Pew, SeaWeb shrug off oil to target fishing
by Nils E. Stolpe

(This is the second part of a guest column examining the influence of big money donors and the environmental groups they support on US fisheries policy originally printed in Commercial Fisheries News)
 
The Pew Charitable Trusts have spent tens of millions of dollars on fisheries and ocean issues and even more on the news media in recent years. This flood of money has had a significant impact both on fisheries policy and on how our industry is depicted in print and on the air. While a large part of the Pew focus is supposed to be representing and increasing the public's interest in fisheries and ocean issues, is it also shifting that interest? 

One of the more active efforts to influence public opinion on fisheries is spearheaded by SeaWeb. On its web site, SeaWeb describes itself as a "project designed to raise awareness of the world ocean and the life within it." Its primary funder is the Pew Charitable Trusts. Early in its existence, SeaWeb commissioned a public opinion survey to determine which ocean issues would best "engage the public interest."

The introduction to the results of the survey, which was conducted for SeaWeb by the Mellman Group, stated "Americans believe the ocean's problems stem from many sources, but oil companies are seen as a prime culprit: In fact, 81% of Americans believe that oil spills are a very serious problem. This is followed by chemical runoff from large corporate farms (75% very serious), improperly treated water from towns near the coast (69%), contaminated seafood (65%), and trash, oil, and chemical runoff from streets (65%)." Overfishing evidently wasn't considered "a very serious problem" and was lumped in with "the loss of critical species" to make the cut as a "meaningful indicator" of trouble. 

But in an article on the poll in SeaWeb's November 1996 monthly update, the only specific threat to the oceans mentioned was overfishing. Along with three paragraphs of vague generalities was this statement: "71% (of respondents) agree that overfishing is threatening the health and stability of the marine environment." Nothing about oil spills, runoff, contaminated seafood, or any of the other "problems" identified in the survey, only overfishing. Is this engaging or is it redirecting the public interest?

But the Pew connections don't end there. In January of this year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) named the finalists for its MPA Advisory Committee. The 26-member committee includes representatives of a number of organizations funded by Pew and Packard, including:
• Environmental Defense - $3.4 million from Pew and $1.2 million from Packard in the last five years;
• Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) - $5.5 million from Pew;
• Center for Marine Conservation - $1.1 million from Pew, $1.6 million from Packard; and
• Conservation International - $400,000 from Packard.
A program officer from the Packard Foundation is also a MPA committee member, along with one commercial and one recreational fishing industry representative.
Groundswell? You bet. Spontaneous? Not hardly. Universal? How much of the universe can you influence with 10 or 20 million dollars, particularly the universe of marine and fisheries researchers, who have been dealing with declining research budgets for decades?

For example, Pew funding has enabled ecologists to drive the scientific agenda for the implementation of California’s Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), which is now on course to close 20% of that state’s waters to recreational fishing. Pew Fellows serve on the Science Advisory Team of the MLPA, where they push closures while ignoring current fishery management practices, which, on the West Coast, are already the most restrictive in the world! Fishermen proposed a constructive network of MPA’s that exceeded Pew-funded scientific guidelines, but the political faction wanted blood! Their network lobbied the Governor for an even more extreme proposal and now California’s angling community is fighting a losing battle to stop a runaway train that is making it harder to find a place to fish.
Pew is a major grant provider to universities and professors in the marine sciences and the major provider of funds to environmental groups that push the party line. Those groups include The National Environmental Trust, Oceana, Earthjustice Legal Defense, the New England Aquarium, the Public Interest Research Group, National Audubon Society, National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Conservation Law Foundation, Marine Conservation Biology Institute, Marine Fish Conservation Network, Wildlife Conservation Society, Friends of the Earth and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. Combined, these groups have received over $200 million of Pew money and most have openly endorsed the implementation of arbitrary no-fishing zones!
The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership is particularly worrisome. It is attempting to become an umbrella group for sportsman’s organizations and has attracted the participation of some fishing organizations with the lure of Pew money. The American Sportfishing Association and the Coastal Conservation Association are among the board members of the Partnership. And when the going got tough during the Magnuson Act reauthorization, they ended up on the same page as the Pew-funded groups.
This is what Congressman Pombo, then chair of the House Resources Committee had to say recently. “Throughout the long process to reauthorize the Magnuson Act the RFA was consistently at the table, insisting on sound conservation policies based on the most accurate science. Their goal was clear, a sustainable fishery so that this generation of recreational fishermen and the following generations would have fish to catch. Most of the other organizations engaged in this debate had other agendas or were totally missing in action. At the end of the 109th Congress it was clear to me that the RFA was the only player left insisting on protecting the future of recreational fishing. I will always be grateful to them and respect their tenacity during what proved to be a difficult reauthorization.”
Since the implementation of the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996 the management of U.S. fisheries, while far from perfect, has become a model for the rest of the world. Yet Pew continues to use scare tactics to drive its agenda domestically while the most egregious problems can easily be found abroad. Their agenda may sound laudable, but the reality is that their goal is to stop fishing. Pew used the money of its well-heeled donors like a school-yard bully during the debate and attacked those who stood in their way. Pew has seriously damaged the ability of recreational fishermen to do what we love to do – go fishing.

