On Monday, Senator Scott Brown confused actual science with children’s books.
New England has one of the most studied fisheries in the world. For decades we have studied the types and quantity of fish present in our waters, their growth habits, what affects their decline, and how best to maintain fishing stocks at levels in a way that keep not only current fishermen employed, but future generations of fishermen as well.
Not to be outdone, Senator Brown decided that rather than base decisions on math and science, he would instead rely upon Dr. Seuss’ classic One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish which states, in part, “Say, what a lot of fish there are!”
Clearly, Dr. Seuss (note the title “doctor” – so he must be an expert) understands the fish stocks better than authors of the many reports on the fisheries.
It is in this light, replacing science with Seuss, that we can finally begin to understand some of Senator Brown’s positions.
I think Scott Brown is simply buffing his “anti-elitist” credentials.
My friends and family call the store in question “Whole Check Market” because it takes your whole paycheck to shop there. Mr. Brown is banking on the fact that Whole Foods Market does, in fact, cater to the elite that Mr. Brown has decided to attack. The irony is that decisions like the one Mr. Brown attacks are the only possible way to preserve the livelihoods and way of living of the New England commercial fishing industry. The actual elitist is Mr. Brown, who surely knows the reality of the situation. He is, in fact, counting on the ignorance of his targeted “non elite” audience.
Voters who know the facts know that the decision of Whole Foods Market is the only decision that makes sense.
He voted against the rest of the MA delegation trying to get wage insurance for fishermen during these hard times. The Warren campaign is making the same mistake Coakley did in assuming union members follow the endorsements of their unions and blue collars always vote D. Both assumptions are horridly false and her “look how progressive I am campaign” is not going to work. We need hard hats, fishermen and housewives saying “did ya hear Brown voted against x? Gee maybe he isn’t one of us”. I want to see her fight and take the gloves off and pound Brown day after day for every anti job, anti worker vote. She needs to let him have it and until she does all she is letting him have is a second term.
The comment posted by jeremy-marin stating that New England has one of the most studied fisheries in the world and mocking Senator Brown’s letter regarding Whole Foods misses the point.
The issue with regard to Whole Foods’ decision and Senator Brown’s letter is whether or not the ratings of the Blue Ocean Institute are an accurate reflection of the state of our domestic fisheries. Blue Ocean has often allowed their own interpretations to affect their ratings, and has often used out-of-date and incomplete information. It is worth noting that the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service agrees with Senator Brown and not Whole Foods.
Additionally, there are serious questions with regard to current stock assessments and science used to make fisheries management decisions. It is for this reason that Democrats including John Kerry, Barney Frank, John Tierney, Frank Pallone and Bill Keating have joined with Republicans including Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, and Walter Jones on numerous occasions to raise serious questions about our fisheries management.
A report commissioned by NOAA written by Michael Sissenwine of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute and Brian Rothschild of the University of Massachusetts School for Marine Science and Technology found the following:
“While NMFS has numerous outstanding scientists that conduct high quality research and
provide sound scientific advice, our study found many problems. The National Marine
Fisheries Service faces difficult challenges making some problems inevitable. Our findings
are our opinions, but there may be other perspectives that merit consideration.
Our key findings are as follows:
1. NMFS Science Centers and Headquarters operate largely as independent entities
in spite of National planning and coordination efforts.
2. The parallel organizational status for Science Centers and Regional Offices is
appropriate, but it requires cooperation and coordination.
3. Management information is incomplete, piecemeal and hard to use.
4. There is too much program fragmentation, and investments in innovation are too
small and/or subcritical mass.
5. There is insufficient scientific experience and leadership, focus on Science Centers,
and follow-through, at Headquarters.
6. There are no functional program review policies.
7. The performance of stock assessment review processes is mixed, and needs to be
improved in some regions.
8. Scientific Review Groups peer review marine mammal science.
9. Quality assurance processes for scientific input to the Endangered Species Act are
evolving, but they are still incomplete, inconsistent, and lack adequate
transparency.
10. Quality assurance of economic and social impact assessments and habitat science
is largely left to internal review by the Science Centers and to Regional Fishery
Management Council Scientific and Statistical Committees.
11. All Science Centers have internal review policies for documents and publications.
12. Too much faith is placed on independent peer review and the Center for
Independent Experts.
13. The Federal Advisory Committee Act impedes science quality assurance”
Robert B. Vanasse
Executive Director
Saving Seafood
1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Suite 420 East
Washington, DC 20007