Search results

(169,941 - 169,960 of 182,101)

Pages

ComediasFamosasVol3PDFtest.pdf-281
Title
ComediasFamosasVol3PDFtest.pdf-281
Page from
info:fedora/mu:437498
Text
De Don Aguftin Moreto. 17 Sus guardas Fon mis respetos: Cari. A mi no me toca esso, pues de qué sirve esperarlas, sino respetar la dama si quando yo no me aparte, de mi dueño , y no atreverme me han de despejar las guardas? á cometer esta infamia; Yo no puedo resistirle, porque aunque estés ofendida, pues si mi lealtad bizarra quando yo por ti lo haga, fe le ha de rendir de humilde, no será mi
CRS851024ENRpage15
Title
CRS851024ENRpage15
Page from
info:fedora/mu:25895
Text
none may have existed previously. In 1982 and 1984, Federal preemption of
CRS851024ENRpage11
Title
CRS851024ENRpage11
Page from
info:fedora/mu:25895
Text
CRS-4 prohibits or severely restricts harvest of that species for conservation purposes. For example, in Alaska herring are important to coastal Native villages for subsistence and support a substantial inshore commercial har- vest. These fish are also regarded as prime forage for salmon by sport and commercial harvesters who would prefer to restrict herring harvests to bene- fit salmon runs. At the same time, other commercial harvesters seek approv- al for harvesting herring from Federal offshore waters before these fish migrate inshore to spawn. Competing Harvest Methods: Harvest methods, techniques, timing, or other characteristics common to one jurisdiction (particularly for highly? valued species) can threaten, or be perceived to threaten, to diminish fish stocks and/or fishing industry success in adjacent jurisdictions. This third concern is more critical to the long-term well-being of fish stocks and the fishing industry than the procedural coordination concerns expressed in the previous two subsections. Particular areas of concern include: a) instances where harvesting mature or spawning stocks in one jurisdiction may reduce recruitment of next generation fish from these nursery areas and diminish future abundance of migra- tory subadults of these stocks in neighboring jurisdictions; b) situations involving migratory species where important habitat may span many jurisdictions and species management is complicated by decisions made in many jurisdictions ~- especially anadromous and catadromous species where offshore fishing harvests mixed stocks from many jurisdictions rather than inshore terminal and freshwater harvesting which focuses on capturing stocks of a more local nature -- Pacific salmon are a prime example; and c) circumstances were harvest of a species in one jurisdiction (including its harvest as by-catch or incidental catch while pursuing another species) may force adjacent jurisdictions to adopt stringent compensatory restrictions to protect long-term resource value. In these cases, some jurisdictions elect to, or feel forced to, sacrifice present harvests for the sake of long-term resource health while other jurisdictions decide to emphasize the capture of short-term benefits.
CRS851024ENRpage09
Title
CRS851024ENRpage09
Page from
info:fedora/mu:25895
Text
CR3-3 laws among jurisdictions is complicated, potential for successful illegal harvest is increased, and optimal management of stocks cannot be achieved under these circumstances. Situations identified in the survey which gave examples of this concern included: a) b) c) d) e) Conflicting Economic Goals: instances where adjacent jurisdictions impose different size limits, gear restrictions, area closures, or seasons, creating enforcement and other management problems -- disregard for regulations can be hidden by selectively landing one's harvest at ports under the authority of the less stringent regulatory regime; " ‘ i instances where an emergency response to a habitat problem is considered essential by one jurisdiction, but such an effort . cannot be completely successful because adjacent jurisdictions may not participate; l unsynchronized closures among adjacent jurisdictions which serve to concentrate fishing effort in limited‘areas may overload management and enforcement capabilities of jurisdictions where waters remain open for harvest -- an example is alleged to occur in the Gulf of Mexico during the annual Texas closure for shrimp; situations where differing restrictions are in effect in adja- cent jurisdictions (e.g., the same species differently designated) concentrating commercial harvest effort and altering the market supply of commercial species -- two examples are the restric- ted sport harvest only for a species in one jurisdiction while its commercial harvest is legal in an adjacent jurisdiction; and protection of "soft shell" crabs in one jurisdiction while their commercial harvest is legal in an adjacent jurisdiction; and instances where adjacent jurisdictions use different kinds of regulatory mechanisms to manage a fishery (e.g., one jurisdic- tion relies on harvest regulations while an adjacent jurisdic- tion seeks to control the same fishery through limits on pro- cessing capacity). This can be a particular problem when Federal waters are managed for harvest while States assert control of the processing capacity -- if harvest quotas and processing limits are not similar, chaos is a likely result. Market characteristics and local economic; dependence on fisheries may vary among jurisdictions such that differing goals are sought for the same species. In these situations, direct harvest of a species may be legal in one jurisdiction, while an adjacent jurisdiction
