Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: Big Brother coming at ya!

  1. #1
    Member AKCAPT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Seward
    Posts
    1,126

    Default Big Brother coming at ya!

    Contact: Monica Allen FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    301-713-2370 Dec. 23, 2008

    Monica.allen@noaa.gov

    NOAA to Create Saltwater Angler Registry in 2010

    Final rule gives states more time to implement local data gathering

    NOAA’s Fisheries Service released its final rule today to create a national saltwater angler registry of all marine recreational fishermen to help the nation better protect our shared marine resources. A requirement to establish a registry was included in a statute approved by Congress in 2007.

    "Better national surveys of the more than 15 million saltwater anglers will help us demonstrate the important contributions of recreational anglers to both local economies and to the nation’s," said Jim Balsiger, NOAA acting assistant administrator for NOAA’s Fisheries Service. "The registry will help us gather comprehensive data to ensure sustainable fisheries built on the best available science."

    The improved quality of recreational fishing data achieved through a national saltwater angler registry will help demonstrate the economic value of saltwater recreational fishing, and will provide a more complete picture of how recreational fishing is affecting fish stocks. This kind of information is essential to NOAA’s goal to end overfishing as required under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. All recreational anglers who fish in federal waters will be required to participate, with some exemptions for those already registered in their states.

    The registry is the product of a major recommendation to NOAA in a 2006 independent scientific review by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. The NRC found that NOAA needed a comprehensive list of everyone who fishes recreationally in marine waters to improve surveys of saltwater anglers used to help manage and rebuild fish stocks. The NRC recommendation became law in 2007 with the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the primary federal law that enables NOAA to manage ocean fish stocks.

    The final rule requires anglers and spearfishers who fish recreationally in federal ocean waters to be included in the national saltwater angler registry by Jan. 1, 2010.

    Beginning January 2009, NOAA will exempt anglers from the federal registration rule if they are licensed in states that have a system to provide complete information on their saltwater anglers to the national registry.

    "NOAA wants to work closely with the states and anglers to better capture the contributions and effects of sportfishing," said Balsiger. "We expect that this additional year will allow a number of states to put in place systems to register their anglers annually and provide this information to NOAA."

    NOAA had originally proposed that registration be required beginning Jan. 1, 2009, but based on public input decided to give states another year to put in place their own data collection systems.


    If anglers are not licensed or registered by a state that has been exempted and want to fish in federal waters, they will be required to register with NOAA. They must also register if they fish in tidal waters for migratory fish such as striped bass and salmon that spawn in rivers and spend their adult lives in estuaries and oceans. However, those who fish recreationally for these migratory species inland of tidal waters need not register, according to the final rule.

    Federal saltwater angler registrations will include an angler’s name, date of birth, address, telephone number, and the regions where they intend to fish. This information will be used by NOAA to conduct surveys on fishing effort and amounts of fish caught. Once anglers have registered, they may fish anywhere in U.S. federal waters, or in tidal waters for anadromous species, regardless of the region or regions they specified in their registration. The registration will be valid for one year from its date of issue. Anglers must comply with applicable state licensing requirements when fishing in state waters.

    Saltwater anglers will be able to register online or by calling a toll-free telephone number that will be publicized, and will receive a registration certificate. Anglers will need to carry this certificate (or their state license from an exempt state) and produce it to an authorized enforcement officer if requested. No fee will be charged in 2010. An estimated fee of $15 to $25 per angler will be charged starting in 2011.

    Anglers who fish only on licensed party, charter, or guide boats would not be required to register with NOAA since these vessels are surveyed separately from angler surveys. Those who hold angler permits to fish for highly migratory species, such as tunas or swordfish, and those fishing under commercial fishing licenses will also be exempt. Anglers registered or permitted to fish in a formal state or federal subsistence fishery will also be exempt, as will anglers under 16.

    NOAA received nearly 500 comments from anglers, state officials, and fishing and environmental organizations on its proposed national registry rule during the comment period from June 12 until Aug. 21. The registry is one component of the agency's new Marine Recreational Information Program, an initiative to enhance data collection on recreational catch and effort.

