|
Fish Or Cut Bait
Sunday,
May 5, the town of Gloucester, Massachusetts was teaming with fishermen
from up and down the Northeast coast.
With fishing vessels floating in the harbor as a backdrop,
hundreds gathered at the reverential “Man
at the Wheel” statue (not to be confused with the inconsequential Pat
Sajak, Man at the Wheel game show host) to hold signs and publicize
their judicially generated plight.
It was the perfect bait. The
scent of a rally was enough to lure news hungry reporters to the site. Despite
being newcomers to the topsy-turvy world of protesting, the fishermen
displayed a high degree of enthusiasm and it was apparent to all that
they weren’t afraid of jumping in and getting their feet wet.
One local fish cutter, Myron Lapine, feared what would become of
Gloucester once the restrictions take affect:
“I think it’s going to kill [the town], wipe it out.” Then
he added, “I’m all for conservation, but you’ve got to let these
guys fish. That’s all
they know. It’s to the
point where these guys are going to get crushed.”
It’s a dismal assessment, but one that apparently didn’t make
it on to Judge Kessler’s radar screen.
I guess the fish have more standing. Environmental
groups, meanwhile, reeled in the judge hook, line, and sinker.
Eric Bilsky, legal shark for one of these self-proclaimed
environmental groups, Oceana, led a federal court battle angling to
sharply curtail commercial fishing in New England waters.
Overfishing, the suit alleged, was drastically depleting the
native populations of cod and flounder.
(Sorry, Charlie. Tuna
didn’t make the list.) Though
no physical count was ever conducted, a statistical
sampling of resident fish species calculated in the 2000 census
tended to bolster the environmentalists’ claims.
With imminent disaster supported by the best wild guess that
science can offer, counterclaims of replenishing fish stocks could
safely be ignored and victory in court was assured.
Judge Gladys, not known for swimming against the tide, followed
the previous court’s lead. According
to the Associated Press, under the new rules set forth by Kessler,
“fishing days at sea are [to be] determined by the average number of
days a fisherman used between 1996 and 2001 minus 20 percent.”
Sure, the formula is arbitrary, but, hey, it’s about as solid
as any predictions regarding fish stock levels.
And besides being capricious, it could lead to heavier fishing in
the future. Under the
current ruling, those who foolishly followed stringent guidelines in the
past will be rewarded with the heaviest fishing days at sea
restrictions. Fishermen
fortunate enough to survive financially will have learned a valuable
lesson, namely that their best bet is to fish at whatever the current
maximum level is. Otherwise, they might be snagged by future rulings. Certainly,
the future of the fishing industry looks bleak.
Entire fishing areas have been closed in addition to the
days-at-sea reduction. It’s a wonder that no politician took the occasion to
capitalize on the . . . no wait . . . somebody already did.
U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy was on hand at the protest, soaking up
publicity like a roll of Bounty. “This
harbor has seen fishing for 400 years and we’re not going to let it
stop now,” he bellowed at a scattering flock of gulls.
But don’t doubt his veracity.
While it may look like pure opportunism, the Senator’s support
is probably genuine. After
all, he has had a long and infamous association with the sea and
he empathizes with the difficulty of bringing things to the surface.
Moreover, it’s tragic when government decisions ruin lives, so
perhaps he’ll do his part and ruin a little bit of our lives by
deciding that we should foot the bill for the fishermen’s loss.
That should make Teddy feel better.
I can almost see the Gorton captain smiling. Thankfully the fisheries are in public waters. I’d hate to see the feeding frenzy of cutthroat actions if private parties actually had to bid for the resource.
discuss this column in the forum Emmett Harris lives upwind of the Kennedys on Cape Cod. |
