|
|
|
|
Holiday Move Is
Scheduled for the Center’s Office
A few days before the Christmas holiday several
Lyons civic organizations and staff and volunteers from the Center for
Rural Affairs will move the Center to its new home in Lyons, Nebraska.
After more than two years in the making, the Center’s
new office building on Lyons’
Main Street will become reality. The modest, yet highly energy-efficient
building, will house approximately 18 staff members.
At a rate of just over $89 per sq. ft., the 6,533 sq. ft. construction
project will cost the Center approximately $590,000. Super-insulated walls
and ceiling along with state of the art air-to-air heat pumps will allow
the Center to minimize energy costs while providing badly needed office
space.
The project architect was Dave Erickson, Erickson-Sullivan Architects,
Lincoln, Neb. The general contractor was Fauss Construction, Hooper, Neb. |
|
You Are Invited to the Center’s
Annual Gathering
This year’s Annual Gathering will be held February 7 at
Lyons-Decatur Northeast Schools in Lyons, Nebraska.
We are planning a day of rural celebration. The 50-minute teach-ins will
cover a variety of topics, ranging from federal farm programs to small
business strategies and community development.
Small businesses and local cooperatives will be participating in a “Small
Business Fair” where attendees can purchase and/or sample their wares.
Don Ralston, co-founder of the Center, is scheduled to give us his
perspective on the Center’s 30 years (1973-2003). Dan Looker, the business
editor at Successful Farming magazine and a former staff member of
the Center, will be the keynote speaker.
During the afternoon, we’ll hold an Open House at our new office, 145 Main
Street in downtown Lyons.
The event is free and open to the public, but there is a minimal charge
for lunch, which will feature beef and chicken raised by family livestock
producers.
To sign up send an email to Kim Preston,
kimp@cfra.org. Pre-registration is not required, but is strongly
encouraged. |
For most of the last 30 years the Center for Rural Affairs has quartered in
a converted, century old hotel on the main street of Walthill, Nebraska. In
2002, the Center’s board of directors voted to move the organization to Lyons,
a small farming community 14 miles south of Walthill on Hwy. 77.
Plans call for the Center to move on Dec. 22. Normal business operations
should resume the week of Dec. 29. Our Lyons contact information is: 145 Main
Street, PO Box 136, Lyons NE 68038-0136, Phone: 402.687.2100, Fax:
402.687.2200.
The Center is engaged in a fundraising campaign to defray the cost of building
the new office. Donations can be made by credit card at our secure Internet
web site – www.cfra.org .
Agricultural Appropriations Bills Differ in House and Senate
The Senate version of the agriculture
appropriations bill held onto funding for key programs and reform of others,
while the House did not. The full Senate approved the fiscal year
2004 agriculture appropriations bill on November 6, 2003. It moved to conference
committee, where the House and Senate were to reconcile the differences between
the two bills.
The Senate version of the bill had maintained funding for two valuable
programs – the Conservation Security Program and the Value-Added Producer Grants
program.
The Conservation Security Program (CSP) is a 2002 farm bill initiative to
provide financial assistance to farmers who are solving key natural resource and
environmental problems by adopting sustainable practices and systems. The CSP
provides support to farmers and ranchers who are already engaged in strong
conservation systems to protect soil, water, air, and wildlife or who will adopt
more sustainable systems as part of the program.
UPDATE: In an important win, the conference committee report restored full
funding to CSP, lifting the $3.77 billion spending cap. The House bill had
eliminated funding for the CSP.
The Value-Added Producer Grants program provides funding to help develop new
markets, products, and cooperatives, returning a greater share of food system
profits to farmers and their local communities.
Last year, this grants program funded $38 million in innovative value-added
initiatives across the country. In doing so, it helped increase farm income,
diversify agricultural operations, and supported producers implementing
sustainable agricultural systems.
UPDATE: The Value-Added Producer Grants program sustained a substantial cut
in the conference report, going from a mandatory funding level of $40 million
annually to $15 million for 2004.
Two other successful amendments to the Senate bill important to small and
medium-scale farmers and ranchers include:
- An amendment introduced by Senators Grassley (R-IA) and Dorgan (D-ND) to
provide a stricter payment limitation on the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP). The new payment limit would be $300,000, down from $450,000.
The amendment also closes a loophole that allows each partner in an operation
to multiply EQIP payments over and above the cap.
UPDATE: This amendment was deleted from the conference report.
