Interestingly, Dr. Norse failed to mention that in 2000/01, the Marine Conservation Biology Institute, which he founded and runs) received over $400,000 Pew bucks, and the way I understand English, the $150,000 that accompanied his Pew fellowship is a "grant," plain and simple. The mind boggles that Dr. Norse can forgot about over half a million bucks.
Nils
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Thanks for shining light on Stellwagen and Pew
July 05, 2008 12:09 am
To the editor:
Kudos to Richard Gaines for reporting what is going on behind the smoke and mirrors obscuring the struggle to maintain the historical fisheries that have thrived on Stellwagen Bank for generations (The Times, Wednesday, June 25).
He couldn't be more on-target when writing "Pew is associated with public information campaigns against fishing and fish consumption." The Pew "Charitable" Trusts, established by the founder of Sun Oil and now run by his heirs, is frighteningly adept at wielding the political and media clout that their billions of dollars have bought, making it appear as if their anti-fishing programs are the results of grassroots movements by the people rather than checkbook advocacy pretending to be supported by real science.
Mr. Gaines disclosed that researchers Les Watling and Elliot Norse have been passengers on the Pew gravy train. That's the tip of the iceberg. The Pew Trusts' Big Oil bucks have been behind most other high profile anti-fishing initiatives, in New England and nationally, for more than a decade. Commercial fishermen ? and the communities that depend on the continued harvest of our rich inshore and offshore waters ? are paying an ever-escalating price.
In their professed zeal to "protect" the oceans from commercial fishermen who have been sustainably plying their trade for centuries, well-funded activists and their stable of scientists have been manipulating the media and politically vulnerable bureaucrats for far too long. While pretending to have the fishermen's and the fish loving public's long-term best interests at heart, they know that, once gone, a fishing-dependent waterfront business is never coming back, no matter how the fish are doing.
Their interest in fishing communities extends no farther than their next foundation grant ? and my most profound thanks go to Mr. Gaines and to the Gloucester Times for shedding some light on that sorry fact.
NILS E. STOLPE
FishNet USA
<><><><><><><><>
Marine biology conservationist disputes Stellwagen piece
Gloucester Daily News - July 05, 2008
The last of the three parts to the series "The Ocean's Crossroads," ? headlined "Is Stellwagen report advocacy masquerading as science'?" (The Times, Wednesday, June 25) ? does your community, your readers and we marine scientists a disservice. It stokes paranoia and division. It has errors of fact. It is, in my view, biased, shoddy journalism ? and it won't bring your fish back.
If Gloucester's community newspaper wants your fisheries to end and marine ecosystems to collapse further, then just say what Mr. Gaines' story did. Blame the problem on somebody, anybody else. Insult and defame those you blame. Oppose marine reserves that might help your fisheries recover. But don't confront the real problem and those who caused it because that would cause difficulties.
Mr. Gaines cites people who are clearly or likely to be biased toward perpetuating the New England fishery crisis by ignoring overwhelming scientific and practical evidence. He writes without comment their unsupported allegations that other people are biased against fishing (Nobody asked these other people whether they are biased or what their biases might be.)
The story refers to a commercial fisherman who sees subtle bias against user groups in a report that cites the similarity between impacts of bottom trawling and forest clearcutting. I actually know his wife, Ellen, because we serve together of the Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee. On the first day I met her, she warned me that I'd risk being murdered if I went to New England because of the research I have done about bottom trawling impacts. Do you condone threatening someone with murder? Or is that acceptable behavior in Gloucester?
The origin of this allegedly biased comparison is a scientific paper by Les Watling (then of the University of Maine) and I published in 1998 in the journal Conservation Biology. Indeed, it was featured as the cover paper in that issue of the journal after being thoroughly reviewed by other scientists for accuracy and validity before its publication. Since then, it has become the world's most-cited paper about impacts of bottom trawling and other mobile fishing gear. Mrs. Goethel told me that neither she nor her husband had actually read that paper. Why try to rebut the scientific arguments when it's so much easier to threaten people and complain about bias?
Mr. Goethel, his wife and other draggers may not like the fact that bottom trawling is very much like forest clearcutting. Perhaps if I were making my money by dragging nets across publicly owned seafloor ecosystems that both fishes and other fishermen depend on, I wouldn't feel good about that analogy either. But that doesn't mean it isn't scientifically valid, and that desire to reduce this practice isn't a legitimate one for Americans who think about both marine ecosystems and the all other fishermen who have been hurt by the actions of Gloucester draggers.
For the record, I have not "received large grant funding from the Pew Institute" as the June 25 story states. I am a Pew Fellow in Marine Conservation ? an honor given to only 100 or so people (including scientists, commercial fishermen and others) worldwide since 1990 (Dr. Watling is one of them as well). Fellows are chosen by a blue ribbon panel of experts from around the world. It's the highest honor in the field of marine conservation. The fellowship was not a grant. It provided modest funding that I used to start and grow Marine Conservation Biology Institute. The Pew Fellowships are now administered by the Pew Institute for Ocean Science, but was not when I received it. I did not participate in a campaign a decade ago to end swordfishing. Get your facts straight!
Fishing in New England has collapsed ? taking with it biodiversity, sorely needed jobs and fresh fish Americans should be eating ? because responsible government agencies and elected officials allowed overfishing and destructive fishing methods by your friends and neighbors to ruin one of the world's best places to fish.
As a lifetime recreational fisherman and consumer of commercially caught seafood, as a marine scientist, as someone who has spent 30 years in the field of conservation, and as a citizen and taxpayer, I am appalled by what your community ? aided and abetted by its newspaper ? did to your once-rich waters.
Look in the mirror, if you dare!
