publicly owned ocean. As the proposed Senate and House
Bills as well as the media have already shown,
detailed areas will be set aside for undersea frozen
methane research and development (will this have any
effect on global warming or cause additional loss of
water); some areas are to be for huge fish farms (how
will the additives given to fish in these farms affect
our food supply or us); developing reserves for oil
and gas is of less importance than seeing to the
development of other energy sources and until they
exist having oil companies plants open and able to
process. An Honer the 1846 Treaty.
.
In time, all public access to fish whether
commercially, for subsistence and even for pleasure
will be lost. Families won't be able to take their
families to picnic, play volleyball in the sand, to
walk hand-in-hand on the beach anywhere on the Oregon
coast.
Losing our public right to access and enjoyment of our
beaches sets a precedent that will surely be followed
in other areas now available to the public. A legacy
entrusted to us and for which we've paid taxes to
sustain for generations will be lost.

Hon. Tom McCall proposed this without including his
constituents, the public - with no debate, no
discussion of the larger picture. We oppose having
this Bill which benefits many large corporations and
businesses at the expense of the tax paying public. We
sign
below to keep Oregon Shores in as Oregon's Territory
and Keeping the vision of Former Gov. Tom McCall, Not
to divide our community's and public’s access to the
beaches and our ocean’s coast.ODFW is Employee of the
General Public ,And IS NOT A PRIVATE CORPORATION,
Not to privatized any more Public lands




Sign: PRINT Name:
Date


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Mail to

your Oregon Senator and House

900 Court Street
NE, Salem, Oregon 97301

and local County, City Representatives in your local
area,

and local newspapers.




ODFW concerns


Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Concerns

Let’s not forget the Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife LIED to all of us in 2004. The cost was loss
of local jobs, lost tax revenue from local business in
counties and cities businesses closed and family
incomes were destroyed causing a welfare burden to the
middle class and working poor; including public and
private employees. This proposal affects all of us in
one form or another.

In the 2005 Senate hearings I testified to our natural
inherent. Former Representative Jeff Kropf stated that
they (ODFW) are not off the hook for damages they
(ODFW) caused to the taxpayer's.

ODFW "Recreational" Ground Fish Management Issues and
Closure

As an eighth generation American born I personally
feel it is our Constitutional right to feed ourselves
and not be dependent upon handouts, I'm a sustenance
fisherman from necessity, though commercial and
pleasure fishermen will also be affected.

Below are links to pertinent information you need to
form your opinion

















Status

The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission (OFWC) has
closed the sport fishery for major ground fish species
in all saltwater areas (including fishing from shore,
in estuaries and the ocean) effective Friday,
September 3, 2004. This closure includes all rock
fishes, ling cod and green ling. OFWC closed the
carbon sport harvest August 18 because the harvest cap
was claimed to be reached. Carbon have good survival
rates when released (because they do not have air
bladders), which allowed the Commission to impose
non-retention for carbon without affecting other
fisheries.

When a rock fish species attains its harvest target,
however, non-retention is not an option. Most rock
fish will suffer embolisms (because they have air
bladders), and will not survive landing and release.
Therefore, when the black rock fish cap was reached, a
full closure was necessary because most black rock
fish caught inadvertently with other ground fish
species would not survive. Federal and state harvest
management harvest limits are set for both commercial
and also by selected recreational fisheries. Harvest
caps result from the formal federal stock assessment
of each species.

The Oregon sport ground fish fishery has operated
under federally imposed impact limits for several
species designated by the agency to be "OVER-FISHED"
during recent years. This includes ling cod, canary
and yellow eye rock fish.

Harvest caps for these species are developed through
the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). The
Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission (OFWC) adopt these
caps for state waters (three miles from shore) and may
impose more restrictive (but not less restrictive)
conditions.

OFWC also sets management measures for near-shore
species and sets harvest caps for these species, which
include carbon, green ling, “other near shore rock
fish,” and black rock fish and blue rock fish
combined.

The Harvest Targets for 2004 (ODFW Claimed) allocated
76% for black rock fish in Oregon recreational and 24%
commercial.(But the truth is Commercial fishing has
more than 50% as stated at 2005 hearing on Senate Bill
805 regarding Public Resources without Public
Compensation)

The 2004 Oregon recreational targets for these species
are as follows. (The harvest as of August 22, 2004, is
in bold.) black rockfish (342 metric tons/322 mt),
canary rockfish (6.8 mt/3.0 mt), yelloweye (3.2 mt/2.1
mt), lingcod (110 mt/108 mt), cabezon (15.8 mt/ 17.2
mt closed 8-18-04), greenling (5.2 mt/4.3 mt) and
other nearshore rockfish (11.4 mt/6.5 mt).