- An amendment introduced by Senator Harkin (D-IA) regarding the Initiative
for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS). This provision requires USDA
to request and fund projects that focus on farm and ranch profitability and
rural economic and community development, areas not funded in the two previous
fiscal years.
UPDATE: This amendment was retained in the conference report.
Senators Daschle (D-SD), Johnson (D-SD), and Enzi (R-WY) introduced a
“sense of the Senate” amendment regarding the Senate’s support for Country of
Origin Labeling (COOL). Although this is a non-binding motion, it sends a
message to the conference committee to support COOL.
UPDATE: The conference report called for a two-year delay on the
implementation of Country of Origin Labeling, essentially derailing it until
2006. We predicted the agriculture appropriations bill would be rolled into a
single package with other unfinished appropriations bills, and it was. The
House is scheduled to return to DC on December 8 to approve the conference
report. The Senate will convene the next day, with little expectation of
approving the conference report.
Contact: Traci Bruckner,
tracib@cfra.org for an update.
2003
Round of Value-Added Grant Proposals in Review
USDA will award $27.7 million for value-added
projects across America. The 2003 round of Value-Added Producer
Grants (VAPG) has now reached the review stage, where applications are scored.
In 2002, 231 proposals from 43 states were funded by the VAPG program. Iowa
led the nation in funds awarded ($5,609,680).
The top 12 states (each receiving more than $1,000,000) in 2002, in order,
were: Iowa, Missouri, California, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Washington,
Nebraska, Michigan, Illinois, Colorado, and Massachusetts.
In 2002, Nebraska had 13 successful proposals (39.4 percent) resulting in
$1,635,160 returned to value-added producers in the state. Nationwide there
were 711 applications requesting $121,000,000.
The Nebraska USDA Rural Development office has received 41 applications
requesting a total of $7,771,420 in grant funds. Last year, Nebraska producers
submitted 33 proposals requesting roughly $3,900,000.
USDA is authorized to award $27,700,000 to value-added producers nationwide in
2003. In 2002, the total was approximately $37,000,000. Funding for future
VAPG rounds is uncertain. We ask that producers across the nation encourage
their elected representatives to support future appropriations for VAPG.
Contact: Mike Heavrin at the Center,
mikeh@cfra.org or visit the USDA website
at
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/vadg.htm.
A Sense of Place
in Education and Community Development
Place-based education and community development
asks individuals and communities to recognize their strengths in relation to
global economic and social forces.
Much has been written about the effects of place-based education and
community development. Place-based education refers to a process that
incorporates education with the community. It requires students to have a sense
of who they are and where they fit in the global picture.
We often see a disconnect between the school system and the community in the
small rural communities in which we work. This keeps the greatest asset we have
– youth – from helping to form our communities.
Place-based community development coordinates a variety of socio-economic
amenities to build the community so that it recognizes its place in the world.
Self-reliant communities first identify their place and then strengthen their
own development in relationship to global pressures.
In the book, Making a Place for Community: Local Democracy in a Global Era,
authors Williamson, Imbroscio, and Alperovitz focus on the importance of
developing a political economy in the community dependant on place. Place-based
community development looks at each community and its ability to locate assets
and mobilize capital to benefit the town.
The greatest asset the Unites States has in international trade is the massive
number of communities with the ability, still, to direct their future.
Traditional economic development ignores this, and so does current U.S. trade
policy. Our policy should be reconsidered to protect the integrity and stability
of our communities.
It is important for all of us who live in small rural communities to understand
our greatest strength is derived from our guiding spirit. While world events
increasingly press closer to home, we can preserve a sense of place in our small
piece of the puzzle.
Contact: Michael L. Holton,
michaellh@cfra.org for more information
on community revitalization.
Corporate Farming Notes
Tyson takes a hit; ADM gains on global control;
and Monsanto promotes separation of labor, management, and ownership in
agriculture sector
A federal court in Kentucky dealt a blow to corporate integrators’
attempts to avoid all responsibility within their production structures. In the
ruling against Tyson Foods, Inc., the court declared the giant agribusiness was
responsible for pollution violations at four chicken facilities.
Tyson sought to avoid responsibility by placing it onto its contract growers at
the four sites under the corporation’s supervision. The court rejected Tyson’s
dodge and forged new inroads for holding integrators liable for the methods and
consequences of their captive supply production systems.
Archer Daniels Midland Co. reported a 39 percent increase in
first-quarter net earnings, crediting strong operating profits apart from “the
challenges of dealing with last year’s North American drought.”
