Update from Sid Preskitt on the Congressional Hearings!
What a Sham on the part of the Government
Dave Nelson and I traveled to Washington DC to testify in a Congressional Hearing this last Tuesday July 26th. The Hearing was on NOAA'S fishery science titled: IS THE LACK OF BASIC SCIENCE COSTING JOBS? This Hearing was before the House Committee on Natural Resources, Sub-committe on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife. The Hearing was unusual from the start as three current members of Congress lead off the testimony, Rep. John Mica, (FL), Rep. Walter Jones (NC) and Rep. Barney Frank (MA) who all pointed out on-going problems with the fishery management policies which have cost thousands of jobs and consolidated the American fishing industry down to a small remnant. This has led to a trade deficit in seafood imports of around $8 billion. However, as we know this is the results of following the mandates of UN Agenda 21 which the NMFS has been implementing since at least 1993. Dave Nelson's testimony was significant in that it exposed how the National Marine Fisheries Service has closed down an economically vital fishery in the Southeast (red snapper) by deliberately collapsing the stock of fish in computer modeling runs by using data in the stock assessment that was deemed "unreliable" and also fabricating landings that never existed. Mr. Nelson testified that: In the 2008 red snapper stock assessment (SEDAR 15) used to base the red snapper closure:
What a Sham on the part of the Government
Dave Nelson and I traveled to Washington DC to testify in a Congressional Hearing this last Tuesday July 26th. The Hearing was on NOAA'S fishery science titled: IS THE LACK OF BASIC SCIENCE COSTING JOBS? This Hearing was before the House Committee on Natural Resources, Sub-committe on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife. The Hearing was unusual from the start as three current members of Congress lead off the testimony, Rep. John Mica, (FL), Rep. Walter Jones (NC) and Rep. Barney Frank (MA) who all pointed out on-going problems with the fishery management policies which have cost thousands of jobs and consolidated the American fishing industry down to a small remnant. This has led to a trade deficit in seafood imports of around $8 billion. However, as we know this is the results of following the mandates of UN Agenda 21 which the NMFS has been implementing since at least 1993. Dave Nelson's testimony was significant in that it exposed how the National Marine Fisheries Service has closed down an economically vital fishery in the Southeast (red snapper) by deliberately collapsing the stock of fish in computer modeling runs by using data in the stock assessment that was deemed "unreliable" and also fabricating landings that never existed. Mr. Nelson testified that: In the 2008 red snapper stock assessment (SEDAR 15) used to base the red snapper closure:
- 30,000,000 pounds of red snapper landings were created out of thin air. (this is fish that were deliberately killed in the computer, not by fishing).
- These fabricated landings were used to completely close the fishery in January 2010. (still on-going).
- In a second stock assessment in 2010 (SEDAR 24) there was deliberate fabrication of offspring recruitment which showed a population of red snapper of only 511,000 fish. The correct number which is easily determined using correct data is over 4 million fish which demonstrates that this fishery should never have been closed.
LAW OF THE SEA TREATY - L.O.S.T. by Rick Haven
The Law of the Sea Treaty is a culmination of many meetings held within the United Nations since 1973. L.O.S.T. replaces four 1958 treaties that govern the sovereign rights of a nation and how far those sovereign rights extend into the oceans of the world. It has been understood since the 17th century the territorial rights of any nation extended three miles from its shore, the range of a cannon ball fired from a ship at sea. Many nations recognized the mineral and fishing rights of a nation may be as much as twelve miles from its shore while other nations held those rights were as much as 200 miles. In 1945, President Truman extended those US rights to the edge of the continental shelf. By 1967, sixty-six nations contended that their sovereign territorial rights were now 12 miles and not the old standard of only three miles. READ MORE
THREE REASONS TO OPPOSE THE U.N. CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA (UNCLOS)
(1) If the U.S. joins UNCLOS, it will be forced to transfer billions and likely trillions of dollars of royalties generated from oil and gas production on the U.S. continental shelf to the UN International Seabed Authority for redistribution to the “developing world.”
The United States currently enjoys sovereignty over its entire continental shelf, including the shelf that lies seaward of 200 nautical miles—the “extended continental shelf” (ECS). The U.S. has the right to exploit all the resources (e.g. oil and gas) located on the ECS and collect a 12.5—18.75% royalty on the value of production. According to the inter-agency Extended Continental Shelf Task Force, which is currently mapping the ECS, the resources there “may be worth billions if not trillions.”
Article 82 of the convention would compel the U.S. to transfer a significant portion of those royalties to the International Seabed Authority, located in Kingston, Jamaica, for redistribution to the “developing world” including to regimes that are corrupt and despotic.
(2) If the U.S. joins UNCLOS, it will expose itself to baseless international lawsuits, including environmental actions and suits over “climate change” that would impose substantial political and economic costs on the American people.
Under UNCLOS any State party may compel another State party to defend itself in one of four forums: the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the International Court of Justice, an arbitral tribunal organized under Annex VII, or a “special” arbitral tribunal organized under Annex VIII. Any judgment rendered by an UNCLOS tribunal would be final, could not be appealed, and would be enforceable on U.S. territory. The U.S. would become target #1.
