Just do it!
Nils E. Stolpe
FishNet USA
January 16, 2011
If federal fisheries management policy isn't drastically altered, for a far too large part of the industry all that's in it is economic oblivion for you, your boat and your business.
If you participate in, are associated with or dependent upon any kind of fishing and you think that things are moving in the right direction, you’re either not in the United States, you’re a fisheries manager, you work for an anti-fishing ENGO, or you’re not looking much beyond your own self-interest. It’s as simple as that.
Fishing in the United States has evolved over generations, supported by centuries-old traditions and close-knit fishing communities. All of this evolution, all of these traditions and our unique and irreplaceable communities are being threatened by a federal fisheries management regime that is based on nothing more than reducing the number of fishermen and the number of fish that they are catching, reducing the areas in which they can fish, and reducing the administrative burden on the government in the most expeditious way possible. This isn’t a policy that has been endorsed by Congress, this isn’t a policy that reflects the will of the people and it certainly isn’t a policy that is supported by a significant proportion of the fishing industry. It is nothing more than the culmination of a carefully orchestrated decades-long campaign by a highly influential group of anti-fishing ENGOs and the multi-billion dollar foundations that support them that has infiltrated its way into the highest offices of the federal oceans bureaucracy.
All of this in spite of the fact that our domestic fisheries are in better shape today than they have been in decades (Steve Murawski, who retired from his position as the chief scientist for NOAA Fisheries last week, said unequivocally that as of this year overfishing in U.S. fisheries is over – here).
Why do we have more fish today than we’ve had in several generations? Certainly not because of anything that any so-called environmentalist has done using foundation funding and carrying out agendas which have little to do with fish or fishing. The only reason we have more fish is because you and your fellow fishermen have taken sustainability seriously and have made the necessary sacrifices. Now that we’re over the hump, do you want to have a say in decisions that directly affect your business, your family, your community and your future? Do you want to have a say in how our nation’s extensive marine resources are sustainably managed? Are you tired of agenda-driven top-down decisions made by people who at best care not a whit for and at worst are openly antagonistic towards fishermen and fishing?
If you answered yes to any or all of these questions, then try one more. Have you done anything substantive about it?
The chances are pretty good that you haven’t. And if you don’t, the chances are pretty good that the same people and the same organizations backed by the same big money interests will continue to be in charge, will continue to call the shots, and will continue to successfully push their anti-fishing agenda.
But what, I hope you’re asking, can I do against multi-billion dollar foundations using their tremendous power to institute policies that protect the fish and ignore the fishermen, against the ENGOs with annual budgets of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars that those foundations support, against the scientists they’ve bought and the bureaucrats they’ve put in place?
You’ve got a voice. Learn how to use it, and use it effectively. Here’s your chance to get involved, and to get involved in an issue that should be critical to every commercial, recreational and party/charter fisherman that values fishing sustainably however and whenever he or she wishes (and this isn’t a plug for unregulated fishing – thankfully we outgrew that decades ago).
Massachusetts Congressman Barney Franks is on the record with “we will introduce amendments to the Magnuson Act so that we can continue rebuilding fish stocks without causing undue economic harm.” For those of you who aren’t familiar with this issue, most – but surely not all - of the problems facing fishermen today revolve around the Magnuson Act requirement that all fish stocks be “rebuilt” to maximum and often unrealistic levels within a specific time period (generally 10 years). Regardless of how steadily a stock of fish is growing, if it doesn’t reach a certain level by a certain date, the managers will severely cut back or even eliminate fishing on it until it is “recovered.” This is regardless of the economic damage that will be visited on the people, the businesses and the communities that depend on that fishery. Businesses can be and have been driven into bankruptcy, homes and boats can be and have been lost, futures can be and have been eroded and entire communities can be and are in the process of being destroyed because instead of reaching some arbitrary level of abundance this year, a population of fish is on schedule to reach it next year or the year after.