    To read the final registry rule and other information about the Marine Recreational Information Program, go to: http://www.countmyfish.noaa.gov

    NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth's environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources. Visit http://www.noaa.gov.

    On the Web: NOAA’s Fisheries Service: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov

    - 30 -

  2. #2
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AKCAPT View Post
    ......NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth's environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun.......
    And the prowess of their "understanding" and "predictions" remains to be seen.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    Pretty soon i am going to have to register to take a leak!

  4. #4
    Member captaindd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Salcha, AK
    Posts
    762

    Default

    The bottom line is it is going to cost everyone some money. You will need a Federal Fishing License, Federal Halibut Stamp with seasonal bag limits, shorter sport and commerical seasons.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captaindd View Post
    The bottom line is it is going to cost everyone some money. You will need a Federal Fishing License, Federal Halibut Stamp with seasonal bag limits, shorter sport and commerical seasons.
    Basis for the shorter season comment?
    Commercials already have a small pile of federal permits and such,the amount of paperwork for sport fishing is/will be drop in the bucket compared to commercial industry.
    To me it seems as a way to make sport division pay for itself or atleast some %,as they should.Commercial halibut fisherman IFQ holders pay a % off the top for enforcement,and if I remember right,some portion of research too.

    ak

  6. #6

    Default

    Alaska is an exempt state......

    Look for yourself: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/mrip/abo...Fact_Sheet.pdf

  7. #7
    Member Larsenvega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    348

    Default Mandatory NOAA Saltwater Fishing Registration Approved

    original post moved from fishing section. Data deleted.
    Last edited by Larsenvega; 12-25-2008 at 12:22. Reason: moved

  8. #8
    Member AKBassking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SE Alaska-Summer Columbia River-Winter
    Posts
    2,007

    Default Reprieve at least for a year

    Government delays use of recreational registry for one year
    SALTWATER FISHING: Alaska has its own agency, so it's exempt.


    By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID
    The Associated Press

    (12/26/08 04:38:01)

    WASHINGTON -- Recreational saltwater anglers who were supposed to register with the federal government by January are off the hook for a year. But Alaskans never were on.
    After reviewing nearly 500 comments on its proposed registry, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Tuesday that the registration requirement will be delayed until Jan. 1, 2010.
    An estimated 15 million people fish for fun in the oceans and tidal areas around the country and the government is setting up the registry to better understand how this sport affects fish stocks and to gauge its value to local economies.
    The federal registrations will include an angler's name, date of birth, address, telephone number and the regions where they intend to fish. NOAA will use the information to conduct surveys on fishing waters regardless of the region or regions the person specified on the registration form.
    The registration is good for one year. No fee is planned the first year, but the agency said there will be a charge estimated at $15 to $25 annually starting in 2011.
    The registration rule will cover anyone who fishes recreationally in federal waters with certain exceptions.
    • Some states, including Alaska, have their own , and if that information is made available to NOAA, people who sign up with the state would not have to also join the federal program.
    • People who fish only on licensed party, charter or guide boats would not be required to register, as those vessels are surveyed separately.
    • Those with permits to fish for highly migratory species, such as tunas or swordfish, and those fishing under commercial fishing licenses will be exempt.
    • And anglers registered or permitted to fish in a formal state or federal subsistence fishery will also be exempt, as will anglers under 16.
    States with saltwater licensing or registration programs that meet federal requirements are Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina and Delaware.
    Those with licensing or registration programs that have gaps compared to the federal requirement are Florida, South Carolina, Virginia and Maryland. And NOAA said that recreational saltwater licensing or registry programs are lacking in Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey and Puerto Rico.

