Governmental control in disguise
11-21-2011, 01:52 PM
#21
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,499
Total Cats: 4,080
New Bedford fisherman forced to give up 800-pound tunaText
Carlos Rafael conducts business on the bridge of the F/V Athena. New Bedford fishing boat owner Carlos Rafael is on of the most influential person on the waterfront. Mr. Rafael who owns over 40 fishing boats is an icon on the waterfront.
November 21, 2011 - This fish story may lack the epic qualities of Ernest Hemingway's 1952 classic“The Old Man and the Sea,” but for New Bedford's Carlos Rafael, the outcome was about the same. In both cases, despite capturing and bringing home a huge fish, powerful circum*stances conspired to deprive the luckless fishermen of a potentially huge reward.
Boat owner Rafael, a big player in the local fishing industry, was elated when the crew of his 76-foot steel dragger Apollo told him they had unwittingly captured a giant bluefin tuna in their trawl gear while fishing offshore.
“They didn't catch that fish on the bottom,” he said. “They probably got it in the mid*water when they were setting out and it just got corralled in the net. That only happens once in a blue moon.”
Rafael, who in the last four years purchased 15 tuna permits for his groundfish boats to cover just such an eventuality, imme*diately called a bluefin tuna hot line maintained by fishery regu*lators to report the catch.
When the weather offshore deteriorated, the Apollo decided to seek shelter in Provincetown Harbor on Nov. 12. Rafael imme*diately set off in a truck to meet the boat.
“I wanted to sell the fish while it was fresh instead of letting it age on the boat,” he said. “It was a beautiful fish.”
It was also a lucrative one. Highly prized in Japan, a 754*pound specimen fetched a record price at a Tokyo auction in January this year, selling for nearly $396,000. These fish can grow to enormous size. The world record for a bluefin, which has stood since 1979, was set when a 1,496-pound specimen was caught off Nova Scotia.
However, when Rafael rolled down the dock in Provincetown there was an unexpected and unwelcome development. The authorities were waiting. Agents from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of Law Enforcement informed him they were confis*cating his fish — all 881 pounds of it.
Even though the catch had been declared and the boat had a tuna permit, the rules do not allow fishermen to catch bluefin tuna in a net.
“They said it had to be caught with rod and reel,” a frustrated Rafael said.“We didn't try to hide anything. We did everything by the book. Nobody ever told me we couldn't catch it with a net.”
In any case, after being towed for more than two hours in the net, the fish was already dead when the Apollo hauled back its gear, he said.
“What are we supposed to do?” he asked. “They said they were going to give me a warn*ing,” Rafael said. “I think I'm going to surrender all my tuna permits now. What good are they if I can't catch them?”
No charges have yet been filed in connection with the catch, but a written warning is anticipated, according to Chris*tine Patrick, a public affairs specialist with NOAA who said the fish has been forfeited and will be sold on consignment overseas. Proceeds from the sale of the fish will be held in an account pending final reso*lution of the case, NOAA said. No information on the value of the fish was available Friday.
“The matter is still under investigation,”said Monica Allen, deputy director with NOAA Fisheries public affairs. “If it's determined that there has been a violation, the money will go into the asset forfeiture fund.”
“I think I'm going to sur*render all my tuna permits now. What good are they if I can't catch them?”
Carlos Rafael conducts business on the bridge of the F/V Athena. New Bedford fishing boat owner Carlos Rafael is on of the most influential person on the waterfront. Mr. Rafael who owns over 40 fishing boats is an icon on the waterfront.
November 21, 2011 - This fish story may lack the epic qualities of Ernest Hemingway's 1952 classic“The Old Man and the Sea,” but for New Bedford's Carlos Rafael, the outcome was about the same. In both cases, despite capturing and bringing home a huge fish, powerful circum*stances conspired to deprive the luckless fishermen of a potentially huge reward.
Boat owner Rafael, a big player in the local fishing industry, was elated when the crew of his 76-foot steel dragger Apollo told him they had unwittingly captured a giant bluefin tuna in their trawl gear while fishing offshore.
“They didn't catch that fish on the bottom,” he said. “They probably got it in the mid*water when they were setting out and it just got corralled in the net. That only happens once in a blue moon.”
Rafael, who in the last four years purchased 15 tuna permits for his groundfish boats to cover just such an eventuality, imme*diately called a bluefin tuna hot line maintained by fishery regu*lators to report the catch.
When the weather offshore deteriorated, the Apollo decided to seek shelter in Provincetown Harbor on Nov. 12. Rafael imme*diately set off in a truck to meet the boat.
“I wanted to sell the fish while it was fresh instead of letting it age on the boat,” he said. “It was a beautiful fish.”
It was also a lucrative one. Highly prized in Japan, a 754*pound specimen fetched a record price at a Tokyo auction in January this year, selling for nearly $396,000. These fish can grow to enormous size. The world record for a bluefin, which has stood since 1979, was set when a 1,496-pound specimen was caught off Nova Scotia.
However, when Rafael rolled down the dock in Provincetown there was an unexpected and unwelcome development. The authorities were waiting. Agents from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of Law Enforcement informed him they were confis*cating his fish — all 881 pounds of it.
Even though the catch had been declared and the boat had a tuna permit, the rules do not allow fishermen to catch bluefin tuna in a net.
“They said it had to be caught with rod and reel,” a frustrated Rafael said.“We didn't try to hide anything. We did everything by the book. Nobody ever told me we couldn't catch it with a net.”
In any case, after being towed for more than two hours in the net, the fish was already dead when the Apollo hauled back its gear, he said.
“What are we supposed to do?” he asked. “They said they were going to give me a warn*ing,” Rafael said. “I think I'm going to surrender all my tuna permits now. What good are they if I can't catch them?”
