More on fish catch issues - vote may be today.

[Mass]

I hesitate to post my opinion about this issue because I dont necessarily have a good grasp of all the parts in place, but this is a very important issue for people from MA and in particular from the coastal areas as it is their livehood. It is hard to understand why, while Kerry will fight for a redundant military aircraft because it means jobs for MA, he is not ready to commit more on this issue. It is also clear it is becoming more and more frustrating for people there. This is their livehood that is in cause, and, more than anything else, it is an issue of distribution between big companies and individual fishermen, so it should be a no brainer.

Can somebody explain to me, beyond the reasons quoted in the article, why Kerry wont commit to this vote? They have been talking for months now, and it is fairly clear that nothing will be done.

The Gloucester Times has a good and honest explanation of the issue here.

Kerry non-commital on move to freeze catch share spending
By Richard Gaines
Staff Writer

U.S. Sen. John Kerry described himself today as conflicted, and declined to say how he will vote on the so-called Jones amendment to shut off funding for future catch share programs, the top fisheries policy of the Obama administration and its National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, but a policy that's drawn widespread opposition along all three U.S. coasts.

Kerry's colleague from Massachusetts, Republican Sen. Scott Brown, announced over the weekend that he would vote to end funding for any expansion of catch share programs.

The Senate is expected to take up the amendment by Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican, as early as Wednesday. Jones' co-sponsors include Democratic Reps. Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Frank Pallone of New Jersey.

"We all share the frustrations that led to the Jones Amendment," Kerry said in the statement e-mailed to the Times. "But if there's no viable path for it to become law right now, what's the best practical route forward to get the job done?"

Kerry's press secretary, Whitney Smith, told the Times she did not believe the statement meant he had decided against voting for the Jones amendment, which was approved by the House two weeks ago, 259-159, with 50 Democrat votes including those of eight of the 10 Massachusetts lawmakers.

Kerry is considered a swing vote on the issue, due his party seniority and close relationships with President Obama and Jane Lubchenco, the NOAA administrator, who has pushed hard for catch shares since her days as a board vice chairwoman at the Environmental Defense Fund, then came to office in 2009, determined to push the policy and convert the fisheries into a series of commodities markets.

Catch share markets have a history of shifting equity and wealth to the largest businesses, while displacing the less-capitalized and smaller fishing boat businesses, and have done just that in the New England groundfishery.

Here, catch shares have sparked a groundswell of opposition and a federal lawsuit filed by the cities of Gloucester and New Bedford as well as fishing interests from Maine to North Carolina.

The EDF and its fishermen allies, meanwhile, have lobbied Congress repeatedly for the catch share system, while fishermen from New England the Gulf states have countered with their own office-to-office lobbying.

Kerry concluded that he would "keep working with our fishermen to fix the way catch shares are implemented in New England, and get the relief and results our guys deserve, end of story."

"I'll do that by any means that are necessary and viable," he added.

Here is the editorial from today

Editorial: Votes, not talks needed from Kerry to back fishermen

Perhaps six months ago, there might have been a reason for U.S. Sen. John Kerry to sit down with NOAA chief Jane Lubchenco and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, as he plans to do on Thursday.

Then, there might have been some hope that Lubchenco or Locke might have actually heard Kerry's concerns about the effect the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's catch share policy was already having on New England's commercial groundfishing fleet, and thus on the communities of Gloucester, New Bedford and other ports.

There might have been some hope that Locke would be open to righting the obscene wrongs that NOAA has perpetrated on fishermen, both through this thinly disguised regulatory move to steer the fishing industry into the corporate hands that fuel the Environmental Defense Fund and other so-called "green" giants, and through a law enforcement wing cited for virtually criminal actions by the Department of Commerce's own Inspector General's office.

Now, however, there's no need for any such meeting. Through his refusal to recognize either the economic calamity the new regulations are foisting on New England's fishing communities — or the data showing that, indeed, there is no need for Lubchenco's beloved catch-share program — Locke has shown he's more a part of the problem than any solution.

In that vein, Kerry should realize that merely sitting around a table with Locke and Lubchenco — perhaps singing a few bars of "Kumbaya" — will somehow make this government-made economic crisis, and a true crisis in government confidence, go away.

It won't.

If Kerry, as he professes, truly wants to continue working to address the plight of independent fishermen, there are a couple of ways he can do that. And neither involves sitting down with two bureaucrats committed only to advancing Lubchenco's job-killing, small-business burying agenda.

One way is to stand up and back a Senate incarnation of the so-called Jones budget amendment, which would rightfully freeze any NOAA funding budgeted for further advancing catch share programs. That amendment emphatically passed the U.S. House last week, and could arise in the Senate in the coming days or weeks.

The other way is to jump aboard U.S. Sen. Scott Brown's so-called FISH Act, calling for Fishery Impact Statement Honesty. Brown's measure would bring at least some of the needed reforms to the Magnuson-Stevens Act and, among other things, demand annual accountability assessments monitoring the fairness of the regulations and the economic impact on communities such as Gloucester, New Bedford and so many others.

There was a time when Kerry and New England's fishermen could have gotten something out of further talks with Lubchenco and Locke. But that time has long since passed.

Their lack of response or any accountability have long since made it clear there's no need for any more talks at all.

Fishermen don't nee any more rhetoric from Massachusetts' senior senator.

There may be good reasons not to support this amendment, as I see Ed Markey voted NO, but if this is the case, he should explain them rather than claiming there is something that can be done by discussing.

[karynnj]

1. Tay Tay has written a lot about this in the past - and I hope that she will comment on this

The only thing I can imagine is that Markey and Kerry may see the need for limits, but think there is a need for changes, rather than eliminating the program. If the date for the vote is today, it seems that Thursday is too late to be speaking to Gary Locke and Jane Lubchenco. (Here, I think Kerry gets hurt because he is somewhat connected to the administration.)

