THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! SMAST scallop researcher rejected for NOAA funding for first time since 1999

For the first time since 1999, internationally known SMAST scientist Kevin Stokesbury has been denied federally administered funding for annual scallop surveys, as government officials questioned the cost and design of his latest proposal. Many local fishermen credit Stokesbury’s work with reviving the scallop industry over more than a decade, and a prominent scalloper said Tuesday that it was hard to make sense of the funding denial this year.  “We as an industry are very upset about this — it’s very disturbing,” said Dan Eilertsen, who owns six scallopers based on Fish Island. “Our fishery has been managed based on the published work that (Stokesbury) does.” The National Marine Fisheries Service, under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), told Stokesbury on March 29 that his proposal for a $2.65 million scallop survey project had been denied for the 2016-17 grant cycle. Read the rest here 20:14

2 Responses to THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! SMAST scallop researcher rejected for NOAA funding for first time since 1999

  1. DickyG says:

    Something just doesn’t add up, here:
    If accurate cooperative scientific research means intelligent resource management, and intelligent resource management means a healthy and productive fishery yielding over a half billion dollars worth of sought after healthy food, year after year for decades… What’s the problem?

    If SMAST’s proven and established scientific research requires funding of $2.65 million from the scallop fishing community’s Research Set Aside revenues to ensure that the Sea Scallop resource continues to be sustainable and productive… What’s the problem?

    The SMAST research data, at the heart of this lucrative and sustainable fishery, has provided a foundation for effective Scallop management for 17 years. SMAST’s specific empirical Scallop bed video information has fostered intelligent and well-timed management using rotational closures and input control mechanisms of fishing time at sea in order to promote the health of the resource and habitat. Such management also provides fairly consistent landings and product pricing… So what’s the problem?

    If this system sustains the scallops, their habitat, the fishing community, and indicates a successful science/management/community collaborative accomplishment— and renders some sorely needed credibility for the management process— the $2.65 million that SMAST sought seems like a pretty reasonable investment that yields a $550 million return. What then could possibly be the reason for not funding such a system?

    Cutting off funding makes absolutely no sense ecologically, socially, or economically. So What or Who is the intervening factor influencing the undermining of this key research element in a balanced and highly functioning fishery? And what could possibly be the motivation for such an action?

  2. Joel Hovanesian says:

    Until there is recognition and a willingness to actually recognize and name your enemy, (and there is no question that we have to perceive those in the ivory towers of these regulatory agencies as the enemy) then nothing is going to change. Who other than an enemy seeks to destroy you for no other reason other than power and control?

    Pure and simple, these so called leaders are nothing more than tyrants masquerading as saviors of an industry they are out to destroy. Political correctness has run amok in our nation these days and God forbid anyone say or speak the truth or call out these people for what they truly are.

    You will marginalized discredited and sent away.

    Believe me, I’m speaking from experience

Leave a Reply