The idea that scallopers, with lifetimes invested, with boats worth millions, and with respectable incomes, would jeopardize it all in a “to hell with tomorrow” assault on the resource is absurd.
January 20, 2010
The successful politicians in New Jersey, in Massachusetts and in Virginia get it, and those in every other state – if they want to remain in politics – better get it as well. In the U.S. we’re starting to lose patience with having public policies forced down our throats by elitists who are convinced that they know best. Government by condescension is on its way out, and none too soon.
But, on the morning after the drubbing that was handed the Massachusetts candidate who was most identified with a “we know what’s best for you in spite of what you believe” attitude, the Boston Globe still doesn’t get it.
In an editorial this morning the Globe bemoaned the fact that the New England Fishery Management Council will reconsider its decision to reduce next year’s sea scallop harvest by almost a quarter; an action that would cost the coastal economies of Massachusetts, New Jersey, Virginia and every other coastal state from North Carolina to Maine hundreds of millions of dollars and hundreds of jobs.
The editorial finished up with the words “while the industry is all too willing to risk permanent harm to scallop stocks – and its own livelihood – the council must be steadfast in protecting the region’s marine resources.” That fits perfectly with the condescending attitude towards fishermen espoused by the elitists who run the multi-billion dollar foundations behind so much of the current – and unnecessary – suffering in the commercial fishing industry; the attitude that they’re there to protect us from ourselves.
But it’s dead wrong.
Members of the sea scallop fishery have been leaders in campaigning for the sustainable management of their fishery. The idea that those fishermen, with lifetimes invested on the water, with boats worth several millions of dollars each, and with respectable incomes from those boats, would jeopardize it all for a “get rich quick and to hell with tomorrow” assault on the resource is absurd. Fisheries scientists with international reputations (and without funding from those crusading foundations) have attested and will attest to that.
A newspaper with editorial offices only an hour’s drive from New Bedford, the busiest scallop port in the country, is condemning the reconsideration of a decision that would rip a huge amount of money from the Massachusetts economy next year. That decision would precipitate economic hardship at a time when Americans are still in the grips of a devastating economic downturn. It’s going to cost Globe readers jobs and money they can ill afford. Finding fault with that reconsideration is even more absurd, no matter what advice is being given to the Globe by foundation flacks whose careers depend on selling the notion that their only interest is saving fish and fishermen.
As I wrote a few weeks back, the times, they are a-changin’ and yesterday’s special election in Massachusetts demonstrated that it’s not just in how we’re relating to fisheries management that’s changing; it’s the whole social, cultural and economic sphere. The people don’t want elitist control frosted with feel good rhetoric, they want – and they’re going to get – a say in what’s going on.
Perhaps the editorial writers at the Boston Globe will figure that out, but they’re going to have to venture outside Route 128 to do it. If they do, their first foray should be to New Bedford to meet with some real conservationists who have a real stake in the fisheries management process.