Letters to the Editor: 02.12.98

Give The Oceans A Break

Amagansett

February 9, 1998

Dear Sirs:

As you point out in your editorial "To Eat, or Not to Eat," the state of our fisheries has now reached such a state of crisis that it is finally generating debate at the public level as if it's a real problem. A campaign which has helped focus this attention, "Give the Swordfish a Break," has apparently got the longline industry scrambling.

Last week, a full-page paid statement appeared in The East Hampton Independent indicating that everything was fine with the United States swordfishery, that if there were a problem, it was really a problem of foreign harvesting and consumption, and that the National Marine Fisheries Service had it handled anyway.

At the bottom of the statement were the names of two lobbyists for the longline industry and the names respectively of the heads of the International and National Agencies, under the Department of State and the Department of Commerce, responsible for swordfish management in the U.S.

This was so contrary to the scientific and economic data that had been presented before that I immediately called Dr. Rebecca Lent, chief of the National Marine Fisheries Service Highly Migratory Species Division, for an explanation.

Dr. Lent not only had never seen this statement, but was shocked and angry that the names of these regulatory agencies had been appropriated by the longline industry without permission.

The next day, The Star's editorial bemoaned the fact that the fishery was depressed. Did you mean the fishermen or the fish? If you meant the fish, the words, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service, are "depleted" and "overexploited."

Since the statement in The Independent proved out to be a hoax, it might be wise to hear what National Marine Fisheries Service really has to say about the North Atlantic Swordfishery:

". . . quota reductions and the imposition of minimum size limits have not substantially changed the rapid rate of decline (from that of a healthy population to one approaching commercial extinction) during the 19-year period since 1978. . . . The U.S. commercial swordfish fishery suffers from two primary problems: overfishing, particularly of immature fish, and overcapitalization (too many vessels)."

"Swordfish are overexploited and the stock depleted. Almost all swordfish are caught before they can reproduce. . . . This is primarily the result of year-round fishing in the nursery grounds around Florida. . . . Large reductions in quotas are required in 1997 and beyond to rebuild the stock." - Draft Amendment to the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Swordfish, Jan. 28, 1997.

I don't believe I have heard the call to ban swordfishing as you state in your editorial. I have heard the call to ban longlining, though, and here's why this is not a problem of "other irresponsible nations" as you strongly suggest.

Longliners stretch their miles of baited hooks. Mostly, any fish or mammal that takes the bait and is hooked has died by the time the line is retrieved. U.S. fishermen may not sell undersized swordfish, and so they are discarded and thrown overboard.

Along the coasts of Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, and the Gulf states, the number of discarded fish equals or exceeds the number of saleable fish. The U.S. is the biggest source of immature dead discards in the world according to the most recent information available from National Marine Fisheries Service. This really makes it sound like we're the "irresponsible" nation you warned us about.

It is not true that the problem is the "foreigner's," it is ours, too. International management of highly migratory species is complex. The U.S. has been a leader in regulation and compliance. These facts in and of themselves are not reasons to give up that leadership.

There is not presently a plan for rebuilding the swordfishery, but it is mandated that the National Marine Fisheries Service come up with one this year. We have been taking too many fish for too long with gear that kills the fish that are unsaleable before they have a chance to reproduce.

I'm glad that Dr. Lent has been so vocal, and initiated a campaign of denial of this outrageous hoax and distortion of fact that the longliners have attempted.

We're hearing a lot about depleted fisheries this year. Each side will present the facts they believe. In the debate, let's not make our focus too narrow. We're not talking just about swordfish.

We all own the world's oceans and everything that swims in them. If we give the oceans a break, maybe, if we're lucky, they'll be there to provide enjoyment, jobs, and to serve as a source of all life forever.

TIMOTHY R. DYKMAN

Shinnecock Marlin and Tuna Club

National Advisory Board

Recreational Fishing Alliance

On Swordfish

Shelter Island

February 9, 1998

Editor:

The plight of the swordfish is not just another alarmist reaction by environmentalists as some including your own Russell Drumm would label it. In this case, the facts from various government agencies which admittedly have failed our fisheries miserably in their attempts at management speak for themselves. Among them that:

- Eighty-eight percent of swordfish caught and sold to market today are juveniles and have never reproduced.

