December 13, 2012 — In Mr. Baker's op-ed, all arguments for severe regulation lead back to Pew-managed, Pew-organized or Pew-funded efforts. In the lobbying and public relations world, this type of manufactured grass-roots support is known as "astroturf."
In a recent Standard Times opinion piece ("Strong action on menhaden best for coastal economy and ecology," Dec. 3), Pew Environment Group's Peter Baker attacked our earlier op-ed ("Menhaden fishery needs reasonable — not drastic — action," Nov. 7), accusing us of portraying "an outdated picture of the science" and offering "a false choice between protecting menhaden and jobs."
Mr. Baker cites a "recent study of 'forage fish' such as menhaden" to support his argument that a 50 percent reduction in menhaden harvest is necessary. Mr. Baker doesn't tell readers that the study's sponsor, the Lenfest Ocean Program, is managed by Pew.
Mr. Baker cites "a letter signed by 94 leading scientists" to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) saying current measures are inadequate. Mr. Baker doesn't tell readers that at least 31 of the signers are affiliated with or are part of organizations receiving funding from Pew Environment. Few of the signers have direct experience working on menhaden issues. One of them is an English professor, not a scientist.
Mr. Baker states that last year "more than 90,000 people "¦ urged the ASMFC to protect menhaden." What he doesn't say is that response was generated by Pew-organized online campaigns — in partnership with Greenpeace and other groups — using alarmist and sensationalized headlines that selectively presented facts.
In Mr. Baker's op-ed, all arguments for severe regulation lead back to Pew-managed, Pew-organized or Pew-funded efforts. In the lobbying and public relations world, this type of manufactured grass-roots support is known as "astroturf."
Let's look at Mr. Baker's approach to science and evidence not generated through Pew channels.
Mr. Baker underplays the concerns of the ASMFC Menhaden Technical Committee when he writes of "some degree of uncertainty" present in current estimates. The most recent menhaden assessment, conducted in 2012, concludes that problems with the assessment model "cast considerable doubt on the accuracy of the estimates from this update stock assessment."
Read the full story in the New Bedford Standard Times