The bulk of the increase came from ADM’s cocoa and bioproducts processing
division as well as from the performance of what the company calls its global
grain origination and marketing system. Clearly the company’s multi-national
presence is enhancing the price of its shares, if not an open and competitive
marketplace. – Associated Press
Monsanto Co.’s vice president and managing director for North American
agriculture is recommending the seed and chemical industry align itself for a
new agriculture. Carl Casale asserts that as older farmers leave their farms,
“it’s a pretty safe bet most of this land will continue to be farmed.”
But the Monsanto executive believes that Illinois is indicative of what will
increasingly occur throughout the country. In that state, 50 percent of farmland
is now in the hands of absentee owners. Casale believes industry should cater to
the needs of absentee land owners.
“In Illinois, for example, this trend has spawned an entire farm management
industry. As this transition takes place across the country, we will more and
more have to ask, ‘What are the needs of these people? How can we help them to
succeed?’” – Delta Farm Press
Contact: Brad Redlin at
bradr@cfra.org.
Cycle of
‘Winner Take All’ Economy Can Be Reversed
The 21st century economy is a “winner take all” economy, says Yale economist
Robert Shiller. The economic winners command ever greater amounts of economic
activity and wealth.
Schiller is accurate. But the situation he describes is not inevitable. The
economy is a creation of people. It is shaped by decisions made by people –
especially policy choices – that can be changed by people.
Shiller says technological change is driving the winner take all economy.
Electronic technology has expanded the reach and influence of the winners.
Computers, remote sensors, and the like allow giant firms to effectively manage
far more than they could before and expand their influence.
In agriculture, new products like Roundup Ready™ crops have removed management
challenges that previously kept giant operations from driving out mid-size farms
that could more intensively manage production.
Government has always had a role to play in protecting the common good by
countering the natural tendency for wealth to concentrate in private economies.
That role is especially critical today, with technology adding fuel to the fires
of wealth concentration. But just when that is most needed, government has moved
in the opposite direction to policies that reinforce rather than counter wealth
concentration.
Income tax rates have been reduced and estate taxes eliminated for the biggest
winners. Anti-trust enforcement has been all but abandoned. Giants in
agriculture, retailing, and other businesses are allowed to flex their economic
power to demand volume premiums and discounts unavailable to their smaller
competitors.
The agricultural experiment stations of the nation’s land grant colleges have in
too many instances become advocates of the industrialization of agriculture and
purveyors of technology that supports it. We urge them to instead help rural
people create the future they want.
We need land grant colleges to create new knowledge and production systems that
strengthen small and mid size farms and enable them to use their management to
cut input costs and produce higher value products. We need them to help rural
people create new businesses and new opportunity.
Fortunately, history is cyclical. Periods of excessive wealth concentration are
often followed by periods of reform. Repeatedly throughout history, people have
recognized the social damage of excessive concentration of wealth, power, and
income and have reversed it.
It has happened over and over all through history. And we can do it too.
Agree or disagree? Share your opinion or
questions with Chuck Hassebrook,
chuckh@cfra.org.
|
|
Feature article:
Initiative 300 and Rural Communities
Case 2 in our series, this article
examines over 50 years of research on the community impacts of corporate and
family farming.
One of the more persistent and insidious myths
about corporate farming is that it brings economic development to a community.
This myth is persistent despite the fact most studies show the contrary and is
insidious because the claim plays on the often desperate economic condition of
rural communities and their residents. Like moths to a flame, many local and
state officials intent on bringing development are lured by the promise of jobs
and tax revenue.
But very little justifies such decisions or promises. In fact, overwhelming
evidence would justify keeping corporate agriculture out. As Dr. Linda Lobao
from Ohio State University points out in a 1999 report to the South Dakota
Attorney General, “Over the past half century, numerous studies, spanning
different time periods and regions of the country have tended to find that
large-scale industrial farming has detrimental community impacts.”
In fact, according to Lobao, the “empirical evidence” is “sufficiently
established” to the point that almost all studies now start with the hypothesis
that industrial and corporate agriculture has adverse economic and social
impacts.
The Studies Speak
Lobao’s report analyzes 38 studies over a 50-year period and says that
three-quarters of them “found adverse impacts on indicators of community
well-being” from industrialized and non-family scale agriculture. Other studies
have also found negative consequences of corporate farming. A few examples
include:
The genesis of this body of research is the work of anthropologist Walter
Goldschmidt, whose 1946 report to the U.S. Senate Special Committee to Study
Problems of American Small Business, Small Business and the Community, began to
address the question: what is the impact of farm size scale and farm structure
on rural communities?
