To the editor:

I am neither a fisherman, nor in any way associated with any fishing or related industry, nor am I a marine scientist or government regulator.

I do not have a vested interest in the battles between our governmental regulatory bodies and our fishermen. However, I still hold an opinion as a concerned, tax-paying, voting Gloucester citizen.

Last Friday's juxaposition of the column from NOAA's director, Dr. Lubchenco, against a letter to the editor from renowned local fisherman Paul Cohan (Times, Oct. 30), was ironically poignant.

These two parties represent the poles of the on-going argument between the government regulators and the fishing fleet. Based on my life experience and education, I have come to understand that, when seeking the truth on any matter, it can be found at some point between the two poles.

Paul Cohan's letter employs hyperbole and sarcasm to make his point. Dr. Lubchenco's column, however, employs a subtle bait-and-switch technique that fails to make clear her intended point. In her second paragraph, she states that "NOAA will be a good partner with fishing communities, keeping lines of communication open and listening to their concerns and needs." However, the next 10 paragraphs of her column contain a litany of NOAA's contributions to various aspects of our local community which, for the most part, relate to our children and their education.

While I do not mean to diminish the importance of education and the value of NOAA's contributions (my thanks go out to the local NOAA employees for their concern, participation, and contributions), Dr. Lubchenco's letter avoids any substantive discussion of the obvious issues and crises facing our fishing industry, instead painting with broad brush-stokes a glowing picture of NOAA's good civic works.

Doing so, while blatantly avoiding the elephant in the middle of the room, strikes me as painfully disingenuous. Rather than seek any sort of common ground and attempt to establish an environment of mutual respect in which the discussion of genuinely differing opinions could occur, Dr. Lubchenco has opted to whitewash the issues and, instead, distract us with admittedly useful, albeit non-core-substantive, NOAA accomplishments.

Hopefully, there will be more than just a few of us concerned citizens as well as the fishermen (and their families) who will be able to see this tactic for what it truly is.

Phil Samson

Gloucester