Has the Over-fishing Debate Gone Hollywood?
OVER-FISHING
The Standard-Times
Anika Clark
Boston University News Service
12/13.06
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13—New England fishermen and Hollywood bigwigs have often found themselves at odds in the continuous fight over fishing regulations.
Entertainment A-listers have long participated in environmental issues. From bio-diesel
fuel to global warming, where there’s a cause, there’s a celebrity, and the oceans are no exception.
But for many local fishermen, there is a dark side to the spotlight.
“They bring in status,” said Raymond Canastra of the Whaling City Seafood Display Auction. “They bring in money, which is putting people out of business.”
The fight reached a climax just before Congress adjourned for the year with the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which provides for a system of fishery management that requires rebuilding of over-fished stocks—through regulations such as limits on catch size and days at sea.
Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass), Richard Pombo (R-Calif) and Don Young (R-AK), were unsuccessful in their attempt to add exceptions to the Magnuson-Stevens Act’s requirement that over-fished stocks be rebuilt within 10 years. The legislation, as passed by the 109th Congress in its last day in session, retained rigid restrictions on all species but summer flounder, which Rep. Frank said he found somewhat random.
“There’s no logic that says you should do this for summer flounder and not for other species,” said Rep. Frank.
Two environmental organizations that opposed the Pombo-Frank bill—Oceana and the Natural Resources Defense Council— display prominent celebrity names as supporters and board members including actors Robert Redford, Leonardo DiCaprio, Ted Danson, Pierce Brosnan, Kelsey Grammer and singer James Taylor.
Both organizations argued on their Web sites that the Pombo-Frank bill would have weakened efforts to rebuild over-fished stocks. And in 2004, both organizations filed complaints against the federal government, citing concerns about bycatch as well as inadequate protection of certain types of fish. The Natural Resources Defense Council asserted that current regulations didn’t do enough to protect against the over-fishing of some North Atlantic species, whereas Oceana was concerned about habitat protection for cod.
The Pombo-Frank bill was intended to provide additional flexibility in setting fishing limits if the law imposed excessive hardships on fishing communities, which many local fishermen say is the case.
“It’s a disaster. Financially? A disaster,” said Carlos Rafael of Dartmouth, who owns 24 fishing vessels. “Insurance is a disaster. The regulations [are] a killer.” He added, “A business in this country should be profitable, and it’s not right now…. It’s just staying afloat, with difficulty.”
New Bedford Mayor Scott W. Lang, who supported the Pombo-Frank bill’s flexible fishery rebuilding plan, said the existing system of regulations “makes it extremely difficult to be able to fish and earn a living.”
And Rep. Frank predicted that if the newly enacted law is not changed, “I think you will see a reduction in the number of people fishing. That, in turn, has a negative effect on the city.”
Before becoming executive director of the New Bedford Seafood Coalition, Jim Kendall, a fishing industry advocate, worked at a local family assistance center, which helped provide job skills to fishing families needing supplemental income. He estimated that, under current regulations, fishers of area groundfish are allowed to work an average of only about 30 days a year, “if that many.”
Manny Magalhaes, a New Bedford skipper, said that he can fish 56 days a year but that this varies among fishermen.
“The economic situation is much worse than what the situation is for the species themselves,” Mr. Kendall said. “If they want to talk about something that’s truly threatened, they need to look no further than your average commercial fisherman.”
Of Mr. Danson, he said, “I refuse to watch any of his programs. I won’t allow him to be played in my house.”
Despite these strong feelings, it’s hard to pinpoint exactly how closely these celebrities follow the issues and regulations which directly affect New Bedford fishermen beyond donating money to environmental organizations.
Roberta Elias, oceans advocate for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said neither Mr. Redford nor Mr. DiCaprio is associated with the organization’s ocean program. However, Mr. DiCaprio’s interest in ocean protection is noted in an interview with him that appeared in a 2005 issue of Oceana Magazine and his eco-Web site, www.leonardodicaprio.org, mentions over-fishing after stating that “the oceans are in trouble.”
The Web site also provides a link to a narrated slide show that, while hailing fishermen for being representatives of American character, states that “current projections say the North Atlantic fisheries will disappear completely before today’s five-year-olds learn to drive.”
