In my view, genuine support for those people and communities devastated by the collapse of the fishery takes a very different form from the proposals and speechifying currently in circulation.
I would like to see us investing in retraining the affected men and women. I would like to see us buying back boats and equipment, in order to retire them, and in order to provide desperately needed capital for current fishermen and fishing-dependent businesses to build new and sustainable industries. I would like to see us investing in our harbor cities, like Gloucester, Salem, New Bedford, and others, so that the working waterfronts can provide residences and properties and for those new and sustainable industries.
Programs like this require substantial investment, and I would like to see the public money required to fund those investments coming from significantly increased taxes on our wealthiest individuals, families, and businesses. The federal government can perhaps play a significant role in assisting this transformation, alongside the necessary regulations already in place.
In my view, we must build for the future rather than cry about the past.
I am not aware of any proposals from any candidates, or from our “progressive” legislature, along these lines. It’s time to get cracking.
…that we should no longer fish? Before I say too much someone needs to get me up to speed on what the regulations are, but it seems odd to say to a first world country that a certain food supply may no longer be available. It seems we do need to make sure we don’t consume the fish faster than they can reproduce – is that the gist of the regulations? I would not compare this to outdated technologies or pollution as you imply on other threads.
We ravaged the fishery to the point where it cannot sustain ANY commercial fishing years and years ago. The regulations reflect the reality that the very limited stock that is left cannot tolerate ANY commercial fishing.
It doesn’t sound as though you are familiar with just how extreme the industry’s plundering of the fisheries in our area were (and are), or just how long marine scientists have been sounding the alarm.
In terms of food supply, most states already prohibit the commercial sale of, for example, wild game. It is illegal in Massachusetts (and most other states) to, for example, offer wild-caught boar, venison, or similar meats on the menu of a licensed restaurant. When you see such a meat on a menu, it is either farm-raised or illegal.
There is no fundamental reason why fishing should be any different. For the species that can be farmed in sustainable ways, yes we should do that — that is an example of the kind of investment I refer to.
What we cannot continue to do is send out fishing boats and fishing factories that plunder our coastal waters. It is no different than arguing that poachers should be able to fill our wilderness with traps intended to capture ALL bear, deer, possum, moose, and all the other animals that populate the region’s wilderness.
…though I DID admit to not knowing some things which is why I asked.
messing it up for all sorts of marine life.
We have thousands of recent college graduates unable to find work – how will retrained older fishermen be able to compete, exactly?
That’s a different question and a whole new kettle of fish.
Here’s a hint of my own bias, though — cutting taxes, simplifying tax forms, and reducing government regulation will only make matters worse.