August 23, 2017 — I would like to make several observations regarding Michael Bonner’s Aug. 21 article, “Delegation supports Rafael’s forfeiture toward electronic monitoring.”
First of all, state legislators’ support for utilizing the forfeiture to fund the electronic monitoring (surveillance), presupposes that this form of electronic monitoring will be supported and adopted. It surely does not seem to be the favored choice of monitoring, as far as the groundfish industry is concerned. In fact, they are not in favor of any form of monitoring that has been proposed to date.
I know that many of those in the NMFS/NOAA or the conservation industry would claim that my last statement is an expected response from someone who is either in the fishing industry or who supports their way of life. However, show me someone who would like to have basically every minute of their working life surveilled and overseen by “Big Brother,” or anyone else, for that matter.
As an American, you are considered innocent until proven otherwise, but in this case, you are expected to bear the additional burden and costs of video surveillance, along with the costs of the already-imposed vessel tracking systems. The fishing vessel crews already have the considerable burden of paying for the tracking systems that monitor their positions on (at least) an hourly basis. The vessel tracking systems are now a precondition that must be met, endured and paid for by the fishermen if they wish to obtain a permit to fish in almost any of the current local fisheries.
NOAA fisheries Regional Administrator John Bullard (soon to be retiring) is quoted as saying that he thinks that video monitoring is a major benefit to the industry. I’m not sure who he thinks he’s going to convince with that statement. Surely not the fishing industry. If that were the case, New Hampshire fisherman David Goethel likely would not be requesting that this “benefit” be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Read the full letter at the New Bedford Standard-Times