Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Home arrow News arrow Opinion arrow Editorial: NOAA chief's dishonesty before Senate panel another ouster nail
Editorial: NOAA chief's dishonesty before Senate panel another ouster nail
There is a growing chorus of federal lawmakers joining Tierney, Brown, Frank and others in calling for Lubchenco's ouster. And that can't come too soon.
 

For all the issues now swirling around NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco, perhaps the most serious and longstanding is her now clearly documented penchant for stretching the truth and tailoring supposed "facts" to meet her job-killing fishery agenda.

That may have never been more obvious than her often absurd testimony before U.S. Sens. John Kerry and Scott Brown, Congressmen John Tierney, Barney Frank and William Keating and others in a hearing earlier this month at the State House.

And local nonprofit groups Cape Ann Fresh Catch and the Gloucester Fishermen's Wives Association deserve credit for pointing out Lubchenco's efforts at revising history — just as she chooses to ignore the myriad facts noting the disastrous economic harm her and the Environmental Defense Fund's beloved catch share management policies have caused to fishermen and their families in Gloucester and elsewhere.

In her testimony — and before leaving the Senate panel hearing for what she obviously viewed as a higher-priority appointment, a meeting with The Boston Globe's editorial board — Lubchenco cited the Cape Ann Fresh Catch program to illustrate how "New England fishermen are beginning to realize new entrepreneurial opportunities under sector management."

Read the complete editorial from The Gloucester Times

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bookmark and Share Print
 

HASTINGS: Time to improve the Endangered Species Act

May 18, 2012 - When the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was signed into law in 1973 by President Nixon, he spoke about the importance of preserving “the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed.” I believe that goal is as important today as it was back then. However, after nearly 40 years, it’s time to take a fresh, honest look at the law and consider whether there are ways it could be improved to do a better job of protecting and recovering species.