While the fact that infusions of money are very influential to cash-strapped environmental groups is obvious, the situation becomes murky when it comes to PEW supporting science. We now have a leading up and coming Australian scientist receiving $US150,000 of Pew Fellowship money over three years to model how marine biodiversity is affected by pressures such as overfishing and climate change. However, as Fisho's Marine Biology editor, Dr Ben Diggles explains: "The problem with these types of models is that they are only as good as the integrity of the data that is used, and they rely on the assumptions of the modeler. I can assure you that in the case of this PEW/CSIRO fellowship, although the researcher may have the best intentions, it will be impossible to accurately determine 'how marine biodiversity is affected by pressures such as overfishing and climate change' using a model without utilising a huge but equally accurate database. They will also need to have a detailed understanding of how pollution in particular (but also many other variables besides fishing and climate change), ultimately affect biodiversity. I can tell you, there are many factors that affect fisheries and marine biodiversity that we are only just becoming aware of now, and it will take many years to sort out how important these factors are in the overall picture. Then there are the many unknowns. To achieve such a lofty goal within three years, the researcher will need to make many assumptions, not all of which may be correct.”

Diggles' caution over possible scientific compromise due to the Pew funding is shared by RecFish Australia chairman Frank Prokop. "Modelling research relies on the integrity of the scientist who, for a period of some years, is supported by handouts from Pew," Prokop said. "Given that scientists are only human, the possibility for skewed or tainted results is very real, unless they have the scientific and personal integrity to be completely objective throughout."

However, based on the reports from the Marianas Islands, integrity appears to be in short supply at Pew. Gourley states in his letter" “Since the designation of the Marianas Monument in January 2009, (Editor's note: which banned commercial fishing but allowed sustainably managed traditional and recreational fishing) Pew has decided they don't like what the CNMI government negotiated. So Pew is reneging on their original promises and has resurrected their original 'no-take' monument proposal to again push it on the people of the Marianas.”

Then there is the quote by Pew boss Josh Reichert in the US-based Sport Fishing magazine (see http://www.sportfishingmag.com/species/conservation/pews-reichert-talks-to-anglers-1000071919-page-1.html). Reichert told SF editor Doug Olander: “We have repeatedly made clear that we are not in the business of trying to close off the world's oceans to recreational fishermen.”

How does the integrity of this comment sit with Australian anglers when locally Pew is unwavering in its commitment to closing 1 million km2 of the Coral Sea to all fishing? This is 1 million km2 of prime tropical sportfishing environment which could support sustainable sportfishing forever if suitably managed, especially if the Marianas precedent was followed.

It comes as cold comfort to know that we are not alone. In the Marianas Islands, Gourley finishes with a scathing attack. "If the people of the Marianas have learned anything from the 2008 Pew monument campaign fiasco, it is that any promises made by Pew or their representatives mean absolutely nothing. Pew has shown no integrity or one ounce of respect to the people of the Marianas or their culture. The only thing the schoolyard bully has been straight with us about is that they are here to take away our fishing rights, any potential right for oil, gas and mineral extraction and give it to the federal government to 'properly' manage, according to Pew preaching. I can't help but wonder how the indigenous people of the Marianas survived for all these thousands of years without Pew around to tell them what to do.”

Given the Australian Government has signaled it is not in favour of locking anglers out of the Coral Sea by going on record as saying it was keen to achieve a "balance point" over the area's future, there is still time for Pew to back down from its extremist approach on the Coral Sea. It would certainly save the reputation of many local environment groups if it did so sooner rather than later.

Quote:


So you don't actually know what a strawman is?

What did I falsely attribute to you?

Quote:


You were the one that suggested scientists must tow the line and that going to another institution like a university is not an option because they are in on it too.

Quote:
   

I just thought it odd that you complained that you had posted them here already, but couldn't provide a link to where you had done so. I assumed you were either lying, or didn't want to post a link to the criticisms I had already made. It is certainly strange for someone to rpefer to copy and paste large tracts of text than simply post a link to where they had done so previously. I would still be interested to know why you did that.

Quote:


PJ, not everyone is a fan of repeating the same debate over and over again.

Quote:


There are two search buttons. Use the one on the left, in the menus.