    ALASKAN SEA-DUCTION
    1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
    MMSI# 338131469
    Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/

  9. #9
    Member CanCanCase's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bandon, OR
    Posts
    614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ak4195 View Post
    Basis for the shorter season comment?
    Commercials already have a small pile of federal permits and such,the amount of paperwork for sport fishing is/will be drop in the bucket compared to commercial industry.
    To me it seems as a way to make sport division pay for itself or atleast some %,as they should.Commercial halibut fisherman IFQ holders pay a % off the top for enforcement,and if I remember right,some portion of research too.

    ak
    The only way to make commercial interests happy in the long run will be to allocate smaller quotas. The only way to keep the growing demand for sport-caught halibut will be to shorten the season and reduce bag limits. Awful hard to reduce bag limits any more than they already have been, so the next logical step is to shorten the season and lessen the opportunity for harvest.

    As for paperwork requirements, just because a sport fisherman isn't inspected and required to keep paperwork, doesn't mean commercial fishermen necessarily have MORE paperwork per fish or per thousand dollars... Between the paper needed for good, conscientius boat maintenance, the log books that a guide or hired captain is required to keep, the logs and diaries that successful sport fishermen voluntarily keep, as well as all the licensing paper that's generated (and will be generated with the new programs) it's a very easy argument that a sport caught fish generates PLENTY of paperwork.

    Now on to the commercial fishermen paying for their own enforcement, what about my tax dollars that go towards enforcement? Isn't that a sport fisherman paying a % off the top of his profits (wages earned working a job) for my own enforcement? What about the % of my fishing license fees that keep ADF&G and AST running? Oh, wait... how much commercial fishing revenue went into the fund to improve recreational boating facilities in the state? Last time I was in Taku Harbor near Juneau, there were PLENTY of commercial boats using the facility at no charge when none of their profits went into re-building the place. (It was built almost entirely with sport license sale revenues and commissions that vendors declined to keep.)

    Then again, maybe I'm just reading too much into it all. I think I'll just retire the business side and get back to boating and fishing for fun again... apparently there's no paperwork or expense involved in sport fishing and pleasure boating!

    -Case
    M/V CanCan - 34' SeaWolf - Bandon, OR
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  10. #10
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CanCanCase View Post
    Now on to the commercial fishermen paying for their own enforcement, what about my tax dollars that go towards enforcement? Isn't that a sport fisherman paying a % off the top of his profits (wages earned working a job) for my own enforcement? What about the % of my fishing license fees that keep ADF&G and AST running? Oh, wait... how much commercial fishing revenue went into the fund to improve recreational boating facilities in the state? Last time I was in Taku Harbor near Juneau, there were PLENTY of commercial boats using the facility at no charge when none of their profits went into re-building the place. (It was built almost entirely with sport license sale revenues and commissions that vendors declined to keep.)
    To say commercial fishermen don't pay their fair share is pretty lame, every stocked salmon in Southeast Alaska, and Every Stocked Tout in SEAK is paid for by commercial fishing. So the sport guys pay for one harbor facility, stocking fish in Anchorage, and a few parking lots and launch ramp here and there (which probably cost way to much) the comm guys pay for the rest of the enhanced salmon in the state as well as all of the managment of commercial species and even subsistence fishery management. Theres probably something in the pittman robertson act (I think thats where the sport fish access fund comes from) that stipulates the money can only be spent to improve access and access facilities so where else would the money go. Also commercial fishing makes the tax base for most coastal towns from Adak, to Craig there are docks and facilities soley because of commercial fishermen and they remain there for everybody to use, even the whale watching boats, so to say that Commercial fishermen don't pull their fair share cause one harbor was built with sport fish funding is just ignorant.

    Meanwhile the charter industry has failed to limit its growth while the commercial industry has less boats than ever. Perhaps the econmic downturn will drive some charter opps out of bussiness and folks up to SEAK from Iowa and Alabama can let 2 fish a day rot in their suitcase home again (remember SEAK charter fishermen are 98% nonresidents)
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  11. #11
    Member AKCAPT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Seward
    Posts
    1,126

    Default

    Meanwhile the charter industry has failed to limit its growth while the commercial industry has less boats than ever. Perhaps the econmic downturn will drive some charter opps out of bussiness and folks up to SEAK from Iowa and Alabama can let 2 fish a day rot in their suitcase home again (remember SEAK charter fishermen are 98% nonresidents)[/QUOTE]



    The Charter industry cannot limit it's own growth. As much I have have tried to push for limited entry this kind of change cannot occur from within the industry. Some members of the charter industry have tried to resist these changes, exactly the same way some commercial fishermen resisted IFQ or limited entry. The issue is that the State and the Federal Governement has failed to regulate the charter industry in a reasonable amount of time. It is not the fault of the charter industry that there has been too much growth. That is basic supply and demand. The role of the State should be to protect resources through the management. They have failed to achive this.

