Opinion

August 20, 2012 — Conservation groups are seeking more state and federal safeguards for the ocean’s iconic predator — the great white shark.

Oceana, Center for Biological Diversity, and Shark Stewards on Monday petitioned the California Fish and Game Commission to protect the creatures throughout their California range under the state’s Endangered Species Act. On August 10, the groups asked the National Marine Fisheries Service to invoke federal Endangered Species Act protections for the West Coast population of great whites.

While the direct capture of great white sharks for sale is prohibited off the coasts of California and Mexico, young white sharks sometimes are killed by fishing for halibut and other commercially targeted species. The federal fisheries service says great white sharks are vulnerable to fishing pressure because they take 12 to 18 years to mature, often reproduce only every other year, produce few young per brood (only 2 pups in some species) and are caught in many types of fishing gear.

Conservationists said they are trying to reduce incidental killing of sharks in gillnets and boost the reporting of such interactions through the use of observers onboard fishing vessels and limits on bycatch — measures that likely will draw opposition from the fishing industry.

The appeal for new protections is based on research papers in the past few years that underscored how small the population of white sharks is off the West Coast. A 2011 journal article in Biology Letters estimated there are 219 mature and sub-adult white sharks along the coast of Central California. That creates what environmentalists called an inherently high extinction risk.

 

Read the full story at the San Diego Union Tribune.

 

 

August 21, 2012 — History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as lobster. Or so you might think from reading this summer’s news in Maine, which speaks volumes, or crates, about the farcical nature of North American trade policy.

The underlying presumption of this fishing expedition is that economic growth would be stronger if only other nations could be policed and forced to price fairly. The absurdity of this position is clear when you consider the Canadian point of view in a newer dispute over lobsters.

This year’s lobster crop has been enormous, probably because of warmer water temperatures this past winter and spring. For New England lobstermen, supply is now outstripping demand. As a result, lobster processors, most of which are in Canada, are paying very low prices to fishermen — $2.50 or $3 a pound, compared with the $4 a pound the lobstermen want.

That’s hitting Canadian lobstermen hard. Because of regulations that aim to sustain lobster supply — which seem pretty unnecessary now — the Canadians are permitted to harvest lobsters for only part of the summer, unlike their U.S. counterparts. They thus need to earn more per pound.

Embarrassed American lobstermen keep reminding anyone and everyone that, heck, there are so few processing plants in Maine they had to come to Canada, and it’s not fair to punish them for trying to sell their catch.

Still, like the lumbermen of the Great Northwest, the Canadian lobstermen are furious. They’re picketing the processing plants that buy from the New England tricksters (or they were, until a court order stopped them). They tossed lobster traps into the office of the Canadian fisheries minister. Last month, they formed blockades to halt delivery of those heinous Maine lobsters.

This time the “unfair trade advantage” is allegedly on the U.S. side. But U.S. authorities aren’t exactly riding to the rescue of Canadian lobstermen. They’re siding with the dumpers, and ostentatiously. “Snowe Welcomes Canadian Court Injunction in Lobster Dispute,” Maine Senator Olympia Snowe posted on her website after Canada’s courts stopped the lobster protesters. Snowe also wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to call attention to the crisis.

 

Read the full article at Bloomberg.

 

 

BOSTON — August 18, 2012 — John Bullard had stood on every side of the fishing industry and come away with a reputation as a conciliator — which makes the former New Bedford mayor a solid choice to head the Northeast office of the agency that helps set and enforce fishing restrictions.

Over his long career, the 65-year-old Bullard has calmed down rock-throwing fishermen on strike while serving as mayor in the 1980s, argued strongly for the fishing industry as a professional lobbyist, and crafted federal policies as a Clinton-era official in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, heading up the office of sustainable development.

That makes Bullard, who in recent years presided over a sea education organization, well-prepared to sit in the middle of the often emotional disputes over groundfishing limits in New England. In recent years, fishermen, backed vociferously by the Massachusetts congressional delegation, have challenged the scientific basis for fishing limits and expressed exasperation over some aspects of NOAA’s enforcement of the regulations.

