"Some of the hottest journalistic action is still in following the money. But don't look to your local newspaper, newsmagazine or public radio station for enlightenment, because the money trails today often radiate from a handful of the nation's wealthiest "charitable" foundations, and end with those media outlets themselves." (Robert Fritchey - author of Wetland Riders)

 

 

 

 

To be kept up-to-date on what's happening in or about the commercial fishing industry, to get notifications when new FishNet issues and Another Perspective columns are available, visit the Commercial Fishing - The Rest Of The Story blog by clicking here and subscribe via email or RSS feed.

A directory of all past Another Perspective columns and the earliest editions of FishNet USA are available here.

For information on who's getting what to control fishing in U.S. waters, visit the "Big Green Money Machine" website here.

 

"If the populations of most marine mammals and other highly efficient predators such as spiny dogfish have increased significantly over the past decade or three it’s obvious their predation, the largest part of natural mortality, inflicted on their prey species would have increased correspondingly. Yet is this factored into fisheries management programs? It appears not. It appears as if, as is apparently the case in New England, controlling fishing mortality is the only “effective” method (which really means “is the only easily available method”) by which managers assume that they can affect total mortality. Fisheries managers have to do something, because the whole fisheries management system is predicated on managing or on appearing to manage fisheries. So the natural mortality of a stock increases because of increasing predation and at this point, given research funding limits as well as limits on what we know about predation, the only way that the managers can compensate, which they are required to do by federal legislation and forced to do by a handful of mega-foundation funded ENGOs with huge bank accounts and droves of lawyers, is by reducing fishing mortality. What comes immediately to mind is a snake busily at work eating its own tail."

In the FishNet Dogfish and seals and dolphin, oh my! I consider predation by several groups of voracious marine animals on our most valuable fisheries and the fact that neither our management system system nor federal laws allow it to be handled effectively, in fact making any claims that we are advancing towards true Ecosystem Based Management at best mistaken and at worst purposefully misleading. It's posted here in Adobe Acrobat format at http://www.fishnet-usa.com/Dogfish and seals and dolphin.pdf.

They’re still so wrapped up in their “fishing is bad” agenda that they’ve started to argue that even if the new and improved science shows that there are a lot more bluefin tuna in the western Atlantic than was previously believed, precaution demands that the quotas remain where they are, because the scientists might not be right. But why wouldn’t they? The future of the foundation-funded claque depends ostensibly on there being crises to fix, and if there aren’t any real crises, why not manufacture one or several, ‘cause that’s what keeps the dollars rolling in.

In this Flotsam and Jetsam issue of FishNet the results of an FDA study of mislabelling fish in the domestic market, the dismal state of the integration of fishermen's knowledge into management and some really good news about the status of the Western Atlantic bluefin tuna stock are discussed. It's available at http://www.fishnet-usa.com/Flotsam_Jetsam2014.pdf.

It’s about time that an objective group take a close and thorough look at the undue level of scrutiny that fishermen are forced to endure and determine what that scrutiny is actually accomplishing. It doesn’t seem to make fisheries management any more effective, though it does make the management of the fishermen who are trying to survive a lot easier – because it’s going to guarantee that there will be less fishermen fishing. And the constantly reinforced message that without 24/7 scrutiny the fishermen are going to cheat makes them seem as deserving recipients of whatever the next step is going to be.

"Monitoring" fishermen is becoming increasingly burdensome and increasingly intrusive. Compared to other professions is this level of scrutiny required to protect the public health or the marine environment? In Monitoring fishermen - sampling or sentencing (http://www.fishnet-usa.com/SamplingOrSentencing.pdf) these and other vital questions are considered.

That's not real grass, it's Astroturf, and so are the roots - "The minority staff of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works recognized in the just released report The Chain of Environmental Command: How a Club of Billionaires and Their Foundations Control the Environmental Movement and Obama’s EPA what they termed a 'Billionaires Club' which has gained access to “a close knit network of like minded funders, environmental activists, and government bureaucrats who specialize in manufacturing phony ‘grassroots’ movements and in promoting bogus propaganda disguised as science and news…."

With all of the attention on Magnuson reauthorization, supposed fishermen seem to be crawling out of the woodwork claiming to speak for the commercial fishing industry. Would you believe that some of those "fishermen" and some of those organizations are shilling for ENGOs and/or mega-foundations who will apparently stop at nothing to destroy the domestic fishing industry as it exists today? Read the current FishNet-USA, Your roots are showing, at http://fishnet-usa.com/RootsAreShowing.pdf


Recent Editions

Why we're here

Current Edition

 

 

(click logo for more information)

 

Oceans are large, they are constantly changing, they are affected by all sorts of human activities and natural phenomena, and most of what goes on in them is hidden to us. Unless you're someone who makes a living dealing with the oceans at some level, your primary source of information vis a vis fishing, habitat degradation, etc. is the popular media. Unfortunately, today's journalists, producers and editors are poorly equipped, either via education, background or budget, to appreciate how complex ocean and fisheries issues actually are. Hence reporting on ocean issues - and the vast majority of the public's understanding of them - suffers greatly from today's soundbite culture. Poorly documented (or completely undocumented) press releases, supposed independent researchers bought and paid for by agenda-driven foundations, recreational fishing columnists who are little more than industry shills, short-sighted politicians whose interests extend no farther than keeping narrowly focused pressure groups happy, and competition among user groups are all conspiring to obscure what's really going on in the world's oceans today. Our goal is to present the "other side" of the picture, to do the research that isn't being done, and to - in the words of Watergate's Deep Throat - "follow the money." We need rational ocean policies, and we're never going to have them if our decision makers, and the public they are serving, don't fully appreciate what's going on.  

 

Earthjustice just announced a lawsuit in which it is representing several small recreational fishing groups, claiming that by the Council's declining to move ahead with Amendment 15 to the Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan, NMFS is not providing adequate measures to "protect*" blueback herring and alewife and American and Hickory shad." This is in spite of the fact that both the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and NMFS fully explained their reasons for proceeding as they have been and extending assurances that the management provisions now in place would adequately protect both river herring and shad (http://www.fishnet-usa.com/Flotsam and jetsam_13.pdf)

Contact Nils Stolpe or get on the FishNet USA mailing list by contacting me at nilsstolpe@fishnet-usa.com


Did they really write that?

"Daniel Pauly, the director of the Fisheries Center at the University of British Columbia and a noted expert on global fishing trends, cites the example of the earliest anglers, Stone Age peoples in Africa who eradicated a six-foot-long catfish 90,000 years ago and then moved on to another animal. 'This pattern,' Pauly says, of fishermen 'exterminating the population upon which they originally relied, and then moving on to other species, has continued ever since.'" (The Catch, P. Greenberg, NY Times, 10/23/05)

 "In the developing world, entire countries depend on fishing. If fishing is doing what we say, then essentially, there is no tomorrow for them. We can expect that in a few decades there will be no fish left." (Daniel Pauly quoted in In A Few Decades, There Will Be No Fish, D. Jones, The Toronto Globe and Mail, 10/29/05)

 '"I realized one has to work through the public and the conservation community," he (Daniel Pauly) said, adding that he has received international notice partly because he is not "one of the gloomies." While other scientists deliver dire messages about the state of the world, he says, "I always laugh, because it's so absurd that it is funny. People think [others are] gloomy, and they know I am saying the same thing, but they don't put me among the gloomies.'" (In the same Globe and Mail article cited above)

Unless Dr. Pauly means something other than crepe hangers when he refers to "gloomies," not only is he one of them; as his words demonstrate so precisely, he might be considered a charter member of the club.