While the acting chairman of the NEFMC and his staff participate in endless reviews of 9-month old reports describing how badly their operation is run, commercial fishermen, destroyed by the regulations they implemented, are unable to pay their bank loans and are forced to sell their boats and businesses. It is not entirely common for businessmen to praise academic research scientists in the face of criticism. But that is the situation in which I find myself upon reading the myopic views of New England Fishery Management Council's Acting Chairman C.M. "Rip" Cunningham Jr. in his Aug. 17 letter (Your view: Fishery Management Council shows record of creditable work).
Responding to the statements of fact regarding the failures of federal fisheries management in New England made by marine scientist Dr. Brian J. Rothschild of the UMass Dartmouth School for Marine Science and Technology ("Your View: Fish, the intent of Congress and jobs," Aug. 10 ), Cunningham expresses a willingness to ignore the negative realities of the current groundfishing regulatory regime for everyday commercial fishermen.
Efforts by Gov. Patrick and lawmakers on Capitol Hill to shed light upon the negative economic and social impacts that sector management regulations have heaped on fishing businesses and coastal communities along the Atlantic Coast as a result of questionable science are similarly ignored.
Dr. Rothschild makes the important point that the "dysfunctional" fishing management system has "no master plan to improve communications, revise data collection, conduct cooperative research and achieve optimum yield."
In his attempt at refutation, Cunningham focuses on dubious claims of positive impacts from job-killing catch shares regulations. He argues that the improvements that have "directly" benefited New England fisherman include increases in revenues, specifically citing a tripling of sea scallop fleet revenues from about $120 million in 1994 to over $450 million in 2010 as stocks of various fish increase. But such statistics are misleading and not representative of the state of the commercial industry as a whole.
A Northeast Fisheries Science Center-produced NOAA report released in late September shows that landings and revenues across the groundfishing fleet in the Northeast are down from May 2010 to April 2011. Active vessels were down 17 percent in the 2010 fishing year, when compared to 2007, with 48 percent fewer groundfish trips and 33 percent fewer days on trips. Most importantly, the report shows that fewer boats translates to fewer jobs, explaining in economics terms what every fisherman in New England already knew.
He acknowledges the plight of fishermen as evidenced by these numbers. But his cold and analytical description of fishermen "adjusting to the new program that most certainly promotes accountability, allows much greater harvesting and marketing flexibility, and gets the government out of the day-to-day micromanaging of each individual operator," with almost no regard for the pain and suffering inflicted upon those who are now unemployed as a result of his organization's actions, is a heartless understatement that is sadly indicative of the attitude regulators have toward this vital American industry.
An even more fervent response to Rothschild's letter was posted on the Conservation Law Foundation's Talking Fish blog by Marine Fish Conservation Network Policy Director Ken Stump in which he describes Rothschild's "jeremiad" as an "exaggerated portrayal" of NOAA that "lacks only horns and a tail to be complete."
One might expect such a response from members of the environmental industry who routinely place their theories above the concerns of working families, but Cunningham is part of a government regulatory system. As such, he is obligated to consider congressional intent and the black-and-white letter of the law in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which requires that protection of the environment be balanced with the needs of coastal communities.
As Rothschild notes and Cunningham ignores, data shows that 100,000 tons of fish per year valued at an estimated $300 million to industry and $1.2 billion to the economy as a whole that could be caught in a sustainable manner are not being landed.
While Cunningham — whose NEFMC bio describes him as former editor and publisher of Saltwater Sportsman magazine, an "active sport fisherman" and a "long-time" freelance conservation writer — has served as the council's Ground Fish Committee chair, he has no commercial fishing experience. This is reflected in his lack of understanding of the impact of government on the industry.
One example of such out-of-touch thinking appears in his claim that the council, NOAA's regional office, and its Science Center "recently" receiving an independent report requested by former Chairman John Pappalardo and commissioned by NOAA on the state of the region's fisheries management system, which details many of the very problems behind Rothschild's argument.
The report, compiled by Preston Pate and SRA-Touchstone Consulting Group, notes that, "Fisheries management in New England is beset with problems and challenges that are characteristic of fisheries management in general but may be even more acute in this area now due to concurrently changing factors of law, management programs and economics."
The supposedly "recent" April report was delivered to NOAA In January, more than two years after it was first requested by former NEFMC Chairman John Pappalardo in December 2009. It took NOAA Fisheries an additional four months to publicly release it.
Five months later, regulators responded to it with promises of a coordinated "regional vision and strategic plan" that will have fisherman input. But today, two years and nine months after the need for change was outlined by the former council chair, there has not yet been any real action from any of the agencies involved.
In business, five months ago is not "recent." Nine months of internal hand-wringing over the clearly articulated need for change is called procrastination. Two years and nine months of inaction after the public description of dysfunctional structures by an organization's chief is called dereliction of duty.
So, while the acting chairman of the NEFMC and his staff participate in endless reviews of 9-month old reports describing how badly their operation is run, commercial fishermen, destroyed by the regulations they implemented, are unable to pay their bank loans and are forced to sell their boats and businesses.
Mr. Cunningham's comments are exemplary of the lackadaisical attitude too many regulators take toward the livelihoods of New England's hard-working commercial fishermen. It is inappropriate to place the interests of bureaucrats over those of taxpayers. Nine months of bureaucratic wrangling after two years of waiting for a much-needed study may be "recent" to regulators and those collecting a government paycheck. To many who fish Georges Bank, it has been the end of a livelihood.
There is nothing inherently wrong with government work, nor in defending the work you do. But when the defense of your work places an ideological crusade before fact, and when the inefficient execution of your work endangers the bottom line of families and small businesses, that's inexcusable.
The current operation of the fisheries regulatory system has proven to be a failed vision and strategy. Dr. Rothschild's analysis got it right. Mr. Cunningham's failed defense of the existing regime underscored Dr. Rothschild's arguments.