Plus LETS NOT FORGET WE the public still had 80 mt to
go,(2004)

ODFW omitted that they closed it down when it didn't
need to be (Thank you Miss Burke for your honesty).
But as the former director Lindsey Ball stated, they
went for federal funds. So you understand Mr. Ball is
an Honorable MAN in my opinion he plays it by the
book.

Recent history of recreational harvest management

2003 California exceeded the entire West Coast harvest
of lingcod and canary rockfish in its sport and
commercial fishery. This caused a late season closure
for lingcod and an offshore closure to protect canary
rockfish COASTWIDE.

All three states were subject to this federal closure
in November.

Oregon and Washington sport and subsidence anglers
were strongly opposed to another state driving
closures coast wide.

Approximately 94 percent of the Oregon sport allowable
black rock fish take of 345 metric tons was harvested.
While this was extremely close to the limit, factors
such as weather and a healthy salmon fishery prevented
an early closure. We lost over 40 mt(down from 382
prior of 2004) harvest rate in roughly three years.

(2004)
With the support of the state’s sport fishing
community, Oregon worked with the PFMC to support
separate state stock fishery targets for the limiting
species such as black rock fish, ling-cod, canary and
yellow-eye. California imposed severe restrictions on
its sport fishery. For federal and local jobs and
money as well, California has closed its black
rock-fish fishery in the north most of this summer
through December.

New for the 2004 Oregon sport fishery were offshore
closures outside of 40-fathoms during the June through
September period to reduce impacts on canary rockfish
and yelloweye rockfish. This closure shifted fishing
effort closer to shore where more reef black rockfish
and lingcod harvest was likely. ODFW realized this had
the potential to drive early closure-sin 2004, but
scientific "models" did not have a way to predict
exactly how the fishery would shift. A strong salmon
year could have mitigated this shift, as occurred in
2003. Public decision-making should be done by the
general public only and represent the public's
opinion. Not by our public employees because that pose
a conflict of interest.

I attended many of the public meetings when ODFW held
a series of coast wide public meetings beginning in
March 2004 to discuss the 2004 fishery and options for
2005-2006 fisheries. The options and findings were to
be adopted under the federal PFMC process during 2004.

During those meetings the public was informed that the
result of the new offshore closures on angler behavior
was unknown and that catch of black rockfish, the
backbone of the sport groundfish fishery, could be
escalated, which might result in fishery closures as
early as September. Oregon’s sport monitoring program
is extensive. One in every three sport anglers is
interviewed at the landings, and ocean boat
observation provides data on discards. Data sets are
fact-checked and analyzed with a population model
factoring in length, weight and by-catch estimates.
This provides ODE with the ability to track the
fishery monthly.

Catch levels for black rock fish were evaluated
monthly through July 2004 when the catch was
approximately 242 of the 342 metric ton limit. With
100 metric tons remaining, ODE staff projected the
black rock fish fishery would sustain through Labor
Day and into September based on the modeling.

As summer continued, ODE staff made more frequent
estimates. After the first week in August 2004, the
sport catch was reviewed. Increased catch of black
rock fish was relatively minor as weather had been an
issue. During the next two weeks ocean conditions were
much improved, catch rates increased and the average
size of fish had increased. The poundage/catch impact
for ground fish species is in metric tons, not numbers
of fish, as with salmon.

A review of catch through August 22 (by ODE) resulted
in only 20 metric tons remaining of the sport black
rock fish limit. It takes several days after the catch
week for data from the field to be entered,
error-checked, analyzed and catch-estimated, thus it
was not until Friday, August 27, that this black rock
fish catch numbers were established. The numbers made
it clear that an early closure was necessary, but ODE
staff was not sure if the fishery could be sustained
through Labor Day weekend, which would greatly
mitigate impacts of the closure. It was decided to use
a manual call-in system to estimate the August 28-29
weekend harvest so that staff could establish whether
the fishery could remain open over Labor Day.

