This Takes the cake

[Bud Man]

http://actionnetwork.org/img/an2/cus...longlinead.JPG

Been away for a little while, Got back and was catching up on my fishing rags ( actually thinking of cancelling them they are getting thinner and thinner) But I saw this ad for the pew charitable trusts. I almost fell the f^($ over. A so called prominent fishing rag taking money from pew, seriously.

They are selling us out. This will bite us in the ass. Pew is NOT looking out for fishermen

Than I read on here about secret meetings, if you look who is setting these up and trace back the money trail you'll find pew money helping out some of these groups i'll bet a whole lot on that.

Any Thoughts?
This is bad bad ju ju

[wauwinet]

There's a good letter from Pew in this month's SWS explaining their stance.

I'm all for their ads. As far as I am concerned, Pew is far less of a threat to my fishing than the ongoing commercial overharvest.

[offshore]

There's a good letter from Pew in this month's SWS explaining their stance.

I'm all for their ads. As far as I am concerned, Pew is far less of a threat to my fishing than the ongoing commercial overharvest.

No they are not.
I saw this ad in the magazine as well. Made me furious for numerous reasons.PEW wants their cake and eat it too. Pew supports so many many anti fishing, anti hunting, and tree hugging projects. That is what they do. I wont drop another dime on this magazine period.
Take a look at Hatteras for an example. PEW has spent millions funding studies and research that is baseless. They have all but closed Hatteras down. They want us to donate funds to them to shut everything down. SWS magazine ought to know better than taking advertising dollars from PEW. Do they really think that donations to PEW from their magazine subscribers will go to what the ad says?? Wake up!! If you think I am wrong do some research. PEW is by far one of the most dangerous enemies anyone that loves to fish or hunts has. SWS is selling out if you ask me.

[Bud Man]

Wau,
Man please do yourself a favor and do some research. I am not defending Long lining we all know the harmful affects.

But Pew is Bad News and for a so called Prominent Fishing Magazine it is unacceptable to take advertising money from them.

Look at the groups PEW donates to, they try to disguise there intentions. They are trying to fuel their agenda from the insides.

You also know that Pew is funded by Big Oil as a front to keep the blood off the oil companies hands.

Jane Lubchenko whom now runs the fisheries in this country, was and is a product of PEW, catch shares, MPA's etc etc. all are things to be aware of.

[scattered_grass]

No they are not.
I saw this ad in the magazine as well. Made me furious for numerous reasons.PEW wants their cake and eat it too. Pew supports so many many anti fishing, anti hunting, and tree hugging projects. That is what they do. I wont drop another dime on this magazine period.
Take a look at Hatteras for an example. PEW has spent millions funding studies and research that is baseless. They have all but closed Hatteras down. They want us to donate funds to them to shut everything down. SWS magazine ought to know better than taking advertising dollars from PEW. Do they really think that donations to PEW from their magazine subscribers will go to what the ad says?? Wake up!! If you think I am wrong do some research. PEW is by far one of the most dangerous enemies anyone that loves to fish or hunts has. SWS is selling out if you ask me.

In this economy, they're probably just trying to stay afloat. In this case however, sleeping with the enemy.

[wauwinet]

Wau,
Man please do yourself a favor and do some research. I am not defending Long lining we all know the harmful affects.

But Pew is Bad News and for a so called Prominent Fishing Magazine it is unacceptable to take advertising money from them.

Look at the groups PEW donates to, they try to disguise there intentions. They are trying to fuel their agenda from the insides.

You also know that Pew is funded by Big Oil as a front to keep the blood off the oil companies hands.

Jane Lubchenko whom now runs the fisheries in this country, was and is a product of PEW, catch shares, MPA's etc etc. all are things to be aware of.

I just spent 45 minutes reading their Form 990 from 2009 and it's hardly damning. They give a LOT of money to a LOT of causes (most are unrelateed to the ocean or fishing).

Their main goal in regards to fisheries seems to be to increase the biomass to historic levels and find ways to keep it there. Right now, many fish stocks are at about 10% of their potential size. Isn't some increased regulation on the purse seiners and long liners worth having abundant fisheries like we used to have?

When I was a kid, a boat harpooned 27 swordfish one day within sight of Martha's Vineyard. I'd be perfectly happy to give a little ground in order to have anything like that again.

I'd politely suggest you read their Form 990 (available on guidestar.org) and maybe consider that recreational fishermen are threatened far more by Omega Protein and the other Big Seafood players than by Pew. I could be wrong (I'm sure someone here will tell me I am ), but that's how I see it.

[frankypettolina]

I recently saw a petition signed by both PEW and HSUS- in my opinion you are known by the company you keep. There were several other well known anti-fishing organizations that signed the same petition (sorry only HSUS stuck in my mind).

Unless we are attacked by aliens and/or zombies I will not fight along side my enemies. I would rather stand alone.

[Bud Man]

I just spent 45 minutes reading their Form 990 from 2009 and it's hardly damning. They give a LOT of money to a LOT of causes (most are unrelateed to the ocean or fishing).

Their main goal in regards to fisheries seems to be to increase the biomass to historic levels and find ways to keep it there. Right now, many fish stocks are at about 10% of their potential size. Isn't some increased regulation on the purse seiners and long liners worth having abundant fisheries like we used to have?

When I was a kid, a boat harpooned 27 swordfish one day within sight of Martha's Vineyard. I'd be perfectly happy to give a little ground in order to have anything like that again.

I'd politely suggest you read their Form 990 (available on guidestar.org) and maybe consider that recreational fishermen are threatened far more by Omega Protein and the other Big Seafood players than by Pew. I could be wrong (I'm sure someone here will tell me I am ), but that's how I see it.

There's radicals on both sides ( Yes Activist cash is a radical on the other end, but it does show PEWS associates)

Sound scientific evidence is what is needed and fishermen as a whole need to be more involved to combat overfishing and also to not give into organizations whom do not have our best interests at heart.
The first link is who they have given to in the past there are a bunch of radical groups on this list.

http://activistcash.com/foundation.cfm?did=153


Two of the groups they support.
http://activistcash.com/organization...m/o/192-seaweb

http://activistcash.com/organization...--tides-center

Each his own but i prefer to support companies that do not take money from orgs. that fund radical environmental Hollywood glory hounds

[scattered_grass]

how do you do that thing with your eyes?

[N2theBlue]

I just spent 45 minutes reading their Form 990 from 2009 and it's hardly damning. They give a LOT of money to a LOT of causes (most are unrelateed to the ocean or fishing).

Their main goal in regards to fisheries seems to be to increase the biomass to historic levels and find ways to keep it there. Right now, many fish stocks are at about 10% of their potential size. Isn't some increased regulation on the purse seiners and long liners worth having abundant fisheries like we used to have?

When I was a kid, a boat harpooned 27 swordfish one day within sight of Martha's Vineyard. I'd be perfectly happy to give a little ground in order to have anything like that again.

I'd politely suggest you read their Form 990 (available on guidestar.org) and maybe consider that recreational fishermen are threatened far more by Omega Protein and the other Big Seafood players than by Pew. I could be wrong (I'm sure someone here will tell me I am ), but that's how I see it.

PEW supports widespread "Marine Preserves" that would essentially close much of the ocean to fishing. Still don't think they pose a threat? If they get their way you won't have anywhere to fish.