As for Mr. Danson, in addition to raising funds for Oceana and appearing in promotional videos, he addressed the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy in 2002. Danson urged the commission to help “improve and enforce basic fishery management laws so that we protect essential fish habitats, eliminate over-fishing and stop wasteful bycatch.”
George Darcy, an assistant regional administrator for sustainable fisheries at the National Marine Fisheries Service, a branch of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, said he believes the efforts by celebrities to draw attention to the issue of over-fishing has resulted in more widespread awareness by the public. Instead of receiving letters only from coastal areas like Massachusetts and Maine, Darcy said he now gets notes about groundfish conservation from people in Iowa.
Fishing ship owner Carlos Rafael said it’s easy for celebrities and environmentalists to grab media attention but it’s much tougher for average fishermen to be heard.
As well as exposure, there is also the potential for star-wattage contributions and fund raising. Keith Addis, who is Mr. Danson’s manager through Industry Entertainment and serves as vice chairman of Oceana’s board, said, “I have put [in] a great deal of money—of my own money—over the years, and I’ve raised a very considerable amount of money with Ted Danson for the organization. Millions and millions of dollars.”
And in a 2005 issue of Oceana Magazine, featured on the organization’s Web site, Mr. Danson was quoted as saying that after “getting paid lots of money for Cheers” and becoming concerned with how to be responsible with it, “I decided to put all of my time, energy and money into one thing—AOC.” (The American Oceans Campaign, which Danson founded in 1987 and merged with Oceana in 2002.)
Oceana’s 990 tax forms indicate that the organization’s net assets or fund balances for the end of the 2004 calendar year were $8,102,185.
By contrast, the New Bedford Seafood Coalition ceased in 2001 to be a formal advocacy group for area fishermen because of lack of financing, according to Mr. Kendall. Before closing shop, he said, the group had subsisted primarily on federal and city funding.
Still, Mr. Kendall said he continues to support local fishermen even without the backing of a formal coalition and the Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership offers advocacy as well.
“We’ve got several groups that work diligently trying to support the industry, but no one or nothing with that type of persona behind it,” he said, referring to celebrity activists. According to Mr. Rafael, the closest New England fishermen have to a public voice is Rep. Frank.
Nevertheless, any sign of Mr. Danson directly targeting New England fishermen—if he ever has at all—is hard to find. As his manager explained, “I don’t think you’ll find celebrities weighing into the regional issues specifically because frankly, [neither] they nor I have enough information to do that intelligently.”
But if you ask some local fishermen, that is part of the problem.
“[Celebrities] don’t have actually a clue what goes on, on this side of it,” Mr. Canastra said. “I don’t know if they’d have the same attitude if they knew the whole story.” Mr. Kendall echoed this, saying, “I don’t think they’re cognizant of the harm that they’re actually causing.”
But in a matter as complicated as fishing regulation, which involves thousands of players and often comes down to choosing among evils, even the notion of “harm” can be relative.
“We’re concerned about the impacts of crashed fisheries on coastal communities,” said Oceana’s federal policy director, Ted Morton, echoing the common environmentalist argument that severely depleting a fishery would cause even greater economic damage.
As for the extent of local economic suffering, Mr. Magalhaes offered a much more optimistic view of fishing in New Bedford than did others in the industry. Even under current regulations, he said, it’s still possible for local fishermen to earn a living.
Meanwhile, environmentalists haven’t been the only ones to find fault with Reps. Pombo and Frank’s more flexible timeline for fish stock revival. “Slowly implementing things means it’s that much harder to rebuild,” said Dr. Andrew Rosenberg, a former deputy director of the National Marine Fisheries Service. “It’s basically death by a thousand cuts.”
Public relations representatives for Mr. Danson declined to comment for this article. But in his defense, Mr. Addis, his manager, described the actor’s “passionate involvement” in ocean conservation and stressed, “None of the celebrities nor any of us on the board want to do anything except make it possible for there to be enough fish—for them to make a living and to feed our country…for decades and decades to come.”
Still, Mr. Kendall said, it would be nice if a celebrity took on the cause of local fishermen. “It’s unfortunate that we can’t get someone from that notable group—[from] the celebrity group,” he said, “to say… ‘[fishermen are] not rapists of the ocean. They’re farmers of the sea.’”
###