An informal emergency meeting with sport anglers,
charters, ports and community leaders and the Newport
media was set for Monday, August 30, at 10 a.m. at the
Marine Resources Program office in Newport. Others
along the coast joined in the discussion through a
conference call (approximately 40 individuals
participated). By 10 a.m., staff had hand-analyzed the
weekend sampling data, which showed that the harvest
exceeded 12 metric tons (of the remaining 20 mt), with
some ports still not reporting. It was clear that a
closure before Labor Day would be necessary. Within 30
minutes staff shared this information at the public
meeting. A number of options were discussed for
extending the fishery (hook and release in shallower
water, for example) or opening up other sport fishing
opportunities (salmon, halibut or yellow tail rock
fish in the deeper closed area), but because of
alleged enforcement concerns and the risk of
additional mortality, most suggestions had to be ruled
out and the black rock fish fishery had to be closed
in order not to exceed newly federally adopted limits.


Expanding sport halibut and salmon opportunities are
still being pursued. Staff analyzed public options,
briefed the department’s leadership and prepared a
final position by 4 p.m. Monday, August 30. A news
release was distributed by 5 p.m. At 7 p.m. a
previously scheduled halibut management public meeting
provided further opportunity to share this information
and discuss public concerns. In November it was stated
at a meeting held at the Embroidery in Newport that it
was determined that the agency (ODE) did not have to
close public fishing. But it was to late to open it up
again. By whom? Employees at ODFW???????.

Continuing sport-fishing opportunities
This closure does not limit all marine recreational
fishing opportunities. Anglers still may fish for
salmon, tuna, flounder, sole, sand dabs, perch,
herring, anchovy, striped bass and other offshore
pelagic species.

Commercial groundfish fishery
Commercial harvest of these species also is being
closely monitored. Projections are made on a biweekly
basis using fish ticket landings. Black rockfish were
projected to be harvested at a rate that would close
that fishery early, so the bimonthly trip limits were
severely reduced by an OFWC temporary rule in July.
All commercial fisheries for near shore species
currently are projected to be sustained to October 31
through trip limit controls. "NO public fishing"

What follows is a letter I wrote regarding this:

October 30, 2004

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Lindsay Ball, Director
3406 Cherry Ave.
Salem OR 97303

Dear Mr. Ball:

I am writing to present the recommendations of the
Lincoln County PAC for the upcoming sport/charter
groundfish season. A large number of ideas have been
presented, and the job is to work through them to
select the best or best combination.

1. If we have to reduce the catch and/or effort in
sport ground fishing, the best time to do it is during
the winter. These months are the period when many
groundfish species are giving birth to young, and
therefore is the time they and their offspring are
weakest and most need protection. Happily, this period
is also the time when there is already very little
groundfish fishing going on at the coast due to the
weather conditions. It is true that, over the years,
coastal businesses have struggled to bring business
into the coast in the winter. But that business is
still pretty small - far less than, say, the Labor Day
weekend. And it is not only the tiny groundfish sport
fishery that brings wintertime visitors. People come
to Newport and the rest of the Oregon coast for the
Seafood & Wine and similar festivals, and to enjoy
watching stormy seas from safe hotel rooms overlooking
the ocean. If we have to cut the groundfish charters,
the dead of winter is better than the high point of
summer or Labor Day - times when, many charter fishers
say, a cut in catch levels could hurt them at least as
much as a cut in winter sport catch. If we want to
protect weak species:

1. Closing the tiny winter season is probably the best
way to do it.

2. Also, many commercial fishers said that we should
allow a higher commercial trip limit, so as to have
fewer trips, while not changing total catch allowed.
This will save on gas and other costs without cutting
the revenues brought in. If we allow higher trip
limits - or at least don't cut them - in the summer,
we can to some extent make up for winter losses to the
broader coastal economy if we stop wintertime
groundfish sport catch.

3. It is a continuing scandal that we force fishers to
throw back large quantities of fish that are dead or
will, in many cases, die anyway - either because their
air bladders burst or because they are otherwise
injured or because they become weak and are easily
eaten by predators. We should find ways to use these
fish - other countries already commercially use many
species we do not - instead of killing them and
wasting them. For example, batfish can be used for cat
food processing, instead of just thrown out. As it is
now, lower dollar value fish get thrown back, like bat
fish, so fishers can get the extra volume of higher
value fish. If we had the fishers retain what they
catch, they could still make money, spend less time
out there (and less on gas and other costs) and not
wreck species not now used as commercial catch.
Here's a way to make ecological sense at minimal
economic cost.