No charges have yet been filed in connection with the catch, but a written warning is anticipated, according to Chris*tine Patrick, a public affairs specialist with NOAA who said the fish has been forfeited and will be sold on consignment overseas. Proceeds from the sale of the fish will be held in an account pending final reso*lution of the case, NOAA said. No information on the value of the fish was available Friday.
“The matter is still under investigation,”said Monica Allen, deputy director with NOAA Fisheries public affairs. “If it's determined that there has been a violation, the money will go into the asset forfeiture fund.”
“I think I'm going to sur*render all my tuna permits now. What good are they if I can't catch them?”
Reply
0
0
11-21-2011, 03:40 PM
#22
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 3,203
Total Cats: 147
My Dad was sent a letter by the City stating that he needed to pay his yearly $40 alarm with 911 fund. He called and said to the lady, "Let me get this straight, I install an alarm to prevent crime and you are charging me?" operator lady with city, "Yes, we have to cover the cost of the 911 operators and gas of the police driving out there to alarms that are triggered with no crime involved." Dad, "Isn't that why I pay you taxes in the first place to cover your cost for 911 operators, gas, etc...
Reply
0
0
11-30-2011, 09:21 AM
#23
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,499
Total Cats: 4,080
Capitalism 1 - Goverment 0
Happy Meal Ban: McDonald's Outsmarts San Francisco
On Thursday, Dec. 1, the city's de facto ban of the Happy Meal commences. San Francisco has accomplished what the Hamburglar could not. Or has it?
In order to include a toy with a meal, restaurants must now comply with city-generated nutritional standards. Those are standards that even the "healthier" Happy Meals McDonald's introduced earlier this year don't come close to meeting. (As SF Weekly noted in January, the school lunches our children eat aren't healthy enough to qualify, either).
And yet it seems McDonald's has turned lemons into lemonade -- and is selling the sugary drink to San Francisco's children. Local McDonald's employees tell SF Weekly the company has devised a solution that appears to comply with San Francisco's "Healthy Meal Incentive Ordinance" that could actually make the company more money -- and necessitate toy-happy youngsters to buy more Happy Meals.
It turns out San Francisco has not entirely vanquished the Happy Meal as we know it. Come Dec. 1, you can still buy the Happy Meal. But it doesn't come with a toy. For that, you'll have to pay an extra 10 cents.
Huh. That hardly seems to have solved the problem (though adults and children purchasing unhealthy food can at least take solace that the 10 cents is going to Ronald McDonald House charities). But it actually gets worse from here. Thanks to Supervisor Eric Mar's much-ballyhooed new law, parents browbeaten into supplementing their preteens' Happy Meal toy collections are now mandated to buy the Happy Meals.
Today and tomorrow mark the last days that put-upon parents can satiate their youngsters by simply throwing down $2.18 for a Happy Meal toy. But, thanks to the new law taking effect on Dec. 1, this is no longer permitted. Now, in order to have the privilege of making a 10-cent charitable donation in exchange for the toy, you must buy the Happy Meal. Hilariously, it appears Mar et al., in their desire to keep McDonald's from selling grease and fat to kids with the lure of a toy have now actually incentivized the purchase of that grease and fat -- when, beforehand, a put-upon parent could get out cheaper and healthier with just the damn toy.
In any event, it appears the fast food chain's sharpie lawyers have McTopped San Francisco's legislators. Count this city's lawmakers as the latest among the billions and billions served.
On Thursday, Dec. 1, the city's de facto ban of the Happy Meal commences. San Francisco has accomplished what the Hamburglar could not. Or has it?
In order to include a toy with a meal, restaurants must now comply with city-generated nutritional standards. Those are standards that even the "healthier" Happy Meals McDonald's introduced earlier this year don't come close to meeting. (As SF Weekly noted in January, the school lunches our children eat aren't healthy enough to qualify, either).
And yet it seems McDonald's has turned lemons into lemonade -- and is selling the sugary drink to San Francisco's children. Local McDonald's employees tell SF Weekly the company has devised a solution that appears to comply with San Francisco's "Healthy Meal Incentive Ordinance" that could actually make the company more money -- and necessitate toy-happy youngsters to buy more Happy Meals.
It turns out San Francisco has not entirely vanquished the Happy Meal as we know it. Come Dec. 1, you can still buy the Happy Meal. But it doesn't come with a toy. For that, you'll have to pay an extra 10 cents.
Huh. That hardly seems to have solved the problem (though adults and children purchasing unhealthy food can at least take solace that the 10 cents is going to Ronald McDonald House charities). But it actually gets worse from here. Thanks to Supervisor Eric Mar's much-ballyhooed new law, parents browbeaten into supplementing their preteens' Happy Meal toy collections are now mandated to buy the Happy Meals.
Today and tomorrow mark the last days that put-upon parents can satiate their youngsters by simply throwing down $2.18 for a Happy Meal toy. But, thanks to the new law taking effect on Dec. 1, this is no longer permitted. Now, in order to have the privilege of making a 10-cent charitable donation in exchange for the toy, you must buy the Happy Meal. Hilariously, it appears Mar et al., in their desire to keep McDonald's from selling grease and fat to kids with the lure of a toy have now actually incentivized the purchase of that grease and fat -- when, beforehand, a put-upon parent could get out cheaper and healthier with just the damn toy.
In any event, it appears the fast food chain's sharpie lawyers have McTopped San Francisco's legislators. Count this city's lawmakers as the latest among the billions and billions served.
Reply
0
0
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Zaphod
MEGAsquirt
47
10-26-2018 11:00 PM
russian
Miata parts for sale/trade
6
10-08-2015 03:01 PM