Much of the rancor has been aimed at Bullard’s new boss — NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco, a gifted scientist who has had difficulty reaching out to fishermen. Bullard could be her bridge. Even when Bullard was lobbying the government on behalf of fishermen, he acknowledged, “You’re not going to get any sane person to say there’s plenty of fish out there and we don’t need to do anything.” Even when he worked for NOAA in his first go-around, he acknowleged, “We can’t just concern ourselves with the management of fish. There is a human aspect to this. People’s lives, their families, the communities they live in will be affected.”

That sense of moderation should serve him well in his new post. As the state of New England’s fisheries are debated by desperate fishermen and despairing environmentalists, NOAA may have found an arbiter who actually understands both sides.

 

Read the full story in the Boston Globe

 

 

August 20, 2012 — What does the National Weather Service want with 46,000 rounds of jacketed .40-caliber hollow-point ammunition? That's what a lot of people were wondering last week when they saw the order posted on a federal website for vendors.

To make it even more juicy, the bids were to be sent to a New Bedford address that turns out to be the federal building on Sixth Street.

What could this possibly be? The posting was circulating fast in the email. Was the Weather Service about to go all Dirty Harry? "The chance of showers today is 70 percent. You feeling lucky today, punk?"

Alas, it was nothing so bizarre, and within a few hours Scott Smullen, deputy chief spokesman of NOAA, was blaming a clerical error and said that the ammo (along with paper targets) was being bought by the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement.

"The ammunition is standard issue for many law enforcement agencies and it will be used by 63 NOAA enforcement personnel in their firearms qualifications and training," Smullen wrote.

The weatherman, thank goodness, is not going postal.

Lesli Bales-Sherrod, spokeswoman for the national NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, supplied a little more info. She told us in an email that all agents and officers are required to have 200 rounds in their duty bag, and twice-a-year training and qualification consumes another 500-600 rounds.

So it's not surprising that the agency would need 46,000 rounds.

But what about the hollow points and the jackets, which are copper sheathing on the lead bullets to reduce lead fouling and increase tissue damage? This wasn't sitting too well with one anonymous critic in the Northeast, where NOAA has had a very troubled history with its law enforcement office.

"Hollow tipped slugs? What are they for?" the anonymous critic wrote in a widely circulated email. "Is this 'quick kill ammo' to stop fishermen if they're caught destroying evidence during an investigation, maybe dumping a now illegal yellowtail flounder overboard and shredding the vessel trip report, while avoiding apprehension by speeding away at 7.5 knots?"

The critic continued, "This kind of ammo is necessary to do the most damage to the internal organs of such culprits, isn't it? Standard issue?"

Well, yes, and even though hollow points have been illegal in international warfare since 1899 because they mushroom open to do the maximum damage, they are widely used in the U.S. by law enforcement.

 

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard Times.

 

 

August 16, 2012 — Captain Yacubian lost his business, his boat, his license to fish — and literally the farm that had been in the family for generations — trying to exonerate himself of false accusations that he had been fishing in a prohibited area and free himself from a malicious prosecution for lies that he never told. His persecutor? The Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Two weeks ago, Captain Yacubian filed the lawsuit that may well restore his money and his life after nearly 15 years of gut-wrenching bludgeoning by the NOAA.

The Commerce Department's inspector general reviewed the NOAA's Asset Forfeiture Fund — where Yacubian's $430,000 fine went — and found that "these funds were used to purchase 'luxurious' undercover vessels, buy 202 vehicles for a staff of 172 enforcement personnel, and take trips around the world."

A special investigative judge concluded there is "credible evidence that money was NOAA's motivating objective in this case." There's also knowledgeable belief that the NOAA's purpose is to eradicate the fishing industry.

The undercover pleasure boats zoomed around Puget Sound on frivolous "Booze Cruises" to entertain NOAA employees and their families, as I noted in a previous column.

In a decade-long battle, Yacubian was thwarted at every turn. When he was ready to show that the NOAA's equipment was so unreliable it couldn't prove he had been in a forbidden area, his expert witness — a respected Massachusetts Environmental Police officer — came under pressure and asked to be excused from testifying. Yacubian lost his case, his permits, his boat and his income.

 

Read the full story at the Washington Examiner.

 

 

August 17, 2012 — There's a disaster in the Northeast fishery, all right, but disaster, for fishermen at least, is the policy. It is the objective. Now it's beginning to look like the fishing industry was decimated and the fish were, too.

Somebody owes us another apology.