- Forty thousand baby swordfish under the minimum allowable weight of 33 pounds were thrown back dead last year by longliners.

- Longliners catch 98 percent of the swordfish brought to market.

- If we continue to catch swordfish at this rate they risk extinction by the year 2005.

And the list goes on.

This is not another example of us vs. them, as Drumm would lead you to believe. It is the intent of Fish Unlimited's Save Our Swordfish program to educate the consumer about this situation.

We feel that they will then stop eating swordfish, and in doing so impact the marketplace to the point that longlines will no longer fish for swordfish.

During this time, new regulations curtailing the indiscriminate fishery longlining will be implemented, the stocks of swordfish will be allowed to rebuild, and a return to a commercial harpoon and hook and line method for catching swordfish will return.

This was the way swordfish were harvested through the late '70s from Montauk and Shinnecock, when they could be found 10 miles off our shores, and a method I was fortunate to have witnessed as a boy firsthand.

Only when we eliminate the highly effective, and indiscriminate fishing methods such as purse-seining, pair-trawling, and longlining that were developed in the late '60s and early '70s will our oceans stop being "strip mined" and allowed to return to health.

Then there will again be enough fish for all anglers, commercial and recreational, to safely harvest. This concept of the consumer making the real difference by impacting the marketplace will then be carried to other fisheries to allow them to return to health.

Sincerely,

BILL SMITH

Executive Director

Fish Unlimited

For Open Discussion

East Hampton

February 6, 1998

Dear Helen,

It is gratifying to see that The Star received two polemics against the letter in which I chastised Representative Michael P. Forbes for forcing the Smithsonian to cancel a series of lectures sponsored by the New Israel Fund, on the occasion of Israel's 50th anniversary. Clearly, my voice has been heard.

This is not the first time my "old friend" Charles Evans and I have disagreed on political issues, it will surely not be the last.

There is, however, nothing in his letter that proves my argument wrong. Professor Evans merely slings the same smelly old red herrings against the fund for its "political" views. As though his and his colleagues' views were not political! Any ideological position which conflicts with another is by its very nature political.

If a group of politically conservative Jews persuade a congressman who is clearly a neophyte in matters Jewish (and has a minuscule Jewish constituency in his district) to cancel an event sponsored by a group of liberal Jews, they are engaging in politics of the crassest sort.

It is nonsense to say that they were asking for a fair middle ground - the simply wanted their views to prevail. Not in an open discussion, but in forcing a withdrawal of the other side.

That the New Israel Fund was ready to include representatives of the Israeli right shows their good will. The Likudniks and Orthodox withdrew from the discussion when they realized that they could sink the whole project. Why argue a point in a free and open discussion if you can silence your opponent by canceling the venue altogether?

I was not the only person to smell a revival of McCarthyism in the actions of those Jewish organizations who got Michael Forbes to wield his Congressional power. Anthony Lewis made the same charge in The New York Times.

The unsubstantiated, slanderous allegations hurled at the fund's panelists were unquestionably reminiscent of the late, unlamented Senator from Wisconsin. Professor Evans bravely upholds the tradition by implying that my suggestion that Representative Forbes was bowing to the pressures of former wealthy campaign contributors "smacks of another kind of 'ism.' "

Does he really think I serve up (commun)ism when making the point that American politicians regularly accept huge donations from people who expect them to push their agenda?

I'm flattered that my modest epistle to The Star caused the national president of the Zionist Organization of America to jump into the fray against me. Shows you how well they keep track of even the smallest peep of dissent.

Again, the good Mr. Klein uses the familiar smear tactics (distortions and misrepresentations, fragments of opinions, and phrases taken totally out of context) to back up his claim that the N.I.F. program was a plot to "attack" Israel. On her 50th birthday no less!

To take one small example of his method: He claims that Thomas Friedman referred to Rabin (killed, as we all know, by a right-wing Israeli "terrorist" convinced, in a climate of extremist Jewish hatred, that his act was done with God's approval) as "bloody-minded."