Goldschmidt’s research examined two California communities, one surrounded by
large farms and the other by smaller farms. The two communities were similar in
all other characteristics – population, shared value systems, and customs.
His research found that the community surrounded by larger farms experienced a
lower standard of living and quality of life than did the community surrounded
by smaller farms. He concluded that the differences in communities “may properly
be assigned confidently and overwhelmingly to the scale of farming factor.”
A 1999 study of north central states, including Nebraska, from Ohio State
University, found significantly higher poverty among families in counties where
farm concentration was higher.
A 2000 study from Illinois State University on the economic impacts of
large hog farms says, “The several models developed here consistently suggest
that large hog farms tend to hinder economic growth in rural communities.” In
fact, the study found economic growth rates were higher in communities where
traditional family-scale hog production was dominant.
A 2002 report specifically looked at anti-corporate farming laws,
including Initiative 300, and the effect of such laws on the economic well-being
of rural communities. Anti-Corporate Farming Laws, the “Goldschmidt Hypothesis”
and Rural Community Welfare by Dr. Rick Welsh of Clarkson University and Dr.
Thomas Lyson of Cornell University found that, in general, state anti-corporate
farming laws are beneficial to the economies and people of rural communities.
Communities where such laws exist are in better shape than comparable
communities in states without such laws.
In general, the report found that communities in states with anti-corporate laws
fared better than communities in states without such laws. In all the measures
of community welfare, communities in states with anti-corporate laws benefited
when compared to communities without such laws – lower poverty levels, lower
unemployment, and a higher percentage of farms reporting cash gains.
The data show that states with more restrictive laws have some beneficial
results – agriculturally dependent counties in states with more restrictive laws
are likely to have lower unemployment and a higher percentage of farms with cash
gains than those counties in states with less restrictive laws. Thus, a more
restrictive anti-corporate farming law has either positive or no impact when
compared to less restrictive laws. The primary point – the existence of a state
law has significant community benefits.
The report also states that the data suggest “that rural communities tend to
benefit from lower levels of agricultural industrialization but might fare
poorly as agriculture industrialization intensifies and begins to dominate a
county’s agriculture.” The report concludes “diversity in agricultural
structural forms at the county level appears to have positive impacts on rural
communities...”
Other studies have found evidence that non-family farm corporations have a
tendency to concentrate cash gains, and evidence that counties with higher
percentages of non-family corporations have, on average, higher cash gains but
fewer farms realizing cash gains.
Research by Dr. Welsh has also found that anti-corporate farming laws such as
I-300 mitigate increased geographic concentration of production, thus providing
more agricultural diversity and reducing the community economics impacts of
corporate, industrialized agriculture.
The Nebraska Experience
While these findings appear academic, they support what has happened in Nebraska
since I-300 was adopted. Based on data from the Nebraska Department of
Agriculture and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln:
- Nebraska led the nation in 2002 in commercial
livestock slaughter, commercial red meat production, commercial cattle
slaughter, great northern bean production, and light red kidney bean
production.
- In 2001 and 2002, Nebraska ranked second,
third, or fourth in the nation in cash receipts from all meat animals; cash
receipts from cattle and calves; all cattle on feed; pinto bean production;
all dry edible bean production; cash receipts from all feed crops; all cattle
and calves; millet production; cash receipts from corn, from sorghum, and from
livestock and livestock products; corn production; cash receipts from farm
marketing; and ethanol production.
- Since 1982, Nebraska’s share of the nation’s
hog operations increased. While losing hog operations, Nebraska has lost fewer
than most leading states, including North Carolina, the king of corporate hog
production.
- Since 1982, Nebraska has increased its share
of the nation’s cattle on feed, while the number of feedlots with cattle on
feed remained constant since 1997 (compared to a national decline).
Nebraska ranks at the top in the number of smaller commercial feedlots (far
exceeding Kansas and Texas, states with a weak anti-corporate farming law and
no law at all).
- A recent University of Nebraska report on the
federal mandatory price reporting law found that Nebraska was the only major
cattle producing region with feedlots of all sizes.
- Another University of Nebraska study found
that I-300 has had no impact on the size of Nebraska feedlots relative to
states without anti-corporate farming laws. Requiring family-scale operations
has not restricted the state’s competitiveness due to size or ownership
structure.
