directory of all past Another Perspective columns and
the earliest editions of FishNet USA are available here.
information on who's getting what to control fishing
in U.S. waters, visit the "Big Green Money Machine"
"For the past
several years, fanned by what’s going on in modern Russia, there has been a lot
of interest by the media in oligarchs and oligarchies. Defined as “a country, business, etc., that is controlled by a small group of
people” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary), an oligarchy would seem to be
the antithesis of government as Lincoln envisioned it. But along with the
foregoing, follow some of the links below and then consider the influence Pew
has in or over the domestic fisheries management system (and on fisheries
management in other countries as well). And consider as well that thirteen
people wield all that power. Of those thirteen people seven are in the
founder’s family and at least twelve have significant ties to Sun Oil/Sunoco
and/or the private bank that was formed to administer the trusts established
with Sun Oil/Sunoco stock. You decide!
To the extent
that multi-billion dollar foundations such as Pew continue to have their way by
mounting campaigns that any of the affected groups can’t afford to effectively
counter, and by exerting influence in Washington that few in the private sector
are capable of, the folks at the St. Augustine Lighthouse Museum who think the
people can’t change government will be justified. And the rest of us, those of
us who know that Lincoln had it right at Gettysburg, will be increasingly
most of the past two decades the Pew Charitable Trusts
have been playing an increasingly dominant role in how
- and to what end - our fisheries are managed in the
U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (and in the fisheries of
other nations as well). Backed by a multi-billion dollar
endowment, the Trusts and their thirteen member Board
have directly or indirectly (through many millions of
dollars in grants to selected "fishermens"
organizations, ENGOs, academic institutions, on their
own and with "hired help") impacted fishery
after fishery, and those impacts have largely been negative.
In Who's really in charge of U.S. fisheries? at
For By the People.pdf I
examine the relationship between the Pew Trusts and
fisheries and ocean governance.
"It doesn’t matter that overfishing in U.S. waters is no
longer a concern. It doesn’t matter that increasing ocean temperatures are
affecting the “sustainability” of our fisheries to a much greater extent that
overfishing ever has. It doesn’t matter that they are increasingly focused on
what are nothing more than token fishing issues like saving deepwater corals,
saving forage fish, completely eliminating bycatch or protecting huge areas of
natural ocean through Marine Protected Areas (which are generally protected
only from fishing). The sum total is fewer fish landed and at greater cost to
the fishermen every year.... The bucks keep rolling in, the misinformation those bucks buy
continues to influence the public and the non-coastal politicians, the lawsuits
those bucks fund continue to put our fishermen out of business, the
anti-fishing bureaucracies continue to grow and the anti-fishing salaries
continue to increase."
In Their careers and their futures
depend on attacking fishermen and fishing. What more can we expect from them?
I address the
ever more trivial exercises that anti-fishing organizations
and individuals are pursuing in order to keep their
Blame it all on fishing band wagon rolling along
and to keep their coffers overflowing. That's a natural
condition for a successful bureaucracy to be in, because
few of the people involved would be willing to call
it a day while there was still money to be grubbed,
regardless of how irrelevant their original mission
has become. The full FishNet is at http://www.fishnet-usa.com/Living
down to expectations.pdf
"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."
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.
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.
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.