Pacific Island nations such as Tuvalu have already indicated that they would file such a suit. If the U.S. suffered an adverse judgment in an UNCLOS climate change lawsuit, the tribunal could order remedies that would harm the American economy—a regime of regulations (e.g. actions to reduce the level of U.S. GHG emissions) and even monetary reparations to the plaintiff nations to mitigate the damages allegedly caused by global warming. Crippling costs to the U.S. economy would result.
(3) U.S. accession to UNCLOS is unnecessary to preserve and protect the U.S. Navy’s navigational rights and freedoms.
For more than 200 years, including the 30 years since the adoption of UNCLOS in 1982, the U.S. has successfully preserved and protected its navigational rights and freedoms by relying on naval operations, diplomatic protests, and customary international law. U.S. membership in UNCLOS would confer no maritime right that the U.S. does not already enjoy. The U.S. can best protect its rights by maintaining a strong Navy, not by joining a deeply flawed treaty.
The United States currently enjoys sovereignty over its entire continental shelf, including the shelf that lies seaward of 200 nautical miles—the “extended continental shelf” (ECS). The U.S. has the right to exploit all the resources (e.g. oil and gas) located on the ECS and collect a 12.5—18.75% royalty on the value of production. According to the inter-agency Extended Continental Shelf Task Force, which is currently mapping the ECS, the resources there “may be worth billions if not trillions.”
Article 82 of the convention would compel the U.S. to transfer a significant portion of those royalties to the International Seabed Authority, located in Kingston, Jamaica, for redistribution to the “developing world” including to regimes that are corrupt and despotic.
(2) If the U.S. joins UNCLOS, it will expose itself to baseless international lawsuits, including environmental actions and suits over “climate change” that would impose substantial political and economic costs on the American people.
Under UNCLOS any State party may compel another State party to defend itself in one of four forums: the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the International Court of Justice, an arbitral tribunal organized under Annex VII, or a “special” arbitral tribunal organized under Annex VIII. Any judgment rendered by an UNCLOS tribunal would be final, could not be appealed, and would be enforceable on U.S. territory. The U.S. would become target #1.
Pacific Island nations such as Tuvalu have already indicated that they would file such a suit. If the U.S. suffered an adverse judgment in an UNCLOS climate change lawsuit, the tribunal could order remedies that would harm the American economy—a regime of regulations (e.g. actions to reduce the level of U.S. GHG emissions) and even monetary reparations to the plaintiff nations to mitigate the damages allegedly caused by global warming. Crippling costs to the U.S. economy would result.
(3) U.S. accession to UNCLOS is unnecessary to preserve and protect the U.S. Navy’s navigational rights and freedoms.
For more than 200 years, including the 30 years since the adoption of UNCLOS in 1982, the U.S. has successfully preserved and protected its navigational rights and freedoms by relying on naval operations, diplomatic protests, and customary international law. U.S. membership in UNCLOS would confer no maritime right that the U.S. does not already enjoy. The U.S. can best protect its rights by maintaining a strong Navy, not by joining a deeply flawed treaty.
The Honorable Harry Reid
Majority Leader
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Leader,
We understand that Chairman Kerry has renewed his efforts to pursue Senate ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. We are writing to let you know that we believe this Convention reflects political, economic, and ideological assumptions which are inconsistent with American values and sovereignty.
By its current terms, the Law of the Sea Convention encompasses economic and technology interests in the deep sea, redistribution of wealth from developed to undeveloped nations, freedom of navigation in the deep sea and exclusive economic zones which may impact maritime security and environmental regulation over virtually all sources of pollution.
To affect the treaty’s broad regime of governance, we are particularly concerned that United States sovereignty could be subjugated in many areas to a supranational government that is chartered by the United Nations under the 1982 Convention. Further, we are troubled that compulsory dispute resolution could pertain to public and private activities including law enforcement, maritime security, business operations, and nonmilitary activities performed aboard military vessels.
If this treaty comes to the floor, we will oppose its ratification.
Sincerely yours,
Majority Leader
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Leader,
We understand that Chairman Kerry has renewed his efforts to pursue Senate ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. We are writing to let you know that we believe this Convention reflects political, economic, and ideological assumptions which are inconsistent with American values and sovereignty.
By its current terms, the Law of the Sea Convention encompasses economic and technology interests in the deep sea, redistribution of wealth from developed to undeveloped nations, freedom of navigation in the deep sea and exclusive economic zones which may impact maritime security and environmental regulation over virtually all sources of pollution.
To affect the treaty’s broad regime of governance, we are particularly concerned that United States sovereignty could be subjugated in many areas to a supranational government that is chartered by the United Nations under the 1982 Convention. Further, we are troubled that compulsory dispute resolution could pertain to public and private activities including law enforcement, maritime security, business operations, and nonmilitary activities performed aboard military vessels.
If this treaty comes to the floor, we will oppose its ratification.
Sincerely yours,