Larry Yacubian, a former scalloper out of New Bedford, has a rare keepsake from the U.S. Commerce Department: a letter from Secretary Gary Locke and from NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco apologizing to him for ruining his life.

Admitting error and apologizing for it are unusual deeds in the Commerce Department (more about that in a moment). In Larry's case it took a couple of inspectors general and a "special master" investigator to expose the behavior of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration law enforcement toward him.

Sure, they gave him $400,000 but that didn't even cover his legal bills. What they didn't give back were his boat, his permit, his license, his wife's family farmhouse and his reputation.

When he filed an administrative claim six months ago asking for these things, or a settlement, his claim was shelved. Ignored. NOAA ran out the clock and after six months, according to the rules, Larry's claim was automatically denied with no word of explanation.

So now Larry is in federal court asking for $15 million from this sincerely apologetic government department.

Larry lives in Punta Gorda, Fla., now, running tour boats.

"I have a son who is an infantry officer, and the two most difficult things in life are dealing with NOAA and having him away at war," he told me this week.

During the Olympics, he said, he watched again and again as Americans won medals. "When I looked at the stars and stripes, I choke up," he said. When he envisions the NOAA banner hanging next to the flag at headquarters in Maryland, he said he simply chokes. "I think it's contemptuous," he said.

 

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard Times.

 

 

August 17, 2012 — There are very good reasons to stop spending billions of dollars on manned space missions, to explore space in ways that are safer and much less costly, and to grant much higher priority to other scientific and engineering mega-projects, the oceans in particular.

While space travel still gets a lot of attention, not enough attention has been accorded to a major new expedition to the deepest point in the ocean, some 7 miles deep — the recent journey by James Cameron, on behalf of National Geographic.

The cover story of the prestigious journal Foreign Affairs lays out the "Case for Space." "60 Minutes" recently ran a story about the dire effects on Florida's space industry of scaling back our extraterrestrial endeavors. Newt Gingrich gained attention earlier this year by calling for building a permanent base on the moon. And President Obama has talked of preparing to eventually send Americans into orbit around Mars.

Actually, there are very good reasons to stop spending billions of dollars on manned space missions, to explore space in ways that are safer and much less costly, and to grant much higher priority to other scientific and engineering mega-projects, the oceans in particular.

The main costs of space exploration arise from the fact that we are set on sending humans, rather than robots. The reasons such efforts drive up the costs include: A human needs a return ticket, while a robot can go one way. Space vehicles for humans must be made safe, while we can risk a bunch of robots without losing sleep. Robots are much easier to feed, experience little trouble when subject to prolonged weightlessness, and are much easier to shield from radiation. And they can do most tasks humans can.

British astronomer royal Martin Rees writes, "I think that the practical case (for manned flights) gets weaker and weaker with every advance in robotics and miniaturization. It's hard to see any particular reason or purpose in going back to the moon or indeed sending people into space at all." Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg calls manned missions "an incredible waste of money" and argues that "for the cost of putting a few people on a very limited set of locations on Mars we could have dozens of unmanned, robotic missions roving all over Mars."

The main argument for using humans is a public relations one. As Neil deGrasse Tyson puts it in Foreign Affairs, "China's latest space proclamations could conceivably produce another 'Sputnik moment' for the United States, spurring the country into action after a relatively fallow period in its space efforts." Also, astronauts are said to inspire our youth to become scientists and explorers. However, it is far from established that we cannot achieve the same effects by making other R&D projects our main priority.

 

Read the full article at CNN.

 

 

August 9, 2012 — There can be no disputing the need for a disaster declaration. There is no way that anyone can question that there is a pending economic calamity threatening the entire groundfishery.

When Gov. Deval Patrick last November submitted his formal call for an economic disaster declaration regarding the state’s commercial groundfishery, he presented a strong case, backed by troubling marine science data researched through the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth.

Indeed, those numbers – compiled from the first year of fishing under NOAA chief Jane Lubchenco’s beloved, corporately-backed catch share management system – noted that, of 96 groundfishing Gloucester boats of the time, 21 had been forced to the sidelines, all victims of Lubchenco’s job-killing consolidation policies.