Why? Because the anti-fishing activists who are now dictating federal fishing policy have used their foundation-supplied $millions to convince our elected leaders in Washington that it’s actually good for the fishermen and others who depend on fishing, but that they are too blinded by the necessity to make a living to realize that themselves.
Obviously, such a Magnuson amendment as the one Congressman Frank is offering would be of tremendous benefit for every fisherman and for every business that depends on fishing. Obviously it would be of no harm to the fish stocks – aside from their reaching that arbitrary “rebuilt” level a year or two later (a requirement would be that they had to maintain their rebuilding trajectory). Just as obviously, the anti-fishing activists would loose one of their most effective weapons in their campaign against fishing, so we can expect some fierce and obscenely well-funded resistance.
That means the Congressman Franks is going to need some significant support from other coastal legislators, and you are among the folks who can provide him with that support.
If you don’t know already, find out who represents you in Washington (the easy to use House and Senate Member locator websites are here and here), call their district or DC offices and find out who on their staff works on environmental or fisheries issues. Talk to them, let them know where you live and vote, what your connection to fishing is, and then explain how important it is to you and to other constituents to amend the Magnuson Act to allow some flexibility in the rebuilding schedules. Do that three times; once for your Representative in the House and once for each of your Senators. And then get as many of your friends, neighbors, relatives and business connections to do the same thing.
This year is going to be a great one for talking to the officials you and your neighbors elect about maintaining jobs. Don’t pass up the chance, and remember that the so-called conservationists can only talk about speculative jobs that some people might have at some point in the future while you’ll be talking about actual income generating jobs employing actual flesh and blood voters right now. You’ll have far more credibility than the foundation flacks hiding behind pumped-up membership rosters and virtually meaningless “click here to save the fish” website responses.
That’s the way legislation is supposed to happen and the election in November showed that that’s the way it can happen. It has the interest of every elected official in Washington, at least every one who wants to be reelected. But it’s only going to happen that way if you make it. You can communicate directly and effectively with your Washington reps on a real world basis. The only way the anti-fishing activists can is through what ifs and speculation. That doesn’t generate productive jobs, that doesn’t generate real income and that doesn’t sustain real communities.
But don’t let it end there.
Right now there are more writers putting out well researched articles about what the antis are doing to fishing and to fishermen than there has ever been, and each year an increasing number of scientists with impeccable credentials are publishing articles that put the lie to what the anti-fishing forces are presenting as gospel. Keep your eyes open for any that seem particularly important to you. There area number of free “clipping services” for fishermen. Saving Seafood keeps people who subscribe to its alerts and visit its website up-to-date on fisheries issues, particularly in the Northeast (here). On the West Coast, Pacific Fishing provides a similar service through its website and emailed Fish Wrap News (here). And there are many other sources, including newsletters from fishing associations, fishing trade publications, government services and just plain old web searching. Get familiar with what’s available and use it.
Make the investment in staying current with what’s going on in fisheries locally, regionally, nationally and internationally and when an issue sparks your interest, call up the staffer you now have a relationship with and discuss it. When you read an article that you think he or she should see, send it along (but use judgment here. Congressional staffers tend to be very busy people).
We have a Congress with Members who are almost overwhelmingly ignorant of fish and of fishing. They aren’t going to learn anything – at least anything that you are going to want them to learn – from either the leadership of NOAA/NMFS or from ENGOs that have bloated their treasuries and their leaders’ salaries by selling out to the highest agenda-driven foundation bidder. Their education depends on you, and on anyone else who you can convince. If they don’t start to get federal legislation right when it comes to fishing, you’ll have nobody to blame but yourself.
…………………………………………………
Note: The New Bedford Harbor Development Commission ”has developed a ‘top ten’ list of issues as a press briefing to inform journalists, talk show hosts, and other newcomers to the issues facing the New England fishing industry.” While presented as issues facing New England, in some form or another, virtually all ten of them apply to fishermen and fishing anywhere in the United States. The list, along with links to supporting material, is on the Saving Seafood website here. Particularly if it serves as a starting point, this list should be an invaluable tool in challenging the anti-fishing management status quo that is being used to curtail fishing, drive fishermen off the water, and bankrupt fishing dependent businesses from Alaska to Maine (including Hawaii and the island complexes that are under US jurisdiction).
