Posts

A fisherman sues the feds for acting like crooks

Photo credit: NOAA

As raw December 1998 swept over the Atlantic off New Bedford, Mass., scallop fisherman Larry Yacubian brought around his boat, Independence, hailed by the Coast Guard. The officers who boarded his fishing vessel didn’t tell Yacubian it was a setup to coerce out of him a ruinous fine and to destroy his life so thoroughly he could never get it back.

Captain Yacubian lost his business, his boat, his license to fish — and literally the farm that had been in the family for generations — trying to exonerate himself of false accusations that he had been fishing in a prohibited area and free himself from a malicious prosecution for lies that he never told. His persecutor? The Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Two weeks ago, Captain Yacubian filed the lawsuit that may well restore his money and his life after nearly 15 years of gut-wrenching bludgeoning by the NOAA.

The Commerce Department’s inspector general reviewed the NOAA’s Asset Forfeiture Fund — where Yacubian’s $430,000 fine went — and found that “these funds were used to purchase ‘luxurious’ undercover vessels, buy 202 vehicles for a staff of 172 enforcement personnel, and take trips around the world.”

A special investigative judge concluded there is “credible evidence that money was NOAA’s motivating objective in this case.” There’s also knowledgeable belief that the NOAA’s purpose is to eradicate the fishing industry.

Read more from this story HERE.

Prepping to fight Shell Oil production: Biologists commence study of Chukchi Sea life

Photo credit: thomas toohey brown

A group of researchers has embarked on the first comprehensive study of marine life in the eastern Chukchi Sea near Alaska. Their findings will be used by the Department of the Interior to help decide whether to grant future leases for offshore oil exploration and drilling in the region, and to regulate transportation and future fishing.

“We are going up there to look at the oceanography, plankton, fish and crab in the region,” said Michael Sigler, a marine biologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s fisheries service in Alaska.

Little baseline data has been collected in the region, which is currently little-trafficked and fished due to its remoteness and its ice-choked waters. As ice cover throughout the Arctic decreases, however, these pursuits are likely to increase.

Although surveys have been conducted in both the Beaufort and Chukchi seas since 1959, U.S. fishery research in the Arctic has been infrequent and limited in scope, according to a statement from NOAA. A similarly comprehensive survey of the northern Bering Sea was not conducted until 2010. [Images: Creatures of the Bering Sea]

The new study is primarily meant to gather data for scientists and to avoid negative impacts of oil exploration in the region, Sigler told OurAmazingPlanet. (Royal Dutch Shell has been granted a lease to drill exploratory wells in the area, and the company hopes to begin in the next few weeks, according to the Reuters news service.)

Read more from this story HERE.

Ballot Measure 2: ‘Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing’

 

Photo credit: bdearth

Alaskans will find a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’ at the voting booth on August 28th. Ballot Measure 2, the ‘Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program’ (ACZMP) is bad for Alaska!

State versus Federal control is how Ballot Measure 2 is being marketed, but if Alaskans adopt this highly flawed and convoluted Coastal Management Program, who actually gains control?

Measure 2’s sponsor, deceptively named the ”Alaska Sea Party,” argues for state control but their ACZMP is simply an extension of Federal anti-development laws, so what difference would that make? Most conservatives would agree conceptually with state control, but serious problems are presented by this 700+ word initiative, the longest and most complex ever to go before the Alaskan voters.

The Juneau-based Alaska Sea Party’s initiative is advertised as an expanded version of the prior sunsetted Coastal Management Program but really bears little resemblance to it (more on this later). This new version accommodates special interests and adds additional layers of unnecessary bureaucracy to an already complex permitting process — more red tape to effectively delay or prevent permitting for many projects beneficial to Alaskans. But this is just the tip of the iceberg.

The initiative creates the ‘Alaska Coastal Policy Board,’ consisting of thirteen Governor-appointed members, nine nominated from coastal regions and 4 from state agencies. This may sound reasonable until you realize that veto-proof control would be in the hands of powerful unelected board members unaccountable to the voters. Furthermore, board members would not be required to have any technical or permitting knowledge; rather, they are simply “nominated” by region. ‘Representation’ on the Alaska Coastal Policy Board would result in only two board members voting for three quarters of our state’s population. Or put another way, an overwhelming majority of the board members voting would represent only one quarter of Alaska’s population.

This power shift is made crystal clear when you realize that Anchorage and the Mat-Su combined get one single vote. Nome and its neighboring villages also get one vote. Fairbanks and the Interior get zero votes. But this new board has broad new statewide powers to set statewide resource development policy, even though it would be controlled by a minority of the state’s population. Out-of-control big government and special interest politics is ripening on the vine in the form of Ballot Measure 2.

So what’s the history behind the initiative? In 1972, Congress attempted to address the challenge of continued growth in coastal zones by passing the Coastal Zone Management Act. The Act was administered by NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. In 1977, Congress approved Alaska’s first Coastal Zone Management Program. In 2003, the Murkowski Administration pushed through major reforms and added a sunset date to the program. This required the Legislature to either amend or re-authorize the (ACZMP). The program expired in 2011 after a failed compromise advanced by Democrats was rejected by Governor Parnell. Ballot Measure 2 is being pushed in the wake of Legislative inaction, and closely mirrors the legislation advanced by Democrats in June 2011.

The bottom line is that we can and must do better for our children’s future. A Coastal Management Program must be constructed fairly and clearly in order to truly benefit the people of Alaska. We must not paint ourselves into a corner by passing this initiative. Remember, initiatives such as Ballot Measure 2 are veto-proof for two years and are virtually impossible to amend. Measure 2 is bad law and must be rejected by voting No on 2, August 28th.

NOAA Scientist: Experiment Suggests Worst of Fukushima “still on the way”

It’s been over a year since natural disaster ravaged a nuclear plant in Fukushima and interrupted the lives of millions of Japanese. Scientists now fear though that contaminated water is on course to America, and it could be more toxic than thought.

Researchers have released the findings of an intense study into the aftermath of last year’s Fukushima nuclear disaster and warn that the United States isn’t exactly spared just yet. In fact, scientists now fear that incredibly contaminated ocean waters could be reaching the West Coast of the US in a matter of only five years, and the toxicity of those waves could eventually be worse than what was seen in Japan.

A team of scientists led by Joke F Lübbecke of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory have published the findings of an experiment recently conducted to measure the impact of last year’s nuclear disaster and the results are eye-opening to say the least. By simulating the spreading of contaminated ocean waters and seeing how currents could carry them across the Pacific from Japan to the US, scientists believe that the worst might be still on the way.

“Within one year it will have spread over the entire western half of the North Pacific and in five years we predict it will reach the US West Coast.” Claus Böning, co-author of the study, tells the website Environmentalresearchweb.

Böning adds that “The levels of radiation that hit the US coast will be small relative to the levels released by Fukushima,” yet fails to exactly stand by that statement in the fullest. “But we cannot estimate accurately what those levels will be because we do not know for certain what was released by Fukushima,” the doctor adds.  In fact, others fear that contaminated ocean waters may collect in packets and produce waves of highly concentrated nuclear toxins that could pose a dangerous toll to Americans.

Read more from this story HERE.

Publisher’s note:  This article was originally published by RT News.  Shortly after posting, Restoring Liberty received a voice mail from Ms. Jana Goldman, a ” NOAA Communication officer.”  Ms. Goldman reported that the scientist involved in the above-referenced study regarding Fukushima was not actually with NOAA at the time the report was prepared.  Rather, she was with a team from Germany, even though she is now employed by NOAA.  Ms. Goldman confirmed this information by email as well.

Photo credit: Ryan Somma