The Conservation Law Foundation's Sean Cosgrove responds to our analysis of their criticism of NEFMC Council Member Laura Ramsden and their arguments on proposed changes to closed areas.
13 March 2013
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair
There appears to be a conspiracy in our midst. Or so, some would think. Saving Seafood, “a 501(c)(6) association organized as a non-profit corporation funded by the fishing industry,” appears to have become rather discomposed by uncovering the fact that some people in New England believe that the practice of ripping up the ocean floor with heavy bottom trawling fishing gear might have deleterious effects on ocean fish and wildlife and the habitat that these species depend upon. Clearly, CLF is mistaken, Saving Seafood claims, as they go to a wide-ranging and energetic attack today on a two-week old blog post of mine titled “Destructive Trawling and the Myth of Farming the Sea.”
The point of my blog was to call into question a reference that New England Fishery Management Council member Laura Ramsden made during a Council meeting that protecting habitat areas (i.e. “closing” to trawling) might cause “damage” and the potential risks of not tilling the soil.” (Ms. Ramsden replied to my blog with a cordial note, and I responded. It’s still posted if you want to read it. ) In the blog I also make the point that not dragging heavy bottom trawls and dredges across sensitive seafloor habitat (i.e. “habitat protection”) benefits the health and productivity of our region’s fisheries.
Read the complete opinion piece by Sean Cosgrove at CLF's Talking Fish
n.b. "Talking Fish" allowed a response reproduced below from "Peter" to be posted to their site. Saving Seafood would like to make the following known:
– The founders of Saving Seafood were not New Bedford processors, but rather were the owners of the display auction. Organizations engaged in processing provided funding well after our organization was established, and we deeply appreciate their support.
– No one on our staff is a lobbyist. We employ journalists, media professionals, and public relations specialists.
– No one on our staff worked in either Bush Administration.
– Nils Stolpe's work has appeared on our site, and we appreciate his work, but we published it just as we have linked to opinions by numerous individuals in the fishing community, including a recent opinion piece on the cod fishery by CLF's Peter Shelley and a response to a Seafood News piece on herring by Pew's Peter Baker. Neither Mr. Stolpe, nor Mr. Shelley, nor Mr. Baker have ever been paid by Saving Seafood.
Saving Seafood remains committed to bringing diverse opinions from throughout the fishing community to our readers. This includes the viewpoints of actual industry participants, as well as the viewpoints of "stakeholders". And we respectfully note that a quick online search shows that the "Conservation Law Foundation" has been referenced 50 times on Saving Seafood's website, whereas before today, "Saving Seafood" has been refernced just once on CLT's Talking Fish, when Ben Martens of the Maine Coast Fishermen’s Association submitted a letter stating: "Saving Seafood recently outlined a compelling case as to how regulations could be changed (including opening up closed areas on Georges Bank) to allow the offshore fleet to target haddock."
The response from "Peter" published by Talking Fish follows:
PETER SAYS:
MARCH 13, 2013 AT 1:26 PM
These arguments coming from SavingSeafood are consistent with their strategies on a number of fisheries. They have been a mouth piece for the menhaden reduction industry, the draggers, and the big scallop dredgers. They were founded and funded by some New Bedford processors that for years have fought against conservation, they are staffed by a lobbyist who is a former Bush administration staffer, and they pay folks like Nils Stolpe who have made their living attacking conservation groups. At some point it comes down to who you trust: conservation groups working in the public interest or industry lobby groups working for self-interested private businesses? From my point of view, CLF and other conservation groups have been right time and again while the advice of the processors and their lobbyists has led to less fish, less fishermen, and less communities in the fishery, but more and more control of the industry by the shoreside processors and fleet owners. Which seems to be what they desire.