CRS851024ENRpage13
Title
CRS851024ENRpage13
Page from
info:fedora/mu:25895
Text
CRS-5 Interstate Concerns The survey also identified two minor issues relating only to inter- state concerns. Several States expressed concerns that discriminatory or non-reciprocal commmercial fisheries licensing practices by adjacent‘ States result in inequitable access to shared fishery resources for ad-. joining State residents. In addition, one State was concerned that coastal, industrial development within another State's jurisdiction might adversely impact important fish stocks which migrate beyond that State's jurisdiction. Additional State-Federal Concerns Almost all the concerns in this category are specific to certain lim-S ited areas or fisheries and may not involve more than one or two States - in each issue. ‘These issues include: a) an unsettled territorial waters boundary claim by the State of Hawaii which frustrates agreement on regulatory jurisdiction for certain fisheries; S b) consistency challenges to Federal FMP's under provisions of State Coastal Zone Management Plans; c) designations of certain restrictive Federal land status classi- fications (e.g., critical habitat for endangered species, wil- derness, national wildlife refuge, national marine sanctuary) are perceived to complicate and frustrate State management of marine resources; d) Federal designation of an entire species throughout its range as threatened or endangered precludes harvest of substocks considered viable by a State; e) in situations where the entire traditional harvest of a species has been managed by a State, any Federal interest in assuming management authority over some aspect of this species or its harvest can be controversial; I f) concern that the Federal government does not more aggressively pursue the elimination of foreign high seas harvesting of anad- romous salmon of U.S. origin, especially where this resource is considered fully utilized under State jurisdiction; and
CRS851024ENRpage10
Title
CRS851024ENRpage10
Page from
info:fedora/mu:25895
CRS851024ENRpage08
Title
CRS851024ENRpage08
Page from
info:fedora/mu:25895
CRS851024ENRpage12
Title
CRS851024ENRpage12
Page from
info:fedora/mu:25895
CRS851024ENRpage14
Title
CRS851024ENRpage14
Page from
info:fedora/mu:25895
CRS851024ENRpage55
Title
CRS851024ENRpage55
Page from
info:fedora/mu:25895
Text
CRS-27 relative to interjurisdictional fisheries management concerns -- survey responses from States bordering the Gulf of Mexico were almost unanimous in denying the existence of any problems with current interstate coopera- ‘ 0 tion in interjurisdictional fisheries management, although species concerns pwere identified where such interstate cooperation was helpful and necessary. The Pacific
CRS851024ENRpage51
Title
CRS851024ENRpage51
Page from
info:fedora/mu:25895
Text
(15 percent by value) of the total U.S. harvest -- only about one-third of the weight and value of the harvest from waters under State jurisdiction. A total of 23 percent by weight (40,percent by value) of all domestic landings were harvested from waters outside U.S. jurisdiction at this time (beyond 12 miles). Q1] By 1983, the landings share from State waters had increased to 61 per- cent by weight
CRS851024ENRpage53
Title
CRS851024ENRpage53
Page from
info:fedora/mu:25895
Text
Marine Fisheries Commission was approved July 24, 1947 (61 Stat. 419), followed by the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission on May 19, lS49 (63 Stat. 70). However, there are stark differences between the philosophies and programs of these three comissions. Only the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has been agres- sive in assuming a regulatory role through approval of Amendment No. l
CRS851024ENRpage57
Title
CRS851024ENRpage57
Page from
info:fedora/mu:25895
Text
decade have greatly expanded this historic .role. U.S. harvest of offshore fisheries from waters under direct Federal jurisdiction has risen from only 18 percent by weight (15 percent by value) in 1975 (prior to enactment of the MFCMA) to almost 33 percent by weight (42 percent by value) in 1983. Between 1975 and 1983, landings from waters under Federal jurisdiction increased 158 percent in weight
CRS851024ENRpage54
Title
CRS851024ENRpage54
Page from
info:fedora/mu:25895
Text
-e.