The Commerce Department and Lubchenco’s NOAA, of course, have still not granted that declaration. They also haven’t rejected it; in true Lubchenkian form, they’ve shown no commitment to accountability and continue to ignore the governor’s request altogether, save for a Lubchenco letter sent to a governor’s cabinet member vowing an answer “soon.” That was in February.

So it’s perfectly justified for U.S. Sens. John Kerry and Scott Brown to once again try to step up the pressure for action on the disaster declaration, as they have in a letter sent this week to acting Secretary of Commerce Roberta Blank. And they should get an immediate answer, for this time, Commerce and NOAA have no choice.

 

Read the full story at the Gloucester Times.

Read the letter to Secretary of Commerce Blank

 

 

 

 

August 9, 2012 — As tensions heat up on both sides of the Canadian border over a glut of low-cost Maine lobster being kept out of New Brunswick processing plants, there is something every Maine patriot should do: Eat more lobster.

The industry, which pumps more than $1 billion into the Maine economy each year, is not only one of our most dependable economic drivers and a steady source of employment in coastal communities, it also is our iconic product. Travel from our state and you'll inevitably hear the question, "Eat a lot of lobster?"

That's because for most of the world, Maine lobster is a luxury food, lumped in with filet mignon and caviar. Only in Maine do we see soft-shell "shedders" in our fish markets for affordable prices because they can't be shipped long distances for the live trade.

This year, the shedders came earlier, robbing Maine lobstermen of the most lucrative part of their business. The overabundance of soft-shell lobsters on the market made the price crash. Now, Canadian protests are interfering with shipping to processing plants, the only other market for these lobsters.

This dispute has rightly attracted the attention of Gov. Paul LePage and Sen. Olympia Snowe, who has called on U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to intervene.

It also has revived long-range policy discussions about Maine's vulnerability because of its lack of processing facilities. Canada has a dozen plants on its side of the border, while we have only three. If warmer ocean temperatures are going to make this year's early shedding an annual event, the state should be prepared to process the lobster.

 

Read the full story at the Portland Press Herald.

 

 

August 7, 2012 — No doubt you've heard about the recent drop in lobster prices this summer. But while the sudden drop in lobster prices has been nice for consumers, it's been terribly frustrating for lobstermen. In the short term, I hope fishermen can recover quickly, but in the long term we need to take a serious look at the situation's root causes and address those problems before they become a regular occurrence.

There are several factors behind the current dip in market prices. It all started when Maine lobstermen caught an influx of "shedders" — recently molted, soft-shelled lobsters — much earlier in the season than usual. The mild winter and warm spring meant lobster molted several weeks early, throwing off the timing of the catch. Normally, they are caught in July, with the majority sent to Canada for processing. Instead, they were caught in May when those facilities already had a ready supply from Canadian fishermen having a banner year. Canadian processors just did not have a need for Maine lobster. Without another outlet to market shedders, prices fell.

What has this meant for local lobstermen and coastal communities? Prices so low for many fishermen that the value of their catch isn't enough to cover expenses. Many lobstermen have even tied up their boats until prices go up. For coastal communities, it has deepened a sense of uncertainty about the future.

It's true that a "perfect storm" of conditions made this situation especially difficult, but it's deeply troubling, because few of the problems behind the crisis are new, and, if we do nothing, could get worse.

One of the biggest threats to Maine's fisheries is climate change. Research being done right here in Maine has found that climate change has already impacted valuable fisheries around the world. The recent shift in lobster shedding is a troubling sign that a changing climate could have major implications for the future of Maine's fisheries. Maine is fortunate to have great institutions like the University of Maine and Gulf of Maine Research Institute working on these problems, but we need to support additional research to find what changes are on the way and how we can prepare for them.

It's also clear that we rely too heavily on Canada for processing our lobster — if we had more capacity in Maine, this year's problem might not have been so bad. Several facilities here in Maine do great work, but our capacity is still small. There's no reason to send our lobster to Canada when processing them can support jobs right here in Maine. But we need more investment to make these things happen.

Additional marketing of Maine seafood, including lobster, also holds promise. With the public's greater appreciation for sustainable seafood, the health of Maine's lobster fishery could be a major asset. And there's no doubt that Maine seafood still has huge potential to expand around the country and world. Part of my legislation, the Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act, would do this by supporting marketing efforts of local fisheries groups, like co-ops and community-supported fisheries.

 

Read the full story here