For the record

(from the September, 2008 issue of National Fisherman)

Richard Gaines writes for the Gloucester Daily Times. He covers fishing. Writing for the home town paper of one of the country’s oldest commercial fishing ports, and appearing to be one of the more conscientious journalists around, it’s pretty obvious that he takes his job seriously.

Thus, when he wrote a three part series on the shucking and jiving that’s going on with the administration of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (starting on June 25 and available on the paper’s website), he did a good job of it. In reporting on the sanctuary’s history, he went back about as far as he could go, writing of its formation “it was so long ago that commercial fishermen and environmentalists were actual arm-in-arm allies in favor of the creation of the sanctuary.” Not too many of us remember those days, and I bet that of those that do, most probably wish they didn’t.

He detailed the ins and outs and the convoluted bureaucratic machinations that have much of the New England fishing industry concerned about continued access to Stellwagen’s rich and readily accessible waters, waters that have sustainably supported New England fishing communities for generations.

And, Saints be praised, he also spared a few words for what Our Favorite Charitable Trust (OFCT) has done and is doing in fisheries, detailing the role of two of its “activist-scientists” in beating the anti-trawling drums, and then recognizing that “Pew is associated with public information campaigns against fishing and fish consumption.” Of course their over-the-top pronouncements on the effects of trawling on bottom habitat will continue to play a conspicuous role in the Stellwagen dialogue.

A week after Mr. Gaines’ series ran, and following an editorial supporting it, one of the “activist-scientists” mentioned in the series responded with a letter to the editor. In it, Elliot Norse, President of the Marine Conservation Biology Institute (MCBI), wrote “if Gloucester's community newspaper wants your fisheries to end and marine ecosystems to collapse further, then just say what Mr. Gaines' story did.” He also questioned whether the paper was condoning “threatening someone (in this instance, his own self) with murder” and asked if making such threats is acceptable behavior in Gloucester.

These might be among the more bizarre comments by a self-described honored scientist, but they do a great job of putting Dr. Norse’s trawling/clear cutting comparisons and doom-and-gloom ocean ecosystem pronouncements in their proper context. Fisherman Dave Goethel compellingly responded to them in a letter to the Gloucester Times on July 8.  Dave’s wife Ellen, who serves on the federal Marine Protected Areas Advisory Committee with Dr. Norse, was identified by Dr. Norse as relaying the supposed threats on his life that he made such an issue of. She recalled that the reference to murder was made laughingly, that she obviously didn’t convey any actual threat, and that their conversation continued cordially after that.

Dr. Norse’s letter brought up another important issue. After questioning the morality of the people of Gloucester, he claimed that he had not “received large grant funding from the Pew Institute.” From a hair-splitting perspective Dr. Norse was right. Mr. Gaines had claimed that “the Pew Institute” was the funding source. The Pew Charitable Trusts website shows that Dr. Norse’s MCBI received two Pew grants; $110,000 in March of 2000 and $350,000 in September of 2001. Not the Pew Institute, but it was surely Pew money. His Pew Fellowship, if it was what his fellow Fellows received, was $150,000. He referred to this as “modest.” It must be nice to travel in circles where $150,000 is considered modest and funding of almost half a million bucks isn’t “large.”  

Nils E. Stolpe