It’s been over a month now since I saw the link-referenced letter to the Gloucester Daily Times regarding the “dissolving” of the New England Fishery Management Council. If that link dosen’t work on your computer, you can cut and paste this one into your browser: http://listserv.uri.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0809&L=riseagrant-l&D=0&T=0&P=48.
Sounds like pretty serious stuff right? But, of course it’s not entirely true. Indeed similar action happened, but the New England Council was certainly not “dissolved” like the author of the letter would lead his readers to believe. The letter is a major spin on the actual events of that day.
I had since forgotten about the letter as really, it wasn’t worthy of remembering, but after reading the many Presidential campaign articles in this morning’s paper, it got me thinking about spin. Thus, I offer the following “spin” regarding the actions of that day. I can’t take credit for this one. It came from a friend who wishes to remain nameless. And, as a Mid Atlantic Council Member I need to say that the views expressed in this letter are not my own. But indeed it is worth sharing. So, check it out:
“NMFS Regional Administrator Recognizes Obligation to Restore Fisheries”
“In a courageous and unprecedented move, The National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) Regional Administrator ignored the self-serving advice of the New England Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC) at the Council’s most recent meeting in Providence, RI. After days of discussing ways to frustrate the intent of the Magnuson Act while protecting their own financial interests, the Council approved a set of measures developed by the National Seafood Coalition that would delay needed rebuilding efforts and continue the chronic overfishing of groundfish stocks, until a way to permanently avoid conservation obligations could be conceived. In a 15-1 vote, the Council approved the Coalition proposal, the only dissenting vote being cast by the NMFS Regional Administrator, Pat Kurkul. Ms. Kurkul subsequently announced that, in the face of the Council’s failure to live up to their responsibilities under the law, she would be compelled to develop and implement an interim set of measures designed to begin the conservation and restoration of New England fish stocks. What is truly remarkable about this watershed event is that, for the first time, the National Marine Fisheries Service has taken a firm stand against the chronic cronyism and mutual back-scratching that has been endemic to the Council since its inception, and is acting decisively to protect the public interest in healthy and restored marine fisheries. Although the Council members, feeling financially threatened by the manifest need to reduce harvest that is evidenced in the GARM III report, came together to oppose any meaningful conservation measures, the Regional Administrator was cognizant of the fact that the Council’s role is advisory, and acted decisively to fulfill her agency’s obligations under the Magnuson Act. While Council and stakeholder input is certainly important to the fisheries management process, when such input is purely self-serving, and ignores both the best scientific evidence and the mandate of law, NMFS only responsible course is to ignore such comment and act in the greater public interest. The fishing industry is now undoubtedly in consultation with their lobbyists and calling in favors for past campaign contributions, in an attempt to foment a legislative assault on the agency’s management efforts. It is time for Americans to realize that the nation’s marine resources belong equally to all of us, and are not the special property of those who profited from the depletion of one of the world’s great fishing grounds. We all should contact our legislators and encourage them to support the agency action and, by extension, the public interest in having healthy and restored marine fish populations.”
See, it’s all about spin.