  12. #12
    Member CanCanCase's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bandon, OR
    Posts
    614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ak_powder_monkey View Post
    To say commercial fishermen don't pay their fair share is pretty lame...

    ...so to say that Commercial fishermen don't pull their fair share cause one harbor was built with sport fish funding is just ignorant.
    Umm, Patrick... I never said commercial fishermen didn't pay their fair share. Go back and re-read my post. A previous poster implied that sport fishermen didn't pay their fair share, and I was simply proving that sport fishermen helped pay for plenty.

    To say that commercial fishermen paid for all the boat harbors that everyone uses is off a bit too. The vast majority of the docks and harbors here (at least in SE) were original State infrastructure projects, so if we're going to claim that commercial fishermen paid for harbors, we've got to also thank the com fish folks for building the capitol building, all of our roads, and that big pipe up north... That seems a bit of a stretch to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by ak_powder_monkey View Post
    Meanwhile the charter industry has failed to limit its growth while the commercial industry has less boats than ever. Perhaps the econmic downturn will drive some charter opps out of bussiness and folks up to SEAK from Iowa and Alabama can let 2 fish a day rot in their suitcase home again (remember SEAK charter fishermen are 98% nonresidents)
    I don't see that the charter industry has failed to limit its growth... if there were no limited entry for commercial boats, do you really think there would be so few? As long as it's profitable, more will come. It's the State and Federal government and their associated management programs that have failed to limit the growth of the charter industry. When asked for a IFQ program for halibut charters, the NPFMC and State shot the idea down. When asked for a limited entry program, the State and ADF&G shot the idea down. The fact is, there is no legal basis to limit the charter fleet. Economics will indeed restrict many, but how can you tell a group of people to NOT do something that there's no law against?

    If the main problem you have with charter boats is that they typically service non-residents, that's fine. I can understand being a greedy Alaskan and not wanting non-residents to have or waste a resource that you perceive to be "yours." The problem is, the halibut don't belong to you, me, or any commercial fisherman that bought IFQ. The fish belong to all of us. That means uncle Joe from Iowa and some random dude in Louisiana all have the same right to come catch the fish that you and I do. If the dude in Louisiana buys the same fishing license that you carry in YOUR pocket, pays the same fee to access his public resource that I pay to access it, why can he only take one fish and you and I can take 2 from the same spot at the same time?

    Patrick, you have fished from a charter boat yourself. I don't see you rowing your skiff out to catch halibut on your own ever... how exactly do you plan on accessing and enjoying YOUR public resources? Last I looked, you weren't exactly ready to hike to the halibut grounds from Auke Bay!

    -Case
    M/V CanCan - 34' SeaWolf - Bandon, OR
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  13. #13

    Default

    CCC and the others,

    I liked how you said that a common arguement that many people have is that they don't want "outsiders" coming up here and taking "their" fish. I have always found that to be very interesting logic. But, not for the reason that you mentioned, but because the vast majority of the halibut, salmon, cod, and the variety of other species that are commercially fished here end up in the lower 48 or somewhere else much further away. From the prices that I have seen at the docks that are paid to commercial fishermen, we are willing to just about give away the resource. It is sickening how little they get while risking life and limb to make a decent living.

    And that is the root of the problem. Halibut should be 30-50 dollars a pound at the grocery store, not on sale for the 10-15 bucks (or less) that it is frequently is. Freshly caught halibut, king/coho/red salmon, and others are truly a delicacy. I am frequently astonished at how the price can be so low.