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Dead turtles in the Gulf – another NOAA shell game?
Last year's BP oil spill resulted in one and a half to two and a half million gallons of petroleum products being released into the Gulf of Mexico every day for three months. It was the largest accidental oil spill that has ever been inflicted on any ocean anywhere. It resulted in floating oil slicks and subsurface oil plumes that were hundreds of miles in extent. Exacerbating a horrendous situation, with the blessing of the Feds the people at BP sprayed and injected millions of gallons of chemical dispersants, chemicals the use of which has been outlawed abroad because of their toxic environmental effects, into the gulf waters that they had already done such a thorough job of contaminating to “break up” the oil in some totally misguided effort based on “out of sight, out of mind.”
Needless to say, none of this was particularly good for the flora or fauna of the Gulf. This fact was brought home by the 600 or so dead turtles that were collected from the areas affected by the spill and by the dispersants used to “control” it.
However, according to Jane Lubchenco, head of NOAA, in a statement in the Miami Herald on December 30, in her estimation it wasn't BP and the biggest accidental oil spill that the world has ever seen or the wanton use, with her approval, of toxic chemical dispersants that was responsible for the dead turtles. It was fishermen.
Now anyone who has followed Ms. Lubchenco's career, either before or since taking control at NOAA, wouldn't be surprised to discover that she would be willing to hold fishermen responsible for anything bad that's happened since the day that primitive humankind discovered that fish were good to eat. But her attempt to pin the blame for the dead sea turtles on fishermen is stretching the bounds of credulity farther than she's ever stretched them before (and that's up to and including the prediction that our oceans would be populated with nothing but jellyfish at some point in the future because of fishing.)
Her statement about the turtle deaths and fishing was "while nearly all the rescued sea turtles were visibly oiled, to our surprise, most of the dead stranded sea turtles had no observable oil on their bodies and were in good health prior to their death. Necropsies (autopsies on animals) on more than half of 600 carcasses point to the possibility that a majority may have drowned in fishing gear. The evidence is that natural causes of death were ruled out, and that shrimp and fish - not a natural part of turtle diets - were found in their digestive tracts."
First off, what does “the possibility that a majority may have” actually mean? Those seven words have clearly earned a place near the top of the list of the world's greatest bureaucratic non-communications.
This is followed by “the evidence is that natural causes of death were ruled out.” I guess so. Dumping a quarter of a billion gallons of petroleum products and chemical dispersants on top of any critters' neighborhood would probably rule out all of the natural causes of death.
Then we get to the part where the dead turtles had ingested shrimp and fish - not a natural part of turtle diets according to Ms. Lubchenco, but not according to numerous web sites (search on “sea turtle diet”), which label them as “opportunistic” feeders. meaning they'll eat whatever they can get. Are we to assume that the fishermen force fed the turtles before they done 'em in? That the turtles choked on those shrimp and fish that they were forced to eat? Or that as the turtles were drowning in the fishermen's nets, they were busy gorging themselves on the shrimp and fish that were in there with them?
Or how about that the turtles were feeding on fish and shrimp because everything else that they could eat had either died or skedaddled because of what BP had done, with the federal government’s approval, to their particular part of the Gulf of Mexico? Or that the turtles were forced out of their normal haunts and away from their normal food by all that oil and Corexit and had to try to feed on what was available? Nah... it couldn't be any of that, could it?
So we have thousands of Gulf fishermen who, because of BP’s actions and the government’s lack of effective oversight, lost their markets and at least half a year's worth of fishing and were actually getting some well-deserved public sympathy. Ms. Lubchenco appears unwilling to put up with that, so with the careful use of words that no one will be able to hold her accountable for she seems to be doing what she can to stop that sympathy in its tracks.
And, as an added benefit, she'll probably be able to get rid of even more fishing boats, and fishermen, in the bargain.