CRS851024ENRpage50
Title
CRS851024ENRpage50
Page from
info:fedora/mu:25895
CRS851024ENRpage52
Title
CRS851024ENRpage52
Page from
info:fedora/mu:25895
CRS851024ENRpage56
Title
CRS851024ENRpage56
Page from
info:fedora/mu:25895
CRS851024ENRpage58
Title
CRS851024ENRpage58
Page from
info:fedora/mu:25895
ComediasFamosasVol3PDFtest.pdf-327
Title
ComediasFamosasVol3PDFtest.pdf-327
Page from
info:fedora/mu:437498
Text
be ban Augustin Moreto, ta este bofqut qótdati escondidos, dár cuenta á Fletida» AB^» y todos advertidos i una seña; que lo comience i nngir. «ai para que el intento, que me empeña, Tccan detitro un rebato» a todos, y a mi primo fea notorio, íZír.Aqui estruendos Militares f antes de atropellar fu desposorio, Dentro Fisberto* en presencia de Flerida he de hablarle, jisb Cercad todo e£ie Palacio» y el incendio en que vivo publicarles ^ír/.Señora, por todas partes y si fe le opusiere a mi esperanza, cercado esta de Soldados por no arriesgar mi vida en la tardanza, este Alcazar. F&r.Nadie sabe» apelando al poder con que he venido, que Se^ifinando ha venido: le tengo de prender ; pues residido qué puede ser i G/^r.Las señales de ellos no puedo íer , quando el Senado alguna traición prometen ; an toda Albania ha bailado, Fisberto es ti que la hace» ni a tocar caxa, ni a arbolar randera, &?£,Mi primo traidor i Señora, quien contra mi las at mat tomar quiera» no esta duda os sobresalte, Y si acaso no quiere mi ventura, que en quien vuestra sangre ticna qué de Fledda logre la hermosura: no cabe traición» pues mi esperanza ea mi poder sefur Sale Fisheries no ha de ser soya, sino fuere mh» Fisb.No cabes Xí^Señor, 6 de los coches el estruendo, pero cabeh defensa es indicio seguro, y a lo entiendo, de qualqutera, que inténtate que á Palacio tu primo avrá llegado» quitarme la vida á mi. Jlsb.Lt breve la distancia de Belgrade: Fsor.Ay, Cielos riesgo notable i él es, sin duda : amigos, oy consigo T^b.Valeroso Segismundo, lo que deseo, retiraos conmigo: que del honor que heredaste fortuna, ru eres ya de mi violencia, al respecto de los osos, pues contra mi ño tknes resistencia- dá noticia tu semblante: Sale acompañamiento, Arsenio ,y Segifmun^ yo soi tu primo Fisberto, do Galan, Cantueso, y Damas, Flsrida^ á quien toda Albania os hace Cfinura,y Lucinda* voluntario rendimiento, C4»í.Plaza, phza, que va. aqui y de fu laurel triumphant^, la nata de los Galanes» quiere ceñirme las sienes: Seg.Dé vuestra Alteza so mano pero mi lealtad le sabe á quien sin ella no vale depositar en mi mano, para desposo4 a sos pies. sin que a la frente le pastea 7/^. Mis brazos, primo, di’atCE’ Todas sos fuerzas posteo, la Corona á vuestra Alteza, ya tu sabrás el dictamen: de que y i dueño le hacen. pero si acaso le ignoras, Seg Ya de la de esclavo vuestro escucha lo que no sabes» tengo en el rostro señales. Yo vi a Flerida divina, C^^r.Déme también vuestra Artez3> y el alma en so bella imagen: lo que las Princesas talo mas si digo que la vi, dan á los que galantean. íu hermosura está delante» >7fr.Galan venís. Cant. Un buen talle?, Mira sus rayos, é insiere aun con.la» galas fe soce; de mucho tiempo á un instante, mas vuestra Arteza repare,, la ruina que en rol avrán hecho si me falta alguna cofa por el estrago, que hacen» de galán, parte por parter Yo esto? sin alma, y si vivo, que el Boticario me ba dichos es de la gloria que nace que vol bueno, Dios mediante^ de vér, que por facrisicio y quando no esté mui bueno, al pie de sos aras arde» dice, que vendrá a curarme» Esta dicha que me anima» $¿£.Dc mi designio ceu.iknc vienes tu aora á quitarme* �
ComediasFamosasVol3PDFtest.pdf-326
Title
ComediasFamosasVol3PDFtest.pdf-326
Page from
info:fedora/mu:437498
Text
* tan extraños, alii me vol a comprarlo. ^afg. tu mismo vi» á entregarte Salín li:>bíTi0t y alguna Soldados^ al rigor de tus contrarios. y Lisardo. ^.V alga me el Cielo 1 Es possible# FLberto, viva. U/A migo* míos que quando los ojos abro, do el elcandalo estorve vuestros bríos; rodeada mi grandeza el bienes» ha de darnos ma* frgvr '# de tantos peligros bailo I el ¡ogro de la empresta, euc

Pages