Elliott A. Norse
President, Marine Conservation Biology Institute
Bellevue, Wash.
This post edited by NilsS 11:40 AM 07/05/2008
Nils
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Thanks for shining light on Stellwagen and Pew
July 05, 2008 12:09 am
To the editor:
Kudos to Richard Gaines for reporting what is going on behind the smoke and mirrors obscuring the struggle to maintain the historical fisheries that have thrived on Stellwagen Bank for generations (The Times, Wednesday, June 25).
He couldn't be more on-target when writing "Pew is associated with public information campaigns against fishing and fish consumption." The Pew "Charitable" Trusts, established by the founder of Sun Oil and now run by his heirs, is frighteningly adept at wielding the political and media clout that their billions of dollars have bought, making it appear as if their anti-fishing programs are the results of grassroots movements by the people rather than checkbook advocacy pretending to be supported by real science.
Mr. Gaines disclosed that researchers Les Watling and Elliot Norse have been passengers on the Pew gravy train. That's the tip of the iceberg. The Pew Trusts' Big Oil bucks have been behind most other high profile anti-fishing initiatives, in New England and nationally, for more than a decade. Commercial fishermen ? and the communities that depend on the continued harvest of our rich inshore and offshore waters ? are paying an ever-escalating price.
In their professed zeal to "protect" the oceans from commercial fishermen who have been sustainably plying their trade for centuries, well-funded activists and their stable of scientists have been manipulating the media and politically vulnerable bureaucrats for far too long. While pretending to have the fishermen's and the fish loving public's long-term best interests at heart, they know that, once gone, a fishing-dependent waterfront business is never coming back, no matter how the fish are doing.
Their interest in fishing communities extends no farther than their next foundation grant ? and my most profound thanks go to Mr. Gaines and to the Gloucester Times for shedding some light on that sorry fact.
NILS E. STOLPE
FishNet USA
<><><><><><><><>
Marine biology conservationist disputes Stellwagen piece
Gloucester Daily News - July 05, 2008
The last of the three parts to the series "The Ocean's Crossroads," ? headlined "Is Stellwagen report advocacy masquerading as science'?" (The Times, Wednesday, June 25) ? does your community, your readers and we marine scientists a disservice. It stokes paranoia and division. It has errors of fact. It is, in my view, biased, shoddy journalism ? and it won't bring your fish back.
If Gloucester's community newspaper wants your fisheries to end and marine ecosystems to collapse further, then just say what Mr. Gaines' story did. Blame the problem on somebody, anybody else. Insult and defame those you blame. Oppose marine reserves that might help your fisheries recover. But don't confront the real problem and those who caused it because that would cause difficulties.
Mr. Gaines cites people who are clearly or likely to be biased toward perpetuating the New England fishery crisis by ignoring overwhelming scientific and practical evidence. He writes without comment their unsupported allegations that other people are biased against fishing (Nobody asked these other people whether they are biased or what their biases might be.)
The story refers to a commercial fisherman who sees subtle bias against user groups in a report that cites the similarity between impacts of bottom trawling and forest clearcutting. I actually know his wife, Ellen, because we serve together of the Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee. On the first day I met her, she warned me that I'd risk being murdered if I went to New England because of the research I have done about bottom trawling impacts. Do you condone threatening someone with murder? Or is that acceptable behavior in Gloucester?
The origin of this allegedly biased comparison is a scientific paper by Les Watling (then of the University of Maine) and I published in 1998 in the journal Conservation Biology. Indeed, it was featured as the cover paper in that issue of the journal after being thoroughly reviewed by other scientists for accuracy and validity before its publication. Since then, it has become the world's most-cited paper about impacts of bottom trawling and other mobile fishing gear. Mrs. Goethel told me that neither she nor her husband had actually read that paper. Why try to rebut the scientific arguments when it's so much easier to threaten people and complain about bias?
Mr. Goethel, his wife and other draggers may not like the fact that bottom trawling is very much like forest clearcutting. Perhaps if I were making my money by dragging nets across publicly owned seafloor ecosystems that both fishes and other fishermen depend on, I wouldn't feel good about that analogy either. But that doesn't mean it isn't scientifically valid, and that desire to reduce this practice isn't a legitimate one for Americans who think about both marine ecosystems and the all other fishermen who have been hurt by the actions of Gloucester draggers.
For the record, I have not "received large grant funding from the Pew Institute" as the June 25 story states. I am a Pew Fellow in Marine Conservation ? an honor given to only 100 or so people (including scientists, commercial fishermen and others) worldwide since 1990 (Dr. Watling is one of them as well). Fellows are chosen by a blue ribbon panel of experts from around the world. It's the highest honor in the field of marine conservation. The fellowship was not a grant. It provided modest funding that I used to start and grow Marine Conservation Biology Institute. The Pew Fellowships are now administered by the Pew Institute for Ocean Science, but was not when I received it. I did not participate in a campaign a decade ago to end swordfishing. Get your facts straight!
Fishing in New England has collapsed ? taking with it biodiversity, sorely needed jobs and fresh fish Americans should be eating ? because responsible government agencies and elected officials allowed overfishing and destructive fishing methods by your friends and neighbors to ruin one of the world's best places to fish.
As a lifetime recreational fisherman and consumer of commercially caught seafood, as a marine scientist, as someone who has spent 30 years in the field of conservation, and as a citizen and taxpayer, I am appalled by what your community ? aided and abetted by its newspaper ? did to your once-rich waters.
Look in the mirror, if you dare!
Elliott A. Norse
President, Marine Conservation Biology Institute
Bellevue, Wash.
This post edited by NilsS 11:40 AM 07/05/2008