As is becoming increasingly evident, it’s well past the time when the powers that be in the Department of Commerce, in the Obama Administration and in Congress should give serious consideration to the real-world implications of having someone with such a profound bias against fishermen and fishing as Ms. Lubchenco so obviously does at the helm of the NOAA. After decades of demonstrating that they are world leaders in the conservation of species after species, our fishermen deserve more from Washington than a target painted on their collective backs.
Happy New Year from our friends at NOAA!
Needless to say, none of this was particularly good for the flora or fauna of the Gulf. This fact was brought home by the 600 or so dead turtles that were collected from the areas affected by the spill and by the dispersants used to “control” it.
However, according to Jane Lubchenco, head of NOAA, in a statement in the Miami Herald on December 30, in her estimation it wasn't BP and the biggest accidental oil spill that the world has ever seen or the wanton use, with her approval, of toxic chemical dispersants that was responsible for the dead turtles. It was fishermen.
Now anyone who has followed Ms. Lubchenco's career, either before or since taking control at NOAA, wouldn't be surprised to discover that she would be willing to hold fishermen responsible for anything bad that's happened since the day that primitive humankind discovered that fish were good to eat. But her attempt to pin the blame for the dead sea turtles on fishermen is stretching the bounds of credulity farther than she's ever stretched them before (and that's up to and including the prediction that our oceans would be populated with nothing but jellyfish at some point in the future because of fishing.)
Her statement about the turtle deaths and fishing was "while nearly all the rescued sea turtles were visibly oiled, to our surprise, most of the dead stranded sea turtles had no observable oil on their bodies and were in good health prior to their death. Necropsies (autopsies on animals) on more than half of 600 carcasses point to the possibility that a majority may have drowned in fishing gear. The evidence is that natural causes of death were ruled out, and that shrimp and fish - not a natural part of turtle diets - were found in their digestive tracts."
First off, what does “the possibility that a majority may have” actually mean? Those seven words have clearly earned a place near the top of the list of the world's greatest bureaucratic non-communications.
This is followed by “the evidence is that natural causes of death were ruled out.” I guess so. Dumping a quarter of a billion gallons of petroleum products and chemical dispersants on top of any critters' neighborhood would probably rule out all of the natural causes of death.
Then we get to the part where the dead turtles had ingested shrimp and fish - not a natural part of turtle diets according to Ms. Lubchenco, but not according to numerous web sites (search on “sea turtle diet”), which label them as “opportunistic” feeders. meaning they'll eat whatever they can get. Are we to assume that the fishermen force fed the turtles before they done 'em in? That the turtles choked on those shrimp and fish that they were forced to eat? Or that as the turtles were drowning in the fishermen's nets, they were busy gorging themselves on the shrimp and fish that were in there with them?
Or how about that the turtles were feeding on fish and shrimp because everything else that they could eat had either died or skedaddled because of what BP had done, with the federal government’s approval, to their particular part of the Gulf of Mexico? Or that the turtles were forced out of their normal haunts and away from their normal food by all that oil and Corexit and had to try to feed on what was available? Nah... it couldn't be any of that, could it?
So we have thousands of Gulf fishermen who, because of BP’s actions and the government’s lack of effective oversight, lost their markets and at least half a year's worth of fishing and were actually getting some well-deserved public sympathy. Ms. Lubchenco appears unwilling to put up with that, so with the careful use of words that no one will be able to hold her accountable for she seems to be doing what she can to stop that sympathy in its tracks.
And, as an added benefit, she'll probably be able to get rid of even more fishing boats, and fishermen, in the bargain.
As is becoming increasingly evident, it’s well past the time when the powers that be in the Department of Commerce, in the Obama Administration and in Congress should give serious consideration to the real-world implications of having someone with such a profound bias against fishermen and fishing as Ms. Lubchenco so obviously does at the helm of the NOAA. After decades of demonstrating that they are world leaders in the conservation of species after species, our fishermen deserve more from Washington than a target painted on their collective backs.
Happy New Year from our friends at NOAA!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