- These UNL studies found that 64 percent of
Nebraska feedlots were in smaller categories, compared to 10 percent in Texas
and 23 percent in Kansas, yet Nebraska is competitive in all national cattle
production statistics (and leads the nation in many).
Not bad for a state that is not “corporate
friendly.” Apparently most of Nebraska’s farmers and ranchers were not sitting
around bemoaning their lack of opportunities and planning how to bring corporate
agriculture into their communities – they were busy being among the nation’s
best.
Barking up the Wrong Tree and Sound Science
Looking at Initiative 300 as the culprit for challenges facing the agricultural
and rural economy is simply barking up the wrong tree. Debate on how to make
Initiative 300 more “corporate friendly” detracts from authentic efforts to
enhance agricultural opportunities and rural incomes.
Rather than discuss and act to bring about genuine rural development and
opportunities for family-scale agriculture, those seeking to modify Initiative
300 are attempting to create a bogeyman for the real issues facing agriculture
and rural communities in Nebraska.
Rather than considering 60 years of sound research on the impacts of corporate,
industrialized agriculture on the well-being of rural communities, those seeking
to modify Initiative 300 are ultimately looking for ways to enhance the bottom
line for corporations and investors.
Initiative 300 has been positive for Nebraska’s family farmers and ranchers,
which leads to positive economic and social impacts on rural communities. The
argument over the impact of farm size on community welfare has been solved by
nearly 60 years of sound research. Rural communities benefit by a diversity of
agricultural structure and low levels of agricultural industrialization.
This represents the “sound science” those seeking to modify Initiative 300
always say they crave. It shows that corporate agriculture leads to
deterioration in community well-being. States have a right and an obligation to
prohibit the use of some business structures by non-family farmers and ranchers.
Contact: Jon Bailey,
jonb@cfra.org for more information on our
Case for I-300 series.
|
|
|
Granary a Pioneer
in Socially-Responsible Investing
Marty Strange, co-founder of the Center and chair
of the Granary board of directors, reports on the Center’s endowment fund,
pioneer of a “competition screen” for its investments.
Seven years ago, the Center launched a capital campaign to establish an
endowment fund to support its work. The Granary Foundation was established as a
separate nonprofit “support” organization to hold and invest these funds, the
income from which is used to make grants to the Center.
Center supporters have donated over $5.3 million to the Granary to date. In
addition the Granary has received bequests with an estimated value of $2.5
million.
The Granary board of directors is appointed by the Center board and includes
long-time Center supporters. I’ve been chair of the Granary Board since
inception, and will step down from that role in 2004. I thought it was about
time I gave a report.
The Granary Board made an early decision to hire only money managers who would
limit investments to companies that meet certain “social screening” criteria. We
don’t invest in companies who discriminate on the basis of race or gender, for
example, or companies who exploit labor or pollute the environment.
This “screening” has proven to be a complex process, but one worth doing. It
turns out bad behavior is an indicator of bad management overall. Good companies
make good money, we’ve found.
Our social investing is unique because, so far as we know, we are the only
social investor to employ a “competition” screen. We do not invest in companies
that engage in business practices that threaten competition.
Our investment advisor, Piper Jaffray’s Philanthropic & Social Investment
Consulting, is a long-time leader in social screening and is doing an excellent
job in helping us develop an effective “competition” screen that we hope becomes
a standard part of social investing.
We pledged not to spend the capital given by our donors – only the income from
investing it. In this roller-coaster economy, it has been a tough pledge to
keep.
In the first years of the Granary, the stock market rose dramatically. The
Granary was able to repay the Center for the cost of the endowment campaign that
established the Granary, as well as make quarterly grants of about $70,000.
But the market fell precipitously, especially after 9/11, and the market value
of the Granary dipped below the value of the donor gifts. So the Granary had to
stop making grants in September 2001.
The market has recovered enough now that the Granary has resumed grantmaking to
the Center. Although it has been a rocky road, it is worth noting that the
Granary has paid out to the Center over $1,250,000 since inception and still has
every penny “in the bank” given by donors.
The door to donation is always open, of course. If you want to make a gift to
the Granary – immediately or as part of a “planned” gift – contact Greg Finzen,
gregf@cfra.org at the Center or me, through
the Center. – Marty Strange
|
|
2003
St. James Heritage Fest a Rousing Rural Success
Attendance more than doubled and so did the fun
at this rural celebration combining history, heritage, and value-added
enterprise.
