zacs
12-18-2007, 11:37 AM
Media falling for fisheries collapse hook, line, sinker
[Portsmouth Herald] Dec 18, 2007- The following op-ed piece first appeared in the Portsmouth, NH Herald. The writer is the executive editor of The Fisherman Magazine.
By Jim Hutchinson Jr.
One year ago at this time, the journal Science released a report by scientist Boris Worm that predicted a total collapse of our global fisheries. The press releases in support of the study were generated by Pew Charitable Trusts (the group responsible for funding the study) and the headlines were so dramatic that newspapers across the country had no choice but to run them front and center: 'Fisheries Collapse Imminent' or 'World's Fish To Disappear by 2048.'
When the dust from the doom and gloom settled, a collective of non-Pew funded scientists came out against the report, but without the estimated annual operating revenue of around $70 million, which is what the Pew Environment Group boasts; few newspapers ever heard the criticisms.
'This particular prediction has zero credibility within the scientific community,' said Ray Hilborn, fisheries scientist at the University of Washington in Seattle following the release of the Worm findings, which he claimed 'cannot be taken seriously.'
One of Hilborn's key contentions was that the scientists involved in the research had utilized faulty methodologies, most notably in the use of catch rates as opposed to stock analysis.
'One of the stocks they list as collapsed is the Georges Bank haddock stock, which is bigger now than it has been in 40 years. The catch is lower simply because the regulations are much tighter,' Hilborn said.
Worm himself even followed up on the criticism by blaming the 'media' for taking his words out of context.
'They (the media) treat this as a prediction, as if we said that it will collapse by 2050, which is different from what we actually said Ñ which is, if the present trend that we're seeing worldwide continues, we would see widespread collapse of fisheries by 2050,' Worm told CBC News.
Of course, it wasn't really the 'media' that gave the doomsday predictions and headlines, it was Pew itself. One year later, the Pew Environment Group is up to its annual tricks, and newspapers like the Portsmouth Herald are falling for it again, hook, line and sinker.
'Not only does chronic overfishing harm fish populations and reduce commercial and recreational fishing opportunities,' said Gerry Leape, president of the Marine Fish Conservation Network, 'but by one estimate, Americans have lost three billion dollars annually in exports, jobs, recreation and other economic activity.'
Leape is not only the president of MFCN, he's also in charge of marine conservation with the National Environmental Trust, which recently merged operations with Pew Charitable Trusts.
With 23 years of political fundraising and advocacy experience, including a 10-year stint with Greenpeace, Leape is regarded as one of the top lobbyists in the environmental business community.
Pew is actively fighting against leaders of both the commercial and recreational fishing community along the East Coast who are seeking fairness and flexibility in fisheries management so they can stay in business; Leape and his Pew Environment Group are unwilling to acknowledge that rebuilding targets and time frames are arbitrary and inflexible, and would rather put people out of business while forcing Americans to stop fishing for species like summer flounder, scup, sea bass and tautog.
Those folks who are in the business of fishing along the East Coast will tell you that the data being used by those in the environmental business community is faulty, manipulated and financed by groups who want to shut down their businesses.
On the other hand, environmental business leaders like Leape have a $70 million Pew war chest at their disposal, so no matter whether the data's good or bad, it's easy to get it into the right hands when you can afford the best PR.
Perfect example is Leape's use of an estimate that $3 billion has been lost due to reduced fishing activities. The 'estimate' in question comes from a single page of a 1996 forecasting report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration called 'NOAA Strategic Plan: A Vision for 2005.' That's according to Leape's co-worker at NET, Tara Losoff.
In addition to long-range forecasting, the four-page report in question that Leape and his lobbyists are relying on as 'best available science' also relies on global fisheries data from 1989.
Things have changed in those 20 years of fisheries and forecasting. As Pew Environment Group continues to grow stronger and spread more of its money around on anti-fishing research and rhetoric, mainstream news organizations like the Portsmouth Herald may continue to get duped into running unedited versions of this hyperbole and outlandishness. That is, until news editors start to recognize these press releases for what they really are Ñ political action statements and public relation campaigns propagated by the radical environmental business community.
Not coincidentally, this campaign hits its stride every year at this time, as this is when fisheries management representatives get together to set annual catch limits for the following year.
It's also when these same environmental business leaders are attempting to hammer their message home to the cherry senators and congressmen they helped get elected earlier in November.
