New England News

Protect the resource

by Peter Baker

Cape Cod Times - April 1, 2010

When it comes to defending the science of climate change and standing up to big business, U.S. Sen. John Kerry and U.S. Rep. Barney Frank are considered among the most progressive legislators in Congress.

But when it comes to standing up to the fishing industry in their back yard and defending the science of the National Marine Fisheries Service, Kerry and Frank fold like a house of cards.

In a letter to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in December, Frank described the 10-year time limit required to rebuild fish stocks as "an arbitrary timeline" not based in science.

But the science, including stock assessments conducted by our own Northeast Fisheries Science Center in Woods Hole, is among the best in the world.

The history of New England fishery management is fraught with examples of political interference to the detriment of the resource.

Many times when federal regulators try a new approach to protect the resource and build sustainable fisheries, disgruntled fishermen turn to the politicians, who cave in and question the regulators.

In the latest genuflection to the fishing industry, Senator Kerry arranged a closed-door meeting last week among fishing industry representatives, national fisheries officials, and members of the state's congressional delegation.

Why were the doors closed to the press? According to some who attended the meeting, attendees discussed public policy issues related to a public resource.

Brigid O'Rourke, a spokeswoman for Kerry, portrayed last week's meeting as "a private stakeholders' meeting" requested by the Massachusetts fishing industry.

But Peter Shelley, vice president of the Conservation Law Foundation, described the session, which included no representatives from the environmental community, as "an industry-driven lobbying event."

He is absolutely correct, because the meeting did not include anyone from the environmental or conservation community.

Ken Stump, policy director for the Marine Fish Conservation Network, said environmentalists in New England are a little intimidated by the politicians.

"(There are) some very powerful, liberal Democrats leading the attack," he said.

Stump said the closed-door event was a perfect example of how environmentalists are being shut out of the process. He compared the political backlash to the tea party movement in health care reform.

Of course, NOAA hasn't helped its own case. After some scientific gaffes in recent years, the Inspector General this winter supported fishermen's complaints that the enforcement branch of the agency is too heavy handed.

But that doesn't mean that everything is tainted. Some have tried to use the controversies to roll back a new management plan scheduled to begin May 1. Although there may be room for some compromise, NOAA should stay the course and impose limited catch shares along with sector management.

Up to now, fishing has been regulated under a days-at-sea system in hopes of restoring certain fish species. That hasn't worked out well for either fishermen or the fish.

Under the new system, New England fishermen are divided into 17 groups, each with the autonomy to manage an allotted catch of an individual species. Sector fishermen are free to fish and to trade allocations as they wish as long as the catch is within the limit.

The fear in the industry is that the changes will cause a wave of job losses because the allocations are too small for small boats to make enough money.

But that's not how the small-boat fishermen based in Chatham see it; they believe sector management has helped keep them in business.

The new system is not what's causing the industry's pain; the overfishing of the past is.