    Yet, the reasoning is simple, the more fish that a commercial guy can catch the more he makes (at least in the short term). Next year, and the years following he now has to catch more to make the same amount as the price goes down thanks to the increase in supply. The only way to get the price up is to limit supply. The state clearly needs to buy back some of the IFQs. This will raise the price, lessen the demand a bit, and leave more fish in the water.

    But, that is not where it should end, legislators need to adjust or completely rewrite the laws in referrence to charters. They can not go on completely unchecked for the same logic and reasoning that the commercial fleet must not operate in that way. Something has to be done. Pretending that the problem is going to take care of itself because travel went up a little and gas prices doubled is not going to stop the 1-2 million tourists from coming up here next year to fish, see glaciers, and whatever else because it might cost them four hundred more dollars for their twenty five thousand dollar once in a lifetime family trip.

    Commercial guys, charter guys, and local businesses need to unite in this and quit elbowing each other for more of share. As when the halibut, salmon, and other fishery stocks are depleted, it is likely going to be very tough for a lot of people for a very long time. And this is where we are headed if we continue on this heading.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CanCanCase View Post

    ...Last time I was in Taku Harbor near Juneau, there were PLENTY of commercial boats using the facility at no charge when none of their profits went into re-building the place. (It was built almost entirely with sport license sale revenues and commissions that vendors declined to keep.)...



    -Case
    "Division of Sport Fisheries funding for Taku Harbor Rehabilitation is 75% federal funds from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS)"

    http://notes4.state.ak.us/pn/pubnoti.../$FILE/SOS.pdf


    The vast majority of the rest of the funding is from CBJ.

    There is no mention of sport fishing license sales forming a basis of funding for any aspect of Taku Harbor Rehab.
    .
    .
    .
    .


    Killin' it!




  15. #15
    Member CanCanCase's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bandon, OR
    Posts
    614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ishmael View Post
    "Division of Sport Fisheries funding for Taku Harbor Rehabilitation is 75% federal funds from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS)"

    http://notes4.state.ak.us/pn/pubnoti.../$FILE/SOS.pdf


    The vast majority of the rest of the funding is from CBJ.

    There is no mention of sport fishing license sales forming a basis of funding for any aspect of Taku Harbor Rehab.
    And the USF&WS and CBJ money for the project came from where? USF&WS monies are predominately sport fish and hunt derived. CBJ funding comes largely in the form of maintaining and administering the facility. When was the last time you bought fish from a commercial boat and paid sales tax on the purchase? The vast majority of commercial fishing businesses aren't even registered with the city sales tax office (especially the boats from other towns that are legally exempt from paying sales tax.)

    Hey, while we're on the topic, why is it that a commercial boat pays for moorage in the city marinas, and then can sell their fish at the dock without paying a fee for profiting on a city facility? A charter boat must also pay their moorage in the city marina, AND pay a large fee for passenger loading/unloading at the same dock facility. Charters aren't allowed to sell their services on the dock because that would be profiting at or on a city facility. Heck, even private citizens that lease moorage from the city aren't allowed to profit on the city facility by charging more for rent in a boathouse than they pay to moor it there in the first place. Why can the commercial boat make a profit at the dock while a charter or private citizen can not?

    I'm going to sign off for now... this is turning into a pointless debate. Commercial fishermen pay plenty to run their business, and they have mounds of paperwork to deal with. Charters pay plenty to run their business, and they have mounds of paperwork to deal with. Private sportsmen pay plenty to own and operate their vessels, and still have a reasonable amount of paperwork to deal with. Pardon the pun, but we're all basically in the same boat as far as paying in and paperwork are concerned.

    I retired from the commercial side of the industry years ago because I saw it wasn't the best way for me to make a living. I'm retiring my charter business now because it's not a great way to make a living, and it's not all that fun anymore. That leaves me as a sport fisherman, and I'll happily support any proposal or cause that guarantees my right to access the common public resource.

    [/rant]

    -Case
    M/V CanCan - 34' SeaWolf - Bandon, OR
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CanCanCase View Post
    And the USF&WS and CBJ money for the project came from where? USF&WS monies are predominately sport fish and hunt derived.
    Really? How do they manage that? P&R funds? I was unaware of any federal fishing license for sportfishers, so I don't see how you can say that(Taku Harbor)


    Originally Posted by CanCanCase

    (... was built almost entirely with sport license sale revenues and commissions that vendors declined to keep.)...
    ?


