Pew is what Pew does

“Let’s focus on the opportunities and benefits such a monument might bring” suggested Mr. Jay Nelson in his letter to the editor dated Sept. 8. 2008. The Director of the Ocean Legacy Program (Pew Environment Group) then proceeded to allege that I have “consistently mischaracterized the statements and role of the Pew Environment Group.”

He goes on to claim my letters focus on issues other than the “potential benefit to the CNMI” and implies that my comments are “unhelpful and unproductive.” Quite the contrary Mr. Nelson, I believe my letters offer another perspective on Pew’s monument plans.

In each of my letters I attempt to provide substantiated facts to support the conclusions that I draw, whether they address issues I may have directly with the Pew proposal, information being disseminated by Pew representatives, or with the Pew organization. You cry foul when the Pew Environment Group receives criticism, yet your supporters personally castigate those of us in the local blogs and newspapers that happen to have a differing opinion. Need I have to remind you of the now infamous “forces of evil” e-mail?

Mr. Nelson, you should understand that it was Pew who came uninvited to “my house.” It was Pew who started pushing their plans to convert 115,000 square miles of our EEZ into a “no-take” marine protected area for President Bush’s “Blue Legacy.” It was Pew that has taken the forefront in forcing this monument issue on us even after the majority of the CNMI government rejected your proposal. And finally, it was Pew who promised us that the president wasn’t going to pursue a monument that was controversial, yet the proposed Marianas monument was still short-listed. I believe the people of the Marianas deserve to know as much about the Pew Environment Group, as the message you are delivering. You suggest that I not attack the messenger, but in our case the message and the messenger are one and the same.

The people of the Marianas deserve to know both sides of the issues, not just “focus on the opportunities and benefits such a monument might bring.” I have spent a considerable amount of time and effort investigating the details and potential repercussions of the Pew monument proposal. It is my opinion that the perceived benefits do not outweigh the complete and permanent loss of resource management control to the federal government. You may not understand this, but sometimes it’s not all about the money. I believe it is prudent for the people of the Northern Marianas to keep the choice of whether to pursue fishing activities or explore oil, gas, and mineral extraction rights throughout their entire EEZ. Despite the indigenous peoples’ cultural control over these waters for the past thousand years or so, designation of a national monument will require written permission from the federal government before entering these same waters. Even though I am not indigenous, I find this extremely insulting.
[B] John Gourley[/B] [I]Navy Hill, Saipan[/I]