It really sounds like the way the program is being run is awful - and though Kerry has been trying to influence them, they have not really moved much to make things better. So, it may be that having a program of catch limits makes sense in the abstract, but the vote is to fund or defund. It would seem that if it were defunded, it could not be repaired - it would just be gone. (I wonder if that would lead to the big companies completely taking over - and the small fishermen being in even worse shape - not to mention, nothing would prevent overfishing.)

[MBS]

2. yes, I think you've got it right

that there are good (indeed, urgent) scientific reasons to limit catch, but also a need to (a) help fishermen keep their livelihood (and keep Massachusetts' historical ties to the fishing industry as well) and (b) improve the way the program is run.
It's NOT a simple issue, and Kerry and Markey know exactly all the factors that need to be taken into consideration, as well as how hard it is/will be to come up with a plan that addresses all those needs. the problem is made even more complicated by global overfishing -- many nations, especially in Asia, have been TOTALLY irresponsible in their fishing, both in their own coastal waters and on the high seas.

That said, fishermen need to accept that it's not in their long-term interest to keep fishing at the rates we've been fishing.
Cod, once in teeming populations on the Georges Bank, are now basically a threatened species. . . way WAY overfished.

Like I said, we can't keep on this way.

[karynnj]

3. Thanks - and I should have mentioned you with Tay!

From the Gloucester paper, it looks like the near term is so bad, that they are unwilling to even think of the long term.

[TayTay]

4. It is a heartbreaking issue

Overfishing is the problem. The licensing issues hurt fisherman, no question about it. There have been issues of favoritism in how the licenses are handed out and how the catch is overseen and regulated. I think Sen. Kerry wants to help the fishermen and still respect the science that tells him that if something isn't done there won't be a catch in the future because there simply won't be enough fish.

What Sen. Brown isn't saying is that his bill is relatively powerless to stop the decline of the fishing industry in MA, or the rest of the country for that matter. There is no magic wand that can be waived that will increase the stocks. Only time and lower, strictly enforced limits, will help bring some of the stocks back. This is heartbreaking for those involved in the fishing industry but it is also true. No amount of grandstanding and blaming regulation and unfair enforcement of the law will make the stocks rebound. The science here is very well established.

The near term of this industry is awful. It has been in decline for decades. No amount of fake grandstanding populism from Brown is going to do anything more than put a bandage on a gaping wound. Brown offers a "cure" that ignores reality. He gives false hope that is based on fantasy. It would be far, far better to steer the maritime future of MA to industries that can be supported. (Eco-tourism, like the whaling trips and history tours, etc.)

There is a point at which you tell people the truth. No, we can't wish away the dismal news. The Jones Amendment won't help. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, not 4 or 7 or 12, no matter how much we wish it were otherwise.

I know that the Gloucester Times wants Sen. Kerry to vote for this amendment. I want the fishing industry to rebound. That industry predates the colony of Massachusetts for goodness sakes. I ache for the folks inolved. But finessing tweaks here and there with loopholes for this and that and wishful thinking on stocks has not done any good. IT is unlikely to do any good in the future. Perhaps monies would be better spent on easing people into other industries they can actually make a living at instead of trying to wish back something that is not totally under governmental or industrial control. The fishing stocks might come back, but they have to be left alone to rebound. That is not something the Jones Amendment caan fix and lying about it only makes the pain last longer.

[karynnj]

5. Thanks Tay, it is so great to have you, Mass, and MBS

giving insight on what will be a tough vote either way. I like your idea of eco tourism - we took the kids to some things like that - watching the whales off MA and all around an area near the Panama Canal (where we saw wild monkeys) and elsewhere. It is nice just to be out in the boats.

[TayTay]

6. Thanks for your comments here as well

I truly feel heartbroken over this issue. I have, honestly, felt the Gloucester Times start to go over the deep end on this issue in the last few years. Their comments, and comments from others in the New Bedford Times and the CapeCod Times that automatically discount the efforts of the environmental community are not helpful.

The Right Wing's answer to everything is to deregulate and get government out of the way. That will not solve the problem here. It is a false hope and a very, very cruel thing to do to people in the fishing industry. Deregulation will not bring back the groundfishing stocks. Accusing the Environmental Defense Fund and NOAA of being in the hip pocket of "big environmentalism" is a http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shibboleth">shibboleth that simply is not true.

On a side note, this dispute is a perfect laboratory to observe MA "class politics" in action. "They" are the forces of outsiders with degrees and attitudes who are telling "us" what to do. "They" instruct from on high and expect "us" to kowtow to their whims because "they" are experts. Sigh, seen this movie before. This is how the conservative script runs, this time around.

EDIT: Hearings
Implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Democratic Press Office - [phone]

Mar 08 2011 10:30 AM
Russell Senate Office Building - 253
WASHINGTON, D.C.—The U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation announces the following Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard Subcommittee hearing on implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

[karynnj]

7. It is heartbreaking even at a distance, knowing less

I can easily see why the right wing approach works. It really does link Kerry and Markey with the elites, scientists and environmentalists; while they are with the poor fishermen. What is sad is that the result of not having limits is predictable and not pretty. Yet, I would bet that there might be fishermen who, even understanding the science, may want to ignore it and "live for today" - hoping that the fish will outlast their need to fish. What actually surprised me more were the few, but clear, posts that have said that the Jones bill and Brown's bill do not change the fundamental problem.

Wasn't today the day that Kerry was to meet with Locke and the head of NOAH? It is hard to see how, even if they agree to changes to correct the unfairnesses, that it could be done fast enough to get Senators to let the changes have a chance.