F R O M   T H E   C R O W E ’ S   N E S T

 

Fallacy, Not Policy



The latest go round in the “groundfish question” is lawsuits by New England governors hoping for an eleventh hour reprieve from the death sentence imposed on the once pre-eminent New England groundfish industry by federal employees.

Languishing on death row for decades the groundfish industry followed directive after contradictory directive from the National Marine Fisheries Service only to be rewarded with less quota and the threat of more cuts.

Fishermen watched one after another haughty regional administrator march past waving a sheaf of the latest plans to end overfishing in one hand, while with the other hand they waved on the newly appointed brigade of the best and whatever scientists who would write the new proofs for NMFS.

Well, so much for government work. There is always someone who will do it.

From the beginning of this mess, which followed the government’s “business” plan to reduce fishing by buying everyone bigger boats in the 1970’s, fishermen have been attempting to get a word in edgewise.

In more recent decades other marine biologists have presented alternative views of what was happening to the groundfish stocks and how this science might be used to create better management plans. This science was not coming from middle school science fair projects, but from leading voices in marine science.

However, in government work facts from outside the system are seen as a threat that could, well, upset the neatly ordered apple cart.

As the federal bureaucracy lumbers toward the 2014 deadline for their “ending overfishing,” it is very apparent they are not going to be the ones to do it. Nor are they listening to the large crowd gathering in the courtyard below demanding that alternate voices be heard.

In that crowd the Magnuson Stevens Act is demanding protection from policies that negatively impact coastal society and economies. There are climate scientists from the U.S. and the world shouting “it’s the climate stupid.” With them are marine biologists who have reasoned that ending overfishing is in itself the definition of a misunderstanding of the larger groundfish problem.

Leaving the fate of one of our nation’s most important food resources and the industry that delivers it in the hands of this calcified, immutable federal agency and expecting anything but disaster is fallacy, not policy.