 |
|
By Rob Holbert Copyright 1996 by The Mississippi Press |
 |
 |
| Sunday, February 11, 1996
On the whole, I would rank lobbying groups and automobile commercials among the most annoying things in the world. (Just behind people who drive around with their blinker on.) Both can be loud and abrasive and you always wonder if they’re really telling the truth. Certainly, one of the most annoying groups, as of late, has been the Coastal Conservation Association (CCA). They are currently locked in an epic battle to save this state’s fishing resources for the future. At least that’s what they say they’re doing. More and more, it looks as if the CCA is simply hell-bent on hammering Mississippi’s commercial fishermen into non-existence. (Except for the charter boat captains. They’re OK). For the past several years, the CCA, a well organized group of sports fishermen, has advocated banning or severely limiting gill netting in state waters. Their complaint has been that greedy gill netters are depleting the natural resources we all should enjoy.
While there’s nothing wrong with an honest effort to make sure there are enough fish for future generations, the way the CCA has set out to accomplish its goals makes me think they should change their name to the Coastal Coercion Association. As this gill net controversy has played out over the last few years,
the CCA has become more and more vocal and manipulative in its methods.
Pretty soon, I expect them to hire a big, bent-nosed guy named Vito to
send gill netters to "sleep with the fishes." (Editor’s note: This previous
sentence was insensitive towards Italian-Americans. Mr. Holbert has been
taken out and flogged with strands of number four spaghetti. The spaghetti
was al dente so as to cause welts). To say the CCA has a
The CCA has long hidden behind the "conservationist" tag, portraying itself as a middle-of-the-road group that just wants the best for everybody involved. The real goal appears to be a total ban on gill nets and probably shrimp nets, too. I guess we’re all supposed to eat seafood stamped "Made in Mexico" so the CCA can win its war. I’ll admit, when this whole issue first surfaced, my knee-jerk reaction
was that we’d all be better off without gill nets violating our natural
resources. And it didn’t help that many commercial fishermen are not the
warm and huggable types. (I’m not saying I was hugging any sports fishermen
either, if that’s what you’re thinking). At the first meetings to discuss
a net ban, some gill netters issued threats and scared the (bad word) out
of a few CCA members. This somehow lent credence to the CCA
But, time and again, scientific evidence provided by the Department of Marine Resources (DMR) has shown that it is not necessary to completely ban nets. "Who the heck is the DMR?" you might ask. Oh, they’re just the state agency charged with monitoring and protecting the state’s fish stocks, that’s all. Why would they know more than a bunch of sports fishermen? CCA leaders have repeatedly denounced the findings of fishery scientists who don’t agree with their net ban point of view. They’ve reportedly made life pretty hard for some of those scientists. One may have even been demoted because of CCA pressure. Because the scientific evidence does not support a net ban, it seemed
obvious that reasonable regulation of gill netters the best plan going.
Enforcement of those regulations is also extremely important. But it seems
unnecessary and even un-American for the CCA to drive these guys out of
business. Unfortunately, that’s what they seem determined to do. It’s enough
to make one
In fact, a current bill aimed at setting further restrictions on gill netters was even written by CCA President John Lambeth. Wet-behind-the-ears Jackson County Senator Tommy Moffatt introduced the bill, but it had CCA fingerprints all over it. Moffatt, an honest man, freely admitted that Lambeth drafted the bill. He should have realized submitted the CCA’s bill is like letting the Chicken Producers of America write legislation regulating the American Beef Council (If that were the case, we’d all be singing "I feel like chicken tonight"). Since the CCA doesn’t have science on their side, they’ve decided to use money and political clout to achieve their means. Individual member’s interests in this cause goes way beyond what we’ve come to expect from normal lobbying groups. You have to wonder what’s in it for them. Somewhere along the line, the CCA moved from lobbying to zealotry, and that’s probably what makes them so darned annoying. The CCA has long hidden behind the "conservationist" tag, portraying itself as a middle-of-the-road group that just wants the best for everybody involved. The real goal appears to be a total ban on gill nets and probably shrimp nets, too. I guess we’re all supposed to eat seafood stamped "Made in Mexico" so the CCA can win its war. If you think the CCA isn’t interested in driving the commercial industry out of business, just read their goofy bill. If passed, it would make it almost impossible to work as a gill netter. On top of that, the bill contains an interesting provision requiring gill netters to make 51 percent of their income from commercial fishing in order to get a license. Lambeth must have dug this idea out of Karl Marx’s beard. Placing a means test on someone’s livelihood is a little too Bolshevik for my blood, comrade. I’m sure many CCA members aren’t really even aware of all the things their leaders are doing. But the CCA gang is pretty good at making it look like the whole world wants what they want. They’re writing legislation, firing off angry letters to newspapers and otherwise pushing their agenda. Lambeth, a former newspaper reporter, even writes a weekly Outdoor piece for The Sun-Herald. (There’s some journalistic objectivity for you. Guess what his favorite topic is?) Since the CCA doesn’t have science on their side, they’ve decided to
use money and political clout to achieve their means.
Rob Holbert is a city hall and police reporter; His column appears Thursdays
and Sundays in the Mississippi Press.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
