My View
The March 2 congressional subcommittee hearing held at Gloucester City Hall may finally result in some relief for our fisherman who have been abused by excessive fines for over a decade now.
Frankly, the hearing was little more than orchestrated political theater; an effort to find a scapegoat for congressional inaction, which is the true cause of the fishermen's plight.
The testimony of Inspector General Todd Zinser made clear that our fishermen have been excessively abused for at least the past 10 years. Their cries for relief have seemingly fallen on deaf ears as there has been little or no response — until now. Worse, based on testimony, it is clear that the fishermen have repeatedly been thwarted by often intentional entrapment by bureaucrats seeking millions in fines at their expense.
The last seven months, I've spent a lot of time with the fishermen of Cape Ann who are struggling to survive, and with merchants whose fates are tied to the industry. It is crystal clear that this over-regulation has caused the decline of our region's 400-year-old fishing industry, and proposed catch share rules will make it worse. People want to work but can't because government rules forbid it. Worse, if they make one small mistake, they're punished severely.
Even NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco herself testified that the regulations are overly complex; a "nightmare". If she can't understand them, how do we expect our fisherman to comply?
Frankly, this hearing proved that our fishermen have been un-represented in Washington for over 10 years. In October 2009, I stood with hundreds of them seeking relief from the fines and oppressive regulations. I heard unanimous cries that Mr. Tierney has been absent while supporting the very regulations bankrupting them; that he will not help as bureaucrats regularly forbid fishing, fine them excessively, and sink their dreams.
With such a long period of such flagrant abuse while the fishermen suffered, why did it take a 2010 report from Mr. Zinser to wake Mr. Tierney up?
Dale Jones justifiably took some heat for his admitted role in being overly prosecutorial during the past 10 years, and failing to supervise his abusive subordinates. But from the outset, it was clear he would be offered up as a scapegoat in this contested 2010 election year in an effort to deflect the failures of the current congressional delegation who knew about but ignored it.
It does not escape notice that Barney Frank was not even a member of the subcommittee, yet wanted to be there solely to interject himself into the hearing to support his democratic congressional colleagues. Despite "volunteering" that he and Mr. Tierney voted against the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 2006, neither he nor Mr. Tierney in the four years since, ever offered any legislation or relief to the fishermen — until now. How timely.
Hopefully, some relief from fines will now come to the fishermen. But that's not enough. Until Mr. Tierney shows he is willing to sacrifice his big government agenda, and allow the fishermen to actually make a living, his focus solely on the fining "procedure", and looking for scapegoats, should be viewed simply for the political spectacle it was designed to be.
As for the fishermen already driven out of business, it was still too little, too late.
Bill Hudak, who lives in Boxford and practices law out of Saugus, is a Republican candidate for Congress, challenging Rep. Tierney in the 6th Massachusetts District.