We need the Elected and Public Official (IN HONORING
THEIR Oath’s), elected and Public employees,
environmentalists and the fishers to work together for
all our Americans children's food resources future.
These are ways to do so right.

Sincerely,

Ed Johnston

ODFW Recreational Groundfish Management Issues and
Closure

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/public/NewsArc/2004news/sept/090104news.html

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/Comm/schedule.htm

We have seen the Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife make serious mistakes (in my opinion), if not
worse, in the past. The stunning Labor Day weekend
closure of ground fishing in 2004 when there was no
need for it in terms of the condition of the protected
ground fish is certainly at the top of that list.
ODFW’s destruction of hatchery salmon runs is another.
The imposition of protections not only for fish that
professional fishermen, sport and subsistence fishers,
scientists and regulators believe are in trouble, but
also fish whose condition is in dispute - and even on
some species their own scientists say are not in
trouble. In one amazing Case the individual fishermen
reported having landed many more tons than ODFW had
stated were brought in by all Oregon fishermen, is
another example.

Fishing for many people on the Oregon Coast, and
elsewhere, is not a past time or hobby. It is a way of
feeding their families, enabling them to make ends
meet. For those it is a right to life (as in "life,
liberty and happiness" in the Declaration of
Independence, and "life, liberty or property" in the
USA Constitution). It is also a tradition that helps
define many of our cultures, our way of life. As a
source of food, salmon and other marine fish are among
the most nutritious and healthy around.
Due to the factors mentioned on the petition, we in
Oregon and many other coastal states will lose our
rights to fish, as well as our rights to enjoy and use
the ocean and the beaches.

XXX
Lets not forget that former Rep. Jeff Kropf and other
members of the state legislature stated that the state
and federal regulators are not off the hook for the
damages that they caused to the taxpayer's, citizens
and residents of Oregon. Lets not forget the agency
LIED to all of us in 2004,For Federal Grants as I was
told at a ODFW meetings in 2005-2006. XXX

As to ODFW's "Recreational" ground fish management,"
like so many other Oregonians, I want to know when we
lost the Rights to feed ourselves. Was it when the
agency attempted to take total control of Oregonians
food resources? Or when they made all these mistakes
in doing so? This is not “Recreational fishing."
Without fish, we do not eat right. This is the case
for all classes of fishermen, and under both the
constitution and the Declaration the fish belong to
all of us. The government and private interests have
only as much right as we allow. In my opinion,
commercial BY-Catch should be deducted from the
commercial industry only.
Its true ODFW has stated that only 4% of those fishing
are subsistence fisher persons. The 4% is so
negligible as to have no real effect. Certainly not
impinging upon their Constitutional right to feed them
self should be upheld. As ODFW has stated in June and
July 2006 meetings, it is federal MONEY that is more
important to them then Oregonians' Constitutional
right to feed themselves. We certainly do not want to
have our elected and pubic officials just sign away
our Americana's Constitutional rights. We need to work
with the agencies not 501(c)(3)agencies should not
allowed to have any authority over public land. Nor
should they dictate how public lands should be used.

But let us not forget to respect each other on this
very important issue.

For our family, friends, neighbors, elected and public
employees. We have to remember Oregonians all equally
share responsibility for our publicly owned coast and
resources we are stewards of the land for all
Americans to enjoy.

This is my opinion. I believe it may well be yours
after reading the information, citations and
documentation contained within the web sites listed
above. I am asking you to do your homework and make
informed decisions, so you and your children retain Yours and thier Consitional Rights and access to fishing, beaches, seashore and the joy our beautiful Oregon coast provides.
Also scientists can only give us a “Guesstimate” as
they have stated, because there is no way we can ever
know how many fish are in the oceans.



"Everything that is really great and inspiring is
created by the individual who can labor in freedom." -
Albert Einstein (1879-1959)




Ed Johnston
1540 N Nye St
Toledo,Oregon 97391



Lets not forget you will lose your constitutional and
civil rights to use your beaches, and why some are
willing to pay for for their born Americans "RIGHTS" of our FREEDOM of our American PUBLIC LANDS.

PEACE AND GOD BLESS YOU ALL.