Here we go again….

(from the March, 2007 issue of National Fisherman)

In a letter to the editor of the New Bedford Standard Times on January 3, Gib Brogan, Campaign Projects Manager for Oceana, wrote that the paper was at fault for identifying “Oceana and other nongovernmental organizations as being the only opposition to weak rebuilding provisions proposed by Rep. Barney Frank as part of the reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act.” He continued “a wide range of groups opposed Rep. Frank's proposal to weaken rules intended to rebuild our nation's fisheries.”

But when he expanded on this, his list of groups was awfully short. As a matter of fact, it went no farther than “the Marine Fish Conservation Network. a coalition that includes commercial fishermen and fishing groups in its membership.”

Now the Marine Fish Conservation Network (MFCN) is an organization that I’m somewhat familiar with, having devoted some significant time researching and several hundred words writing about it in a recent FishNet (see http://www.fishnet-usa.com/reauthor_one.html).

From the tone of Mr. Brogan’s letter, the uninformed reader would think that the MFCN might be a large and diverse group of “concerned” fishing- and ocean-related organizations, all with a common interest and all disconnected from Oceana. Large? Perhaps. Diverse? Not likely, at least if one is a believer in Deep Throat’s “follow the money” philosophy. And disconnected from Oceana? Consider the following and draw your own conclusion.

Last fall the MFCN, along with the National Environmental Trust, ran an ad in the Washington Times stating that Congressman Frank’s version of a retooled Magnuson Act ““contains loopholes that will increase overfishing.” At that point the National Environmental Trust, the MFCN and Oceana had shared over $60 million doled out by our favorite “charitable” trust (which, to spare the feelings of some of my more sensitive readers, I’ll only identify as OFCT.)

And what about those “commercial fisherman and fishing groups” in the MFCN membership? The MFCN website listed perhaps a dozen groups that can be readily identified as commercial fishing-oriented. From the FishNet cited above, “at least half have what appear to be substantial ties with OFCT. Pat White, past Executive Director of the Maine Lobstermen’s Association, and Pietro Parravano, President of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA) were both members of the OFCT Oceans Commission. The Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association has been funded by OFCT. The Institute For Fisheries Research (IFR) is a spin-off of the PCFFA. Salmon For All is a member of both the PCFFA and Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition, which has received upwards of $5 million from Pew. David Hallowell of the Humboldt Fishermen's Marketing Association is listed as a Board member of the IFR.”

Of course, nothing’s wrong with any of these folks or organizations getting funding or seeking alliances or working with whatever or whoever they wish, and I’m definitely not implying that there is. But I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to suspect that there might be some connections there that go a bit farther than an interest in the oceans and the fish in ‘em.

Of the remaining 170 or so members of the MFCN, over a dozen have received more than a quarter of a million dollars each from OFCT. Some of them have received much, much more. Over $20 million for Earth Justice Legal Defense, $8 million for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, $4 million for Seaweb, almost $5 million for Audubon, but you’re all familiar with the drill by now.

And, of course, there are a whole bunch of organizations representing competing users of the oceans’ resources; primarily recreational fishing and diving groups.

The range of the groups Mr. Brogan writes about seems to be much more narrow than he would apparently have his readers believe. The big guys are all dipping into the same barrel of cash, as are many of the smaller ones. The commercial fishing groups can be tied to the folks that keep that barrel filled, and many of the rest see that the MFCN agenda, which is opposed by most fishermen, might accordingly have some pay-offs down the road for them.

Wide range of groups, Mr. Brogan? You’re going to have to try a lot harder than that.

NEWS FLASH - The internet has been peppered with reports concerning the interactions between selenium and mercury in the body. Selenium, found in high levels in fish, apparently negates effects of mercury (see http://newsletter.vitalchoice.com/e_article000709707.cfm?x=b11,0,w). This is “breaking news” at this point, but keep your eyes peeled for more on the subject. It’s critical to the future of our industry – and our customers.    

Nils E. Stolpe