The environment is for sale, and I think most editors and readers alike would be surprised to learn who's doing the buying.
[Portsmouth Herald] Dec 18, 2007- The following op-ed piece first appeared in the Portsmouth, NH Herald. The writer is the executive editor of The Fisherman Magazine.
By Jim Hutchinson Jr.
One year ago at this time, the journal Science released a report by scientist Boris Worm that predicted a total collapse of our global fisheries. The press releases in support of the study were generated by Pew Charitable Trusts (the group responsible for funding the study) and the headlines were so dramatic that newspapers across the country had no choice but to run them front and center: 'Fisheries Collapse Imminent' or 'World's Fish To Disappear by 2048.'
When the dust from the doom and gloom settled, a collective of non-Pew funded scientists came out against the report, but without the estimated annual operating revenue of around $70 million, which is what the Pew Environment Group boasts; few newspapers ever heard the criticisms.
'This particular prediction has zero credibility within the scientific community,' said Ray Hilborn, fisheries scientist at the University of Washington in Seattle following the release of the Worm findings, which he claimed 'cannot be taken seriously.'
One of Hilborn's key contentions was that the scientists involved in the research had utilized faulty methodologies, most notably in the use of catch rates as opposed to stock analysis.
'One of the stocks they list as collapsed is the Georges Bank haddock stock, which is bigger now than it has been in 40 years. The catch is lower simply because the regulations are much tighter,' Hilborn said.
Worm himself even followed up on the criticism by blaming the 'media' for taking his words out of context.
'They (the media) treat this as a prediction, as if we said that it will collapse by 2050, which is different from what we actually said Ñ which is, if the present trend that we're seeing worldwide continues, we would see widespread collapse of fisheries by 2050,' Worm told CBC News.
Of course, it wasn't really the 'media' that gave the doomsday predictions and headlines, it was Pew itself. One year later, the Pew Environment Group is up to its annual tricks, and newspapers like the Portsmouth Herald are falling for it again, hook, line and sinker.
'Not only does chronic overfishing harm fish populations and reduce commercial and recreational fishing opportunities,' said Gerry Leape, president of the Marine Fish Conservation Network, 'but by one estimate, Americans have lost three billion dollars annually in exports, jobs, recreation and other economic activity.'
Leape is not only the president of MFCN, he's also in charge of marine conservation with the National Environmental Trust, which recently merged operations with Pew Charitable Trusts.
With 23 years of political fundraising and advocacy experience, including a 10-year stint with Greenpeace, Leape is regarded as one of the top lobbyists in the environmental business community.
Pew is actively fighting against leaders of both the commercial and recreational fishing community along the East Coast who are seeking fairness and flexibility in fisheries management so they can stay in business; Leape and his Pew Environment Group are unwilling to acknowledge that rebuilding targets and time frames are arbitrary and inflexible, and would rather put people out of business while forcing Americans to stop fishing for species like summer flounder, scup, sea bass and tautog.
Those folks who are in the business of fishing along the East Coast will tell you that the data being used by those in the environmental business community is faulty, manipulated and financed by groups who want to shut down their businesses.
On the other hand, environmental business leaders like Leape have a $70 million Pew war chest at their disposal, so no matter whether the data's good or bad, it's easy to get it into the right hands when you can afford the best PR.
Perfect example is Leape's use of an estimate that $3 billion has been lost due to reduced fishing activities. The 'estimate' in question comes from a single page of a 1996 forecasting report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration called 'NOAA Strategic Plan: A Vision for 2005.' That's according to Leape's co-worker at NET, Tara Losoff.
In addition to long-range forecasting, the four-page report in question that Leape and his lobbyists are relying on as 'best available science' also relies on global fisheries data from 1989.
Things have changed in those 20 years of fisheries and forecasting. As Pew Environment Group continues to grow stronger and spread more of its money around on anti-fishing research and rhetoric, mainstream news organizations like the Portsmouth Herald may continue to get duped into running unedited versions of this hyperbole and outlandishness. That is, until news editors start to recognize these press releases for what they really are Ñ political action statements and public relation campaigns propagated by the radical environmental business community.
Not coincidentally, this campaign hits its stride every year at this time, as this is when fisheries management representatives get together to set annual catch limits for the following year.
It's also when these same environmental business leaders are attempting to hammer their message home to the cherry senators and congressmen they helped get elected earlier in November.
The environment is for sale, and I think most editors and readers alike would be surprised to learn who's doing the buying.