This article was written by Meghan Lapp, who has worked in the commercial fishing industry.<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/font><\/font> <\/span>Commercial <\/span>The <\/span>Despite <\/span>For example, we have been told by NOAA and the NMFS for years that the New England groundfishery <\/span>(i.e., <\/span>fishing for such species as flounder, fluke, haddock, cod, monkfish, <\/span>etc.) <\/span>has <\/span>Most <\/span>Perhaps <\/span>Now, <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This article was written by Meghan Lapp, who has worked in the commercial fishing industry. Commercial fishing is one of New England and America’s oldest and most traditional industries. Additionally, commercial fishing provides an important food source to our nation. … Continue reading
\nfishing is one of New England and America’s oldest and most
\ntraditional industries. Additionally, commercial fishing provides an
\nimportant food source to our nation. It is, however, under attack from
\nall sides. <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n
\ncommercial fishing industry in the US is regulated by NOAA, the
\nNational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and several regional Fishery
\nManagement Councils, as established by the Magnuson Stevens Act. That
\nAct creates guidelines to assist these agencies in creating and
\nimplementing fishery management plans, through obtaining the “best
\nscientific evidence available” and taking “into account the importance
\nof fishery resources to fishing communities”, and “to the extent
\npracticable, minimize[ing] adverse economic impacts on such
\ncommunities”. <\/span><\/font><\/font>\n<\/p>\n
\nsuch clear language, these government agencies continue to disregard
\nand distort the guidelines in virtually every practical way, making
\ncommercial fishing in New England and the rest of the nation harder and
\nharder for fishermen. <\/span>Instead of consulting with
\nfishermen themselves on fish stocks, populations and movements, NOAA
\nand the NMFS have repeatedly and deliberately based their plans,
\nrestrictions, <\/span>and national statements (capitalized upon by national media) on faulty ‘science’. <\/font><\/font>\n<\/p>\n
\nbeen chronically “overfished”. The truth is that the New England
\ngroundfishery has been chronically underfished, resulting in the
\ndecimation of the livelihoods of hard working fishermen in such ports
\nas New Bedford and Gloucester. In 2008, NE fishermen could have caught
\nup to 75% more fish than they actually caught, without damaging fish
\nstocks. But because of purposefully unworkable regulations, they didn’t
\ncatch 280 million dollars of fish that they were allowed to catch.
\n(From <\/font><\/font>http:\/\/www.fishnet-usa.com\/chronic_underfishing.htm<\/font><\/a>). <\/font>\n<\/p>\n
\nclaims of “overfishing” are simply not true. Again- not to be
\nrepetitive- there are reports from New England fishermen themselves,
\nwho are actually on our waterways day after day and are more aware of
\nreal-life fish stocks and patterns than anyone else, that they have
\nnever seen “so many fish…in 34 years of fishing” (<\/font><\/font>http:\/\/www.gloucestertimes.com\/fishing\/local_story_017215951.html?keyword=topstory<\/font><\/a>),
\nbut they are simply not allowed to catch them. Not only is this true,
\nbut fishermen are increasingly being shunned from positions where they
\ninfluence fishery management policy. Why is this going on? Why are our
\nfishermen and their knowledge disregarded and fish stocks
\nmisrepresented? <\/font>\n<\/p>\n
\nit can be explained as a huge conflict of interest. The fact is that
\nmost of the scientists and officials in positions of power within the
\nNational Marine Fisheries Service and NOAA (including NOAA chief Jane
\nLubchenko) have been involved with and funded by organizations such as
\nPew Charitable Trusts and other environmental organizations for years.
\n(For an expose on what would be condemned as a gross conflict of
\ninterest in any other industry, see <\/span><\/font><\/font>http:\/\/capeannsalon.yuku.com\/topic\/983<\/font><\/a>). <\/span>Such
\norganizations gross millions of dollars every year, fund marine ‘research’ and have huge lobbying power and media ties. <\/span><\/font><\/font>\n<\/p>\n
\nfishermen are fighting back. They are beginning to unite in an effort
\nto turn the tide and return fishermen to the place they were originally
\nintended to have- that of being a true consideration when fisheries
\nmanagement plans are developed. They are crying for an amendment to the
\nexisting fisheries legislation. The new legislation, called the
\nFlexibility in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act, has two bills in
\nCongress- one in the House of Representatives (HR 1584), and one in the
\nSenate (S. 1255). A united rally of both commercial and recreational
\nfishermen are set to gather on the steps of the Capitol building in
\nWashington, DC, on Feb. 24, 2010, under the banner of United We Fish to
\ndemonstrate support for the bill and gain Congressional attention. (See
\n<\/font><\/font>http:\/\/unitedwefish.blogspot.com\/<\/font><\/a>, <\/span>Jan
\n2 entry.) It is the first time such a united front has ever been
\npresented to Congress on these issues. You can help by signing a letter
\nthat will be distributed to Congressmen and women who have shown
\nsupport for the Flexibility legislation by clicking here: <\/font>http:\/\/fs16.formsite.com\/FixMagnusonNow\/form793561462\/<\/font><\/span><\/span><\/a>.
\nAs many signatures as possible are needed, so please consider signing
\nand coming to the aid of these fishermen. Without the passage of this
\nlegislation, many men and women in New England and the greater United
\nStates stand to lose their jobs and way of life. Another
\npro-Flexibility legislation petition can be found at: <\/font>http:\/\/www.thepetitionsite.com\/takeaction\/241380953<\/font><\/a>.
\nPlease take the time to sign both and give our fishermen a chance. You
\ncan also get involved by calling or emailing your Senators and
\nRepresentatives and asking them to support the Flexibility in
\nRebuilding American Fisheries Act. <\/span>Thank you!<\/font>\n<\/p>\n