Over fishing in New England

Moments ago (well actually, last fall), I was subject to a quasi-political statement manufactured by one of our local radio stations, WHEB. This message called for support of our "oldest local profession," commercial fishing, during this difficult time of changing regulation and declining industry. Indeed, we must always support our brothers and sisters in our community whenever they are in need. However, the tone and misinformation of this advertisement causes me great concern. In not-so-subtle terms, the radio station blamed the current situation on anti-business 'environmentalists' who have manipulated government regulators in effort to shut down our local small fishing businesses. It seemed that the intent of this message was to incite a public animosity to environmentalism and force an overthrow of federal regulation. Unfortunately, there was considerable blame, but no responsibility.

While the ad claims that fishing stocks have increased over the last twelve years of self-regulation, the argument omits truth. The fishing industry has been severely regulated over this period, specifically to restore these depleted fishing stocks. This was not a voluntary effort by any means. We are, in fact, in this situation due to fishing industry negligence in the first place. We over-fished despite clear environmental signals that the catch could not be sustainable. This shortsighted goal for profits now, at the expense of long-term ecological (or even fiscal) balance, is echoed through out our way of life. Our recent national accounting scandals provide clear example of what we can expect when an industry is left to 'self-regulate'.

Environmentalists are not the cause of commercial fishermen's problems. Rather than raising voices against environmentalism, we should be raising voices against federal regulation that favors the large commercial fishing industry at the expense of the small fisherman/fleet. Big business had the government's ear, not environmentalists. Environmentalists are not anti-fishing or anti-business. The accusation is absurd. However, in order to sustain our community (and even our greater civilization), we must protect biodiversity and live in balance with our ecology. That balance is fragile: once one species disappears, the next fish up the food chain declines. An ecosystem collapse is never far off. To continue to curtail fishing is essential for the future of fish and fishing jobs tomorrow. In all likelihood, that means some people will lose their jobs now. Is that acceptable? Yes -- although we do not like it, it is essential. Fishermen have had over a decade to prepare for this. It was obvious years ago, that if the industry could not prevent over-fishing, either stock depletion or significant regulation would. Indeed, our local individual fishermen are probably suffering the consequences of large fishing industry irresponsibility. Instead of condemning environmentalists and assigning blame, the radio station should be calling on us to redirect regulation proportionately and support financial aid for small businesses that need to make equipment or career changes.

I hope to be able to continue eating fish tomorrow,
Tim Gaudreau