Since he takes the word totally out of context might it not have been used as our British friends use it to mean thick-headed and single-mindedly stubborn? The Brits use "bloody" in almost any sentence where we might use "damn." "He bloody well better pay me back," or "that bloody dog just bit me."

There's not a single accusation hurled by Mr. Klein at the New Israel Fund that is not a calculated smear. Anything but total agreement with the Netanyahu Government is apparently considered "hostile," any question raised about his policies "harsh."

Such attitudes are inimical to free and open discussions and are exactly reflected in the Orthodox Rabbinate's refusal to consider Reform or Conservative Judaism legitimate in any shape or form.

Birthday parties are all well and good, but they should not be converted into propaganda feasts or sentimental, feel-good orgies.

Along with Mr. Klein and millions of other Jews, I want to celebrate the vision of an ideal Israel as it exists in my own heart and soul, but he refuses to accept any vision but his as valid. So he says that "the very title of the [fund's] program 'Israel at 50: Yesterday's Dream, Today's Realities' implies that there is a clash between what Israel dreamed and how the reality turned out."

If you look at the history of modern Israel with any kind of objectivity, you have to say "bloody right there's a clash!" and aren't we better off discussing it than pretending that Israel (along with the United States, which has its own quota of super-patriots with bigoted, sclerotic opinions - just take a look at R. Falconer's letter a few columns to the right) is pure as the driven snow, the embodiment of all virtues and blessed by God besides?

But the American God is a Christian God, you understand, and his fundamentalist followers - many of whom, for their own dark reasons, support Israel wholeheartedly - believe he has given them the mission to bring all the Jews (whatever our political bent) to Jesus.

With best regards,

SILVIA TENNENBAUM

P.S. I found Friedman's characterization of Israel as "Yad Vashem with an air force" - though irreverent, quite apt. It is a perfect metaphor for all those who proclaim their victimhood by exhibiting its stigmata, even as they turn themselves into a powerful military machine, atomic weapons and all, backed by the might of Big Brother Uncle Sam.

Why All The Fuss?

East Hampton

February 3, 1998

Dear Editor,

I just returned from two weeks in London and Paris and missed most of the "media frenzy" surrounding the Clinton-Monica W. affair. But I did observe that the people one meets in these cities react quite differently than many of us here. Let me explain.

In regard to the President's "moral character," they (and I) believe that this does not reflect badly on his morality.

First, adultery is viewed as a relatively common (and normal) thing with married men, especially after many years of marriage. I bet if you took a poll of our Congress, you'd find the vast majority have cheated on their spouses at one time or other. It just doesn't get talked about . . . and shouldn't.

Second, there are those who claim that the President should be judged by a "higher standard." Why? He's a normal and virile man!

But add to this the fact that, not only is he the most powerful man in the world, but, like J.F.K., he's young, good looking, and, like football players, hockey stars, etc., women are probably throwing themselves at him every day. So once in a while, he gives in to temptation. Who cares, except for his political enemies?

And most of the women who succeed in seducing him go away quietly, and you never hear about them. Except for those greedy few who decide to capitalize on the event (like Paula Jones).

As for Monica W., she's viewed by Europeans as a "starstruck," oversexed young lady who constantly threw herself in the President's path, to the point where she became so obnoxious that she was sent packing to the Pentagon.

Incidentally, Bill Bennett, ex-Cabinet member, said this incident was "trashy." He's right, only in terms of the women involved. Paula and Monica are trash.

And lastly, there's all this fuss about the fact that the President may have lied. The Europeans I talked to think that one's love life is nobody's business, and should be kept a secret, even if one has to tell a lie that doesn't harm anyone. We used to call these "white lies." And I agree!

I should add that those I talked to see this whole thing as a purely political witch hunt, and very bad for the world because it takes the President's attention away from far more important issues.

ROBERT S. ZIMMERN

Please address correspondence to [email protected]

Please include your full name, address and daytime telephone number for purposes of verification.