    Look at the bright side, now you don't have to begrudge your friends and neighbors who are commercial fishers for using the Taku Harbor Dock they (like you and me) helped pay for, and which, by the way, started as a commercial cannery many years before there was a charter industry, recreational fishery, or even State of Alaska.




    When was the last time you bought fish from a commercial boat and paid sales tax on the purchase? The vast majority of commercial fishing businesses aren't even registered with the city sales tax office (especially the boats from other towns that are legally exempt from paying sales tax.)
    Huh? What does this little philosophical wander have to do with Taku Harbor?


    Hey, while we're on the topic, why is it that a commercial boat pays for moorage in the city marinas, and then can sell their fish at the dock without paying a fee for profiting on a city facility? A charter boat must also pay their moorage in the city marina, AND pay a large fee for passenger loading/unloading at the same dock facility. Charters aren't allowed to sell their services on the dock because that would be profiting at or on a city facility. Heck, even private citizens that lease moorage from the city aren't allowed to profit on the city facility by charging more for rent in a boathouse than they pay to moor it there in the first place. Why can the commercial boat make a profit at the dock while a charter or private citizen can not?
    Gee, don't know. Don't even know how we got to this subject.

    I'm going to sign off for now... this is turning into a pointless debate.
    With me?
    .
    .
    .
    .


    Killin' it!




  17. #17

    Unhappy Just think

    of all the wonderful tax dollars that will be needed for this! NOAA are active duty commissioned officers, one of the seven uniformed services. They will have to grow like a cancer as most government agencies do. Just lovely.

  18. #18
    Member Larsenvega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    348

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildog View Post
    of all the wonderful tax dollars that will be needed for this! NOAA are active duty commissioned officers, one of the seven uniformed services. They will have to grow like a cancer as most government agencies do. Just lovely.
    NOAA does not fall under the DoD as the other branches do. Also, their employees are not commissioned officers. Instead, they fall under the government service type of category (similar to the US Postal Service or IRS). This program will most likely pay for itself by using the $15-25 registration fees as working capital.

  19. #19
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Larsenvega View Post
    Originally Posted by wildog
    of all the wonderful tax dollars that will be needed for this! NOAA are active duty commissioned officers, one of the seven uniformed services. They will have to grow like a cancer as most government agencies do. Just lovely.
    NOAA does not fall under the DoD as the other branches do. Also, their employees are not commissioned officers. Instead, they fall under the government service type of category (similar to the US Postal Service or IRS)........
    NOAA is not a "government service". It's primary purpose is as a scientific research organization similar to NASA, which in my opinion makes it a potentially dangerous organization if it gets fully infiltrated with those of the environmentalist ideology.

    And, like NASA (as well as DoD, for that matter),there is a mix of military and civilian personnel. NOAA's Office of Military Affairs, Marine and Aviation Operations, and Commerce and Transportation Divisions are headed by commissioned officers.

  20. #20
    Member Larsenvega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    348

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    NOAA is not a "government service". It's primary purpose is as a scientific research organization similar to NASA, which in my opinion makes it a potentially dangerous organization if it gets fully infiltrated with those of the environmentalist ideology.

    And, like NASA (as well as DoD, for that matter),there is a mix of military and civilian personnel. NOAA's Office of Military Affairs, Marine and Aviation Operations, and Commerce and Transportation Divisions are headed by commissioned officers.
    NOAA's employees are on the GS-grade pay scales (with the exception of the big-wig SES'). GS stands for "Government Service", hence my previous remark regarding why they are not commissioned military officers. Your military personnel that are assigned to NASA are simply that; assigned. They are on the payroll of the actual military branches that they fall under, mostly USAF. The USAF has a space command (SPACOM) that specifically supports this area. So I believe that we can all sleep easily at night knowing that the NOAA, FAA, NASA, IRS, etc., are not just a bunch of commies.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •