Opinion

The president appointed Jane Lubchenco, the former vice chair of the Environmental Defense Fund, to head all of NOAA. What kind of balance is that in an agency that is supposed to promote ocean businesses? "It's a revolving door from NOAA to environmental groups back to NOAA," said Canastra, pleading with Brown to open congressional hearings on the environmental lobby's stranglehold on NOAA.

So the next time you think if only the Democratic city of New Bedford and its beleaguered fishing industry could somehow get the attention of Obama himself. If only that hard-hearted Commerce Secretary Gary Locke weren't in charge, maybe New Bedford fishermen could get a break. Think again.

Barney Frank, John Kerry, Deval Patrick and Scott Lang have absolutely no juice with the Obama administration when it comes to the fishing industry.

It's Obama himself who stacked NOAA with the powerful environmentalists who, by their own words, want to put small business fishermen out of business.

Every once in a while, government gets it right — even if it takes longer than anyone would like. After a year of arrogant bungling, the Commerce Department finally gave ground on fishing limits.

In announcing that U.S. fishermen would be allowed an 18-percent increase in its share of yellowtail flounder under an agreement with Canada, which shares the fishery, the Commerce Department also planned to hand out some good news on 11 other species that New Bedford and Gloucester-based fishermen also catch.

The new catch limits still must be approved by Jane Lubchenco, administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who has been pressured for the past year over what local fishermen believe has been the heavy handed and retaliatory enforcement of fishery rules.

The concerted pressure of the fishing industry, the mayors of New Bedford and Gloucester, this newspaper, scientists like Dr. Brian Rothschild, and state and federal lawmakers — especially U.S. Rep. Barney Frank and Sens. Scott Brown and John Kerry — all have made a difference in getting significant increases approved for the next fishing season, which starts May 1.

The fight for the industry's survival is far from done, and the economic damage to local business and out-of-work fishermen has been deep.

That said, the news represents the first bright spot for groundfishermen and the industry in a long, long time.

It demonstrates that our political system can work when we refuse to give up in the face of adversity.

And that might be the most important lesson of all.

Read the complete opinion piece from The South Coast Today.

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Ray Hilborn examines the end of overfishing in the United States. He addresses what fisheries managers can control and what is in the realm of nature, beyond the reach of human management.

Prof. Ray Hilborn, of the University of Washington, is one of the leading global researchers on adaptive ecosystem management for fisheries. He has consistently argued that the doomsday narrative of continuous global overfishing is not supported by facts; that instead where good fisheries management is applied, fisheries and ecosystems are stable, thriving, and producing huge economic benefits. Given the prominence of the controversies over seafood sustainability, Ray and some of his colleagues have agreed to write a series of occasional comments for Seafoodnews.com when major fisheries papers or ideas about sustainability are published or discussed.

(SEAFOOD.COM NEWS) – Feb 7, 2011 – The following article from Ray Hilborn is in response to NMFS chief scientist Steve Murawski's widely reported comments last month that US overfishing as ended. This is part of a continuing series of occasional articles on fisheries and conservation topics by Ray Hilborn, Professor at the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, prepared for Seafood.com News.

Overfishing has ended in the U. S. said Professor Steve Murawski, former chief fishery scientist for NOAA on January 8th 2011.

Could this possibly be true?

With many fish stocks still at low abundance, subject to rebuilding plans and listed as overfished, how could he argue that overfishing has ended?

To understand the issue we first must begin with the distinction between "overfished" and "overfishing." Overfished is a term used when the abundance of the stock is low enough that its sustainable yield is significantly reduced. Overfishing is when the percentage harvested is higher than required to provide long term maximum sustainable yield. So "overfished" is about abundance and "overfishing" is about the percentage we harvest.

What Murawski said is that the percentage harvested for all U. S. federally managed fish stocks is now within the range that would produce maximum sustainable yield.

We have stopped fishing too hard; but many fish stocks remain at low abundance.

Fishery managers can control fishing pressure, but they have much less control on the abundance of stocks. Even in the absence of fishing stocks go up and down, and we can't control the natural forces that lead to such fluctuations.

The California sardine, icon of fish stock collapses in the 1960s, is now abundant again. Coring of the sea floor shows that it has peaked and crashed repeatedly over the last 1000 years, and the crash in the 1950s was just the most recent. Nothing fishery managers could have done would have prevented the California sardine from a major decline in the 1950's, driven largely by cold ocean temperatures, but fishing pressure made this decline worse, and delayed the rebuilding.

Think of the sardines in the ocean like a bank account, in warm years the account produces a good interest rate, and you can withdraw the interest in the form of harvest and retain your capital. But in cold years there is no interest, and any withdrawals reduce the capital, so that when you get warm years again, you have less interest available because you now have fewer fish in the bank.

When a stock declines because of poor environmental conditions the only thing managers can do is reduce the harvest, which may not stop the decline. Thus Murawski's emphasis on fishing pressure, not the abundance of stocks is appropriate.

The public and Congress are too focused on the abundance of fish as a measure of management success: we should focus primarily on the fishing pressure and get that right. We will likely never have zero stocks overfished: some stocks will always be at low abundance because of environmental conditions. But we can, and have, stopped fishing too hard.

The more we know about fish stocks the more we recognize that their productivity depends more on environmental conditions than the biomass of the stock. Research in my laboratory using a data base of over 300 fish stocks suggests that for 70% of these stocks climate drives productivity much more than stock abundance.

This doesn't mean fishing doesn't affect abundance, but what it does mean is that we should get the harvest rate right, not worry so much about the stock biomass.

For most U. S. fisheries we have set biomass targets, in theory levels that will support maximum sustainable yield, and we have abundance limits, below which we do not want to go. Fishery management plans generally reduce harvest rates rapidly if stocks fall below these limits. Because these limits are hard to estimate for individual stocks we often choose proxy values. For instance the Pacific Fishery Management Council uses 25% of unfished biomass as the definition of what constitutes "overfished" and rebuilding plans and major catch reductions kick in when the stock falls below these levels.

The irony is that for some stocks, at the proxy overfished definition, the stock may produce maximum sustainable yield or very close to it. Thus we are calling some stocks "overfished" that are actually producing optimally.

However, we should also remember that society wants more from the ocean than simply sustainable yield of fish. Economic and environmental objectives will dictate less fishing pressure than would maximize sustainable yield. Some calculations suggest that the total amount of fishing pressure to maximize the economic performance of fisheries may be as low as half of what maximizes sustainable biological yield. Under this reduced fishing pressure average stock abundance would be higher, fish would be larger, catch rates would be higher, and there would be more fish in the ocean.

Stopping overfishing in the U. S. came at the cost of a great deal of social disruption; jobs were lost, fleet sizes were reduced and fishing dependent communities suffered. Some of this was an inevitable consequence of non-sustainable fishing capacity. However, if we were to reduce fishing pressure by half again for economic or environmental reasons, these social impacts would be even greater.

The current debate over rates of rebuilding is another aspect of the difference between overfished and overfishing. If we really want to get stocks out of "overfished" status by rapid rebuilding of abundance, we have to reduce fishing pressure much more than simply stopping overfishing.

The more quickly we insist on rebuilding, the less fishing pressure we allow. Because many stocks are caught in mixed fisheries, reduced fishing on weak stocks means we have to give up more sustainable yield of healthy stocks.

I fear mandates for rapid rebuilding have boxed the Fishery Management Councils into a trap that will force them to keep fishing pressure much less than would produce maximum sustainable yield in order to provide for rapid rebuilding. This will come at a great cost to food production and fishing communities. The additional of annual catch limits on all stocks will aggravate the problem even more as catch limits on more and more rare species will more strongly constrain catches on the abundant species.

Ending overfishing in the U. S. is a considerable achievement, but it is not the end of struggles over what we are trying to achieve in national ocean policy. With funding and guidance from Congress we could achieve any desired balance between yield, jobs, economic profitability and environmental impacts. But since powerful groups have different views on where that balance should be, expect the struggle to continue over how much fishing pressure to allow.

This article is reproduced with permission from SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site.

 

 

 

 

NMFS doesn’t have the dollars that the Monterey Bay, with its connection to Packard has. The federal agency that manages fisheries is saying go ahead and buy monkfish with a clear conscience and Monterey Bay is saying don’t you dare. Guess which message is reaching more consumers?

So we have huge foundations spending millions of dollars to convince the public that what they’ve decided is “sustainability” should be the critical criterion when buying seafood and spending other millions of dollars on supporting rating programs that grade whether seafood products should be embraced or avoided by seafood consumers, we have fishermen who are fishing well within the letter of the world’s most stringent array of fishing laws here in the U.S., and there is no connection between the two. The fish labelers at the Monterey Bay Aquarium are ready, willing and able to brand a product “avoid” simply because they don’t like how it’s caught.

Take monkfish as a case in point. The National Marine Fisheries Service monkfish page on its own seafood rating website, Fish Watch, states “monkfish are primarily caught with bottom trawls and gillnets. Dredges also account for a small percentage of landings. Monkfish habitat has been determined to be only minimally vulnerable to these fishing gears,” and continues regarding bycatch in the monkfish fishery “measures have been implemented to reduce any impact.” Yet the Monterey Bay Aquarium warns consumers against eating monkfish “due to high bycatch concerns and severe habitat impacts.”

Needless to say, the National Marine Fisheries Service doesn’t have anything approaching the dollars that the Monterey Bay Aquarium, with its connection to the Packard Foundation (in 2010 the Aquarium received $36 million from the Foundation) has. So the federal agency with the responsibility to manage our marine fisheries is saying to go ahead and buy and enjoy monkfish with a clear conscience and the Monterey Bay Aquarium is saying don’t you dare. Guess which message is reaching more consumers?

Why the discrepancy?

To collect its own data, the aquarium could have a fleet of research vessels manned by a crew of scientists that no one knows anything about, but operating in a low-profile stealth mode is uncharacteristic of the foundation funded crowd. As the Pew/Oceana folks showed us in the Gulf of Mexico during the BP disaster, when going down to the sea in ships they want their creature comforts with them and they want everyone to know. Minus collecting their own data, the Monterey Bay Aquarium fish raters must be using the same information that NMFS is using. They’re sure coming to different conclusions. So having their own, independently gathered information is probably out.

Is it because they don’t like gill nets and otter trawls? They rate black sea bass as a “good alternative,” and they’re caught with otter trawls, as are silver hake (“good”), Alaskan pollock (used in surimi and rated “good”), sand dabs (“good”) and lingcod (“good”). They rate Atlantic croaker a “best choice,” and they’re caught with gillnets, as are bluefish (“good”), Spanish mackerel (“good”) and salmon (“good” to “best”). It’s apparently not the gear being used.

Whatever their reasons for this rating, it puts a dent in the demand for monkfish. That’s why they are doing it. This dent in demand is translated into a lower price for the fish that is felt by everyone from the fishermen to the retailers.

The monkfish fishery is one of the initial candidates for Jane Lubchenco’s catch shares revolution. As I’m writing this, a series of public hearings are being held from Maine to North Carolina so that federal regulators can gauge the interest in catch shares in the fishery. If she is successful, rights to the annual monkfish harvest will be divided among some of the “historic” participants. Fitting in with the Packard Foundation’s grand plan for “saving the fisheries” while at the same time turning a profit, this could open the door for green organizations and individuals to start buying control of the fishery. The Packard Foundation has now provided them with a roadmap of how to do this and, based on past actions, might well be willing to provide them with financing as well.

The lower the consumer demand for monkfish, the lower the cost for outsiders to “buy” into the fishery.

Read the complete opinion piece.

 

 

 

 

 

Sen. Scott Brown is the first to call for what is long overdue — an independent investigation into agents and enforcers of NOAA.

That, Brown said, may be the only way "to right the many wrongs our fishermen have suffered."

His colleague, Sen. John Kerry, along with Congressmen John Tierney and Barney Frank, should join his call to action. It should be clear to them by now that talking isn't going to accomplish anything.

The misdeeds of NOAA — ranging from ranging from wildly disproportionate treatment of New England fishermen to the misuse of millions of dollars in forfeiture funds — were documented more than a year ago, in an audit by U.S. Department of Commerce Inspector General Todd Zinser. And for a while, it seemed that Commerce Secretary Gary Locke would pursue justice for fishermen, both by relaxing some of the most draconian federal limits on fishing and halting the unjust prosecution of fishermen.

But, in recent weeks, Locke has been backing off. A few weeks ago, he refused to relax the limits, even after the recently retired chief scientist at NOAA, Steve Murawski, said this year will be a "milestone" because it will mark the end of overfishing by the U.S. commercial fleet.

Tierney said, "A culture of 'no' has taken hold of the Department of Commerce," and vowed to take the matter to the White House.

But Brown was the only one who called for an independent investigation of NOAA practices and policies.

Read the complete editorial from The Salem News.

 

 

 

 

 

Midwater boats have a small-mesh exemption, as do whiting, shrimp and squid boats. There is a very good reason for this that eluded Baker and Pew. If Pew or their minions go to the supermarket and buy two pounds of any of these species loose at the fish counter and ask for a 6-inch mesh bag to take it to the register, they will quickly discover the physical attributes of a small-mesh exemption.

Travesty herring fishery can't get optimum yield

With regard to Peter Baker's letter to the editor Jan. 23, "Herring trawlers don't need higher haddock cap":

If we stayed fishing on Georges last fall, one more large incident could have shut the fishery down, leaving 1A, 1B, 2 and 3 areas unharvested. The midwater fishermen, being responsible for their own livelihood, decided not to fish on Georges and risk a large encounter that could yield the last 15 percent of bycatch, which would cause National Marine Fisheries Service to close down the herring fishery until next May, when a new miniscule quota would be granted.

Considering the millions spent on putting fishermen out of work, it is a shame they couldn't spend a little money educating their own.

Read the complete letter from the South Coast Today.

 

 

 

 

 

If the Obama administration truly recognizes the need to spur growth through the private sector and create more employment, how can this president and his administration actively push for a national fisheries policy committed to killing waterfront jobs and driving small independent boat owners right out of business — and right out of a way of life that's been a core part of Gloucester and other communities for generations.

As Obama talked of growing jobs in other fields, and the nation's financial investments and commitments, the policies of his own Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, and NOAA chief Jane Lubchenco seemed more and more absurd.

Fishermen, of course, don't need the government to throw them money to grow jobs. They only want to be able to earn a living as they have in the past — especially now, considering the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's retired top scientist, Steve Murawski, noted earlier this month that fishermen's efforts have brought an end to "overfishing" off America's three coasts.

Fishermen, in fact, wouldn't be seeking any "emergency aid" at all if their own federal government — using documented bad science and obscene, excessive law enforcement tactics confirmed by the Commerce Department's own Inspector General — hadn't wrongly forced them to the brink of financial disaster with overly tight catch limits and a "catch share" management system that drives more control of the industry away from the small independents and into larger corporate hands.

Read the complete editorial from The Gloucester Times.

 

 

 

 

 

We have a Congress with Members who are almost overwhelmingly ignorant of fish and of fishing. They aren’t going to learn anything – 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 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 – see http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2011/01/overfishing_has_ended_top_us_s.html).   

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 at https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml and http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm), 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 (http://savingseafood.com). On the West Coast, Pacific Fishing provides a similar service through its website and emailed Fish Wrap News (http://www.pacificfishing.com/). 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).

By Nils Stolpe

 

 

 

 

 

Barney, guess what, your constituents’ livelihood doesn’t matter a hill of beans … the new catch share system is viewed by some as a more equitable way to manage stocks and prevent overfishing. Yeah, socialism, make everything equally miserable. Equally under supplied. Equally woeful. And … don’t let the market have anything to say…. No, the regime and Gary Locke. The New England fishing industry is being killed by Obama…

Rush Limbaugh spoke about the fishing industry in New England on his January 14, 2011 radio show. The transcript follows:

From New Bedford, MA, the Boston Herald, calling the US Dept of Commerce's attitude towards the fishing industry unacceptable and angry. Rep. Barney Frank is threatening to withhold cooperation with the Obama White House “on a number of important issues”. 

In a scathing op-ed commentary, Barney Frank (D-MA) said last week the Obama regime violated assurances that it was prepared to work constructively with the fishing industry in New England. The administration had begun to follow through on some of what it promised last fall, but the wholly, negative tone, both of its decisions last week and of the language it used to justify them, undermine my confidence so we can count on these commitments going forward.

You’re probably “What the hell is this all about?” Exactly. I don’t even know. I’ve only read as far as I told you. A public meeting of Mayor Scott W Lang’s Fishery Advising Council set for yesterday at 4 to discuss the refusal of Commerce Secretary Gary Locke to invoke his emergency powers to raise catch limits and supply financial help for the regional fishing industry as it struggles with a new catch share system.

So I guess the government is regulating how many fish somebody in a private business can catch. They call it the new catch share system. And as the fishery council meeting approaches, anger remains unabated over Locke’s refusal to provide help. There’s also anger at NOAA. Assistant Administrator Eric Schwaab wrote an accompanying letter which explained Locke’s rejection in greater detail.

"Commerce Secretary Gary Locke’s adamant refusal to consider the scientific evidence regarding fish stocks and the dismissive tone of NOAA and Assistant Administrator Schwaab’s refusal to acknowledge the economic crisis facing fishermen were unworthy of their responsibilities as federal officials. There is a sad contrast between what they told us they were prepared to do last October, and what they blatantly refused to do in January." [Said Rep. Frank].

Who are we talking about here? We are talking about the [Obama] regime. And Barney, the regime will screw you just like they’ll screw anybody else. It doesn’t matter if you’re all Democrats, but learn it, love it, live it. Barney has got to learn that he lives in the land of Obama-ville, where the leader lies about everything. I know it’s about the animals and the environment and all kinds of things. It is now clear that the secretary is unwilling to exercise independent judgment, and an anti-fishing attitude prevails in the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Barney Frank says, “This is unacceptable, I have worked with the regime on a number of important issues since Obama came to office, I will continue to be supportive of our common goal, but the President must understand that the administration’s persistence is a serious fault of the livelihood of the working men and women in the fishing industry. You are making it difficult for me to maintain this degree of cooperation.”

There is a companion story to this, in the Boston Herald, "The Industry’s Hopes Sink" is the headline, US Commerce Secretary Gary Locke in October raised the hopes of the local fishing industry by agreeing to consider higher catch limits on certain fish species which the fishermen argue was the only way to keep the industry afloat. On Friday he crushed those hopes. Despite pleas from the New England fishing industry, from Gov. Deval Patrick and dozens of other elected officials, Locke refuses to increase catch limits on certain protected species.

I love this! I finally find out what this is all about now: the left is being hoisted on its own petard. They’re the ones who have given us all these stupid regulations, animal rights and all this other stuff… Barney why don’t you try drilling for oil and see what that’s like with this regime. So the regime promised them that they are going to raise fish catch limits and then said, “Oh no you can’t because it’s a protected species.”

So Barney, guess what, your constituents’ livelihood doesn’t matter a hill of beans compared to the species. Add to that, the leader of the regime lied to Barney about this. Under new federal rules, once they hit their new catch limit on one species, they are prevented from fishing for others that may be in much greater abundance, thereby leaving sustainable catch in the ocean. Patrick estimated direct losses in foregone catch at $40 million.

Once they hit their annual limit on one species, they are prevented from fishing for others that may be in much greater abundance thereby leaving sustainable catch in the ocean. While smaller boats claim it will drive them out of business, the new catch share system is viewed by some as a more equitable way to manage stocks and prevent overfishing. Yeah, socialism, make everything equally miserable. Equally undersupplied. Equally woeful. And by all means don’t let the market have anything to say about this. No, the regime and Gary Locke. So Obama is killing another industry.

The New England fishing industry is being killed by Obama, the Gulf oil industry, the Alaskan oil industry; and we don’t hear about this in Boston. It’s in the local news, but the drive by’s haven’t picked it up because they haven’t found a way yet to blame it on Sarah Palin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frank and other members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation need to demand that Locke and top fishing regulators appear before Congress in hearings that will force them to, under oath, defend policies that are putting fishermen out of business and driving small businesses right into the bottom of the ocean.

It may bring some measure of visceral satisfaction for fishermen in Gloucester, New Bedford and across New England to hear Congressman Barney Frank give U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke a verbal pummeling for Locke's refusal to relax draconian federal catch limits.

Frank, in an interview on WBSM AM 1420 in New Bedford, accused Locke of not having the courage to stand up to his subordinates. And, pathetic as it sounds, that clearly seems true.

But at this point, it's also clear that a public scolding isn't going to change anything. It is not going to save the job of a single fisherman.

Simply put, Frank and other members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation need to demonstrate some courage themselves, and demand that Locke and top fishing regulators appear before Congress in hearings that will force them to, under oath, defend policies that are putting fishermen out of business and driving small businesses right into the bottom of the ocean.

Read the complete editorial from The Gloucester Times.

Listen to Barney Frank's interview on the Saving Seafood Hour on WBSM.