Science for Hire: Why Industry's Deep Pockets May Be Depleting the Last of Our Fisheries

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/environment/science-hire-why-industrys-deep-pockets-may-be-depleting-last-our-fisheries



It’s sunset in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, a time when the little town’s handful of shops board up for the night, and the lights click off at no fewer than six marine research institutes.

But at the far end of the town, one block from the churning Atlantic, 10 weary scientists sit around a big square table arguing about cod. They’ve been at it since 8 a.m.. Each has blocked two weeks in his or her calendar for this single purpose.

The group is meeting at the Woods Hole Aquarium, the oldest saltwater aquarium in the country, which also houses office space for 45 federal scientists working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). There are no cod fish to be seen in the aquarium’s tanks. There aren’t many cod in the ocean either, compared to historic levels, and it is on this point that the scientists are squabbling.

It’s not that they all disagree. In fact, there is consensus on most points among nine NOAA scientists who are attending the meeting. Their job it is to analyze fish populations in New England waters for the federal government – among them cod, pollock, and flounder.

[Speck Tater]

1. It seems clear to me that...

...the fishing industry will keep pretending there are more cod than there really are until they have completely wiped out the species.

[ellisonz]

2. +1

[freethought]

3. The industry is in charge of regulating the fishery!

It's a classic tale of the fox guarding the hen house. These scientists are charged with analyzing the fishery. In other words they gather data via scientific sampling and analysis techniques to try to get an idea of how much cod is out there and how much cod can be taken without adversely impacting the fishery.

But do they set the policy? Or the catch limits? NO, they most certainly do not.

The scientists provide their data and analysis to regional fishery councils. These councils are made up interests who, for the most part, profit off of the exploitation of the fishery. So, those who make money from the resource are charged with its long-term sustainability. Does that sound like a formula for sustaining the long term viability of a cod or haddock fishery? Hardly, it sounds more like putting Lloyd Blankfein in charge of the SEC while still earning a paycheck from Goldman Sachs.

Then there is the fishermen themselves. Some years ago, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy were able to allocate some money to do a commercial fishing boat buyback program. The objective was to reduce the number of fishing boats out on the water harvesting the fish. In exchange for cash, the fishermen would sell the boats and the boats would be scrapped. It would be up to the fishermen to find their way after that. However that is not what happened. The fishermen sold the boats and the boats were scrapped, however the fishermen turned right around and used the cash as down payments on larger and better equipped boats thus making overfishing problems even worse.
The point here is that for many people, making a living meant that they had to acquire new skills and take new jobs that they were previously unfamiliar with. It's a hard transition, making a living one way for so many years then have to change over to another way in order to stay in house and home. It's been my observation as a New Englander where we hear frequently about the impacts of the various fisheries and those who make their livelihood off of them, there seems to be a sort of attitude among commercial fishermen that some how think that "change or go homeless" should not apply to them. That they should be allowed to go on making a living as they have always done regardless of the impacts on the resource they depend on. In some respects it makes me less sympathetic to their plight.

You want to fix fisheries management? That's easy. Take control of its management away from those who profit from it.