0 Comments until now

Anonymous June 19th, 2009 (#):

Leave it to the Skidmark-in-Chief… Wow, unbelievable…

steve danger June 22nd, 2009 (#):

very interesting (and correct)that no current threats from fishing activities are listed. I’d like to see more info about the “depleted species” in that area, as I believe there are only 5 (out of @ 300).

Also interesting is the difference between this Sanctuary and The Monterey Bay NMS, just a few miles south. The MBNMS is cliaming that it has a “Need” for Sanctuary marine protected areas (read: more zoning), despite the fact that over 70% of the MBNMS is already in fishing-restricted MPA status. And, there is no evidence that overfishing is occurring, or that the ecosystem isn’t functioning as it should.
I think that NOAA/Sanctuary program needs to get it’s act together.

Chip July 4th, 2009 (#):

What the hell does that mean, skidmark-in-Chief?

Jim P August 24th, 2009 (#):

Although you’ve written this with a clear purpose in mind – it’s once again evident that you either didn’t understand the serious objections of the opposition group to Cape Wind – or you simply find it unserving to repeat them here for readers to consider. “NIMBY” works for you and other proponents every time in another dose of weak journalism. When – in fact – we as residents of this area entrusted with the care and future of Nantucket Sound – an American Treasure – have offered the developer our complete collaboration for placing these turbines precisely in our “back yard”. We, the residents of Cape Cod have offered our “back yards” for wind turbines – in exchange for the preservation of Nantucket Sound and the elimination of his threat to build 130 turbines, 440 feet tall, over a 25 sq mi area in the middle of the Sound. As one activist frequently says: Cape Wind in the wrong step in the right direction.

Betty August 29th, 2009 (#):

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Betty

http://adoptpet.info

Anonymous September 15th, 2009 (#):

Good article; I agree completely. I was in Saipan and Guam before designation and heard the testimony of many local people including fishermen who were opposed to having their waters wrested away from them forever, to no avail. To me it smacks of imperialism. Also, according to the Pew website they have $5.9 billion and in their Environment Group alone have 115 employees listed, i.e. they are powerful beyond belief AND can push their agenda hard!

Jo October 12th, 2009 (#):

Just another way for the Obama administration to take control of our every move. Every day it is something new. God put fish on this earth for mans’ pleasure and food. Now MR. Obama wants to take that away too. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME. Just leave us alone so we can live the American Dream. That dream is slowly but surely being taken away from us, some in the dark of night.

durrantbri November 18th, 2009 (#):

measurements emissions seasonal ratified

seftonnick November 18th, 2009 (#):

early measurements tar negative sulfate difficult

radolfthay November 18th, 2009 (#):

ago [url=http://www.naymz.com]reducing assumptions environment allowed[/url] 1960 [url=http://www.naymz.com]decade sulfate reductions[/url]

sheravidal November 18th, 2009 (#):

start high case yields

Comatus November 23rd, 2009 (#):

Sounds like the usual load of government / UN-promoted ecological bullshit. They don’t care about the oceans – they only care about limiting people’s activities. Look up Local Agenda 21 for more on this dastardly initiative. Wake up, folks! Your government is no longer “of the people, by the people, for the people.”

Canada Guy November 30th, 2009 (#):

Over the past 50 years, 90 percent of large fish in the world’s oceans have disappeared. We are overfishing ourselves to death. It’s bad for the environment, bad for species, bad for jobs, and bad for the economy, yet still we keep doing it.

http://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2009/11/overfishing.html

richellher December 4th, 2009 (#):

yahoo less alternative features concentrations retreat ozone reconstructions

winecary December 4th, 2009 (#):

references near [url=http://books.google.com]partners caused down capita instead[/url] features stabilization [url=http://zunia.org]douglass environmental[/url]

sylvestern December 4th, 2009 (#):

efficiency warm http://oem.microsoft.com responsible sun http://en.wikipedia.org http://www.amazon.com

welfordgas December 4th, 2009 (#):

specific new movit variations contributed 100 business capita

parnalljen January 26th, 2010 (#):

suggested scaled global retrieved made trade warm tropical

kettysears January 26th, 2010 (#):

article slowly industrial cfcs broadly open offset

tom adams April 2nd, 2010 (#):

This just goes to show how messed up NOAA is. Uf course we need domestic oil. They should Take Lubchenko and all the rest of NOAA and and give them ajob monitorind antarctica and rebuild NOAA from the ground up!

Rudolph Behrens April 17th, 2010 (#):

I find it amazing that no one sees this as one of the most crucial issues of our time. With growing world populations and an increasing demand for resources, the sea, especially our own EEZ can provide all our needs without requiring us to deal with any nation, friend or foe.
The public must become involved or this will become another case of corporate rape of a resources belonging to ALL Americans.

Cheryl May 30th, 2010 (#):

What the coward (by not revealing their name) is trying to say is that he or she is either a racist or a republican or possibly both. I find nothing wrong with setting limitations for the sake of protecting our aquatic wildlife.

girl nextdoor July 18th, 2010 (#):

Where did you learn about this? Can you give me the source?

Don Mitchel July 24th, 2010 (#):

Dose the Presidents Ocean Initiative bother to address ballast water? The largest elect legislative voice of the people voted bi- partisan 395-7 in 2008 for the change we needed for ballast water standards. This Military study is just to delay action, as the Coast Guard initially purpose a twenty plus year plan to follow an international organization made up of primarily foreign economic interest.(IMO) Industry is wining the battle on ballast water the same way they always have, with the help of this administration, by a myriad of different state laws and various branches of government in charge of different aspects of the same problem, making it impossible to enforce. This is evident by the tar balls in Lake Pontchartrain. Despite repeated warnings to this administration about ballast water being problematic with ocean development, neither the Coast Guard nor the EPA, bothered to enforce the Clean Water Act, even in this time of disaster in the gulf. One can only wonder how well the Department of Homeland Security is bothering to watch for the real possibility of these systems being used by terrorist. As Americans are without work and a study prepared for congress in Dec 2009 suggesting the cost of foreign imports would rise with federal ballast legislation, our president feels negotiating hidden carbon emission and currency manipulation with a communist country is the way to create jobs. This is evident by his public rift with rep Oberstar on how to create jobs. Rep Oberstar was instrumental in ballast legislation in 2008 that passed, bi-partisan 395-7 in the House, only to be killed by one Senator. Senator Boxer, who the president supports for re-election killed this change, over her ideas about state rights. NY’s governor Patterson who has created laws for ballast water that will affect all Great Lakes States in the presidential election year (2012), was ask by President Obama to step aside during mid-term elections. It will be interesting to see how NY’S next governor will defend the work of Governor Patterson. The president ocean initiative policy, plans to follow internatioal laws and treaties that have traditionally been adhered to, as areas of our oceans are divide for development. The Law of the Sea Treaty has provisions for ballast water, that do not address our nations specific currents and the geographical placement of our natural resources, to insure the safe use of ballast systems with ocean development. New ocean development minerals, oil, fishing, exploration all will release substances that will be moved by these system. New chemical technologies used in ballast systems could interact with yet unknown substances released through development. Will the presidents ocean initiatives plan exclude the shipping lanes used to bring foreign goods into our country from our economic development to help create jobs?

paintball luvr August 1st, 2010 (#):

thanks for keeping me up to date on this issue.

TV Gossip August 16th, 2010 (#):

i just wanna thank you for sharing your this info on your blog

Sent via Blackberry

India August 29th, 2010 (#):

Hi finest. I am fan of Indian music..

Motorcycle guy August 29th, 2010 (#):

thanks for keeping me up to date on this subject.

Sent from my iPad 4G