At the Governor’s public announcement ceremony held at Craigville Beach, he dedicated a portion of his speech to the history of this state’s fishing traditions and its importance to the Commonwealth’s economy.  He was right on target on these points.  He further stated that his bill basically would not affect fishing and hunting in our state waters.  We interpret that to mean that if this legislation is passed and an Ocean Plan is developed that nothing in that Plan would prohibit fishing, commercially or recreationally, in any of our waters and hopefully he would intend that the fishery management process will continue to be the responsibility of this state’s Division of Marine Fisheries and not one of the other agencies or programs under the Secretary’s domain.  We will hold the Governor to his promise.

 That having been said however, we do still find it a bit odd that with all the attention being paid to devising a plan to control ocean development in our marine habitat and the expressed importance of fishing to this state’s economy, that the agency charged with managing fisheries and protecting the resources is not directly also to be involved in the formulation of the Ocean Plan.   Marine Fisheries is also not necessarily to be in a position to block some of the very projects that might harm the very marine resources or fishing activities under its purview.  Why shouldn’t it be included and why not let Marine Fisheries have a direct say in the approval or rejection of a particular project?

 Setting up a defense system to control ocean development that could adversely affect our marine resources and our fishermen is a good thing.  Right now the situation has been described by some as being a “wild west style free for all” when it comes to what can be done in our waters.  On land, as we know, we have zoning ordinances that control development but “out there” in the water, it’s been different.  There seems to be much less of an organized system for what can or cannot be built, dumped, dug or laid in those waters.

 The proposed legislation that will guide the Ocean Plan’s formulation includes exemptions and prohibitions.  Many of the very projects that are listed as prohibited also come with what we see as loopholes.  The terms used in the listings are “except if” or “except that”!  Does this mean you can’t do that but maybe you can?  One example of this type of wording is the mention that the removal of sand, gravel or minerals, marine habitat by our definition, may not be allowed except for navigation dredging or beach nourishment.  We mention this particular section because of our opposition to a current proposal to take 100 square acres of lobster habitat east of Boston Harbor to nourish Winthrop Beach.  If this type of project is to be allowed, how many more of these extractions along our coast will we have to endure?  Creating a master plan to guide and manager the state’s waters is, we believe, a good move as long as fishermen and the importance of our industry and the resources are protected.  We should, however, also make sure that the goal of controlling development is not diluted by loopholes and exceptions that could reduce this whole process into one that, to quote Shakespeare’s Macbeth, is “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”

 Is it to be and not to be and is that the question?

  Bill Adler

Executive Director                   

4/05