The 2003 St. James Heritage Fest multiplied the population of St. James, Neb.
by more than 100 fold on September 28. St. James Marketplace sponsored its
second annual Heritage Fest to celebrate the achievements of pioneers who
settled the area.
Attendance and sales more than doubled from last year. People came from as far
away as Plainview, Oakland, and Homer, Neb.; Sioux City, Iowa; and Sioux Falls,
S.D. Two television stations covered the event. Cars lined both sides of the
entire highway leading into the hamlet of St. James.
The ladies and vendors of St. James Marketplace were dressed in clothing worn in
the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. The retail area was packed with people buying
value-added products grown, raised, crafted, or manufactured by rural residents.
The historical classroom was a big hit. Crafters were seated around the chapel
area of the former parochial school demonstrating pioneer arts like embroidery,
crocheting, tatting, and needle point. Downstairs in the social hall there were
demonstrations of making home-made ice cream; making apple cider from an apple
press; spinning; and the operation of an old cream separator.
Outside a number of antique farm implements were on display. Rope making
demonstrations took place outside, as did demonstrations of an old corn seed
sorter, a corn sheller, and a corn grinder. Rides in a horse drawn wagon were
also available.
Main Bow Farms provided local food for visitors, and sold out of all of the
ground beef and brats the cooperative had in stock. The smell of grilling
burgers and brats filled the air on this nearly perfect afternoon.
A number of popular games and contests for kids and adults alike were available
throughout the afternoon – log sawing contests, pie eating contests, sack races,
egg races, and a watermelon seed spitting contest.
If this type of Sunday afternoon family outing sounds like something you’d like
to experience, watch for next year’s Heritage Fest. The Center for Rural Affairs
newsletter will let readers know details of next year’s event as they become
available.
|
|
Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance Opposes Government Regulations
New England small boat fishermen are
fighting for their livelihood, the health of the marine environment, and the
character of coastal communities.
Craig Pendleton is a lifelong commercial
fisherman and current director of the Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance (NAMA),
a nonprofit organization that represents the interests of inshore/small boat
fishermen across New England.
For the past several years, Craig has been concerned with the extinction of
coastal fishing communities, especially the government’s fisheries policy, which
has disproportionately favored large commercial interests over “mom-and-pop”
operations.
In his home state of Maine, small boat fishermen have been lost in staggering
numbers, mainly because of economic adversity. The same story is written across
America’s heartland, where big business has swallowed up family farms.
Recent policy changes illustrate Craig’s point. In the 1990s area closures kept
inshore boats tied to the dock, while boats with greater horsepower and higher
freeboard were able to steam beyond the closed areas and onto the fish.
A 2002 court ruling penalized owner-operators who conserved groundfish by using
other resources – much as a farmer would rotate his crops to preserve soil
fertility – when it cut their allotted days-at-sea by as much as 90 percent.
And today, unless precautions are taken to protect small operators, newly
proposed rules will likely drive more inshore fishermen out of business. Not
only do these rules lack common sense, they are profoundly undemocratic. And
worse, they won’t save fish.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act (1976), the basis for fisheries policy, declares that
resources within the exclusive economic zone (200 miles) are property of all
U.S. citizens. Yet, subsequent policy changes, largely the result of corporate
lobbying, are leading to the elimination of one sector of the region’s fleet in
favor of another, which amounts to the privatization of a valuable public asset.
There are reasons beyond nostalgia to support inshore fishing. These boats land
a fresher product. Roger Berkowitz, the president of Legal Seafood, opposes
policies that hurt inshore boats because they provide the quality fish his
customers demand.
Inshore fishermen have built-in incentives not to mistreat resources because
they lack the mobility that allows other vessels to hammer one area and move on
to the next. Inshore fishermen think at a sustainable scale.
Craig says, “The inshore folks I know are happy, indeed thrilled, to be able to
fix their engine when it breaks and return home each day in time to coach little
league. They’re not out to make a killing; they’re out to make a living.”
In November, the New England Fishery Management Council was to submit its plan
for the management of the region’s groundfishery to the government for approval.
Its decision will have far-reaching consequences.
Those concerned with the health of New England’s marine environment and the
character of its coastal communities should visit the Northwest Atlantic Marine
Alliance’s website: www.namanet.org.
Contact: Captain Craig Pendleton, NAMA,
at 207.284.5374, or craid@namanet.org.
|
