"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 placed on the FishNet USA email distribution list, click here
(Please include your name and affiliation in the body of the message)

 

Another Perspective, a monthly column that I have written for National Fisherman magazine since the fall of 2005, has found a new home at the Saving Seafood website (linked here). Please visit the site, let me know what you think of the columns, and catch up on what else is going on in the world of fishing.                                                                                                             Nils E. Stolpe                                                                                 

 

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 activitivities 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.  

 
"Due to ill-advised amendments to the Magnuson Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, all federally managed fisheries are required to be at a level that will produce the maximum sustainable yield. This is a requirement in spite of the fact that having “competing” species at this level might be biologically impossible undesirable for economic or other reasons. The folly of this legislative mandate becomes obvious in an examination of the current situation regarding the “plague” (according to both recreational and commercial fishermen) of spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias, currently impacting many fisheries from South Carolina to Maine.

In specific instances, and the dogfish situation off the Northeast coast provides a sterling example, fishing pressure can—and should—be used as an effective management tool. Given the basic fact that a particular area of ocean can only support a limited biomass of fish, by fully understanding and carefully controlling the makeup of that biomass through selective fishing, the species mix of the fish available for harvest can be optimized, producing a true optimum yield." http://www.fishnet-usa.com/maximum_sustainable_yield.htm

 Read "From another perspective," Nils Stolpe's regular column published in National Fisherman.

Contact Nils Stolpe 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.