A Pew solution to the problem

We continue to debate the Pew monument issue. I have yet to see Pew supporters offer any substantial proof to the concept behind the project. In the March edition of MP Magazine, Laurie Peterka’s well written story gives us the mission statement of the Pew Foundation. [I]“The Pew Charitable Trusts is driven by the power of knowledge to solve today’s most challenging problems. Pew applies a rigorous, analytical approach to improve public policy, inform the public and stimulate civic life. We partner with a diverse range of donors, public and private organizations and concerned citizens who share our commitment to fact-based solutions and goal-driven investments to improve society.”[/I]

Let’s break it down. “Driven by the power of knowledge to solve today’s most challenging problems.” Obviously, we all know that one of the biggest problems to face our society today is poverty and to meet the ever growing demand for food stocks for future generations. This is the goal of organizations like Pew that want to help feed the world for generations to come as well as the producers of food whose job it is to meet the demand for that food supply. Sounds like we all have the same goal in mind.

“Pew applies a rigorous, analytical approach to improve public policy, inform the public and stimulate civic life.” I agree with the vigorous part but how much time have they really spent to do the analytical approach part? Let’s face it, you guys want this done before Bush is out of office. Ron Hodges, in a recent article gave Kudos to President Bush for backing this. People indicate how this will be Bush’s legacy. You have to be in denial to not already know what Bush’s real legacy will be.

It goes on to say “fact-based solutions and goal-driven investments to improve society.” That all sounds good on paper but what will they really accomplish if they shut that resource down indefinitely. I still have one question that no one—and I mean no one—supporting Pew has been able to answer. Is there not one person that can explain this in a hundred words or less? In what way, other than the make believe eco-tourism market you talk about, will the future generations benefit from this by closing off these natural resources? Of course I am referring to being able to use the marine life resources. You know, the fish that you use when you make your kids a sandwich. It is only one question. Can no one answer it?

Pew claims it will change tourism overnight. How does that happen? People already know we are here. People talk about the great potential for eco-tourism but why is the world not flocking here already? People may pay in excess of $20,000 for eco-tourism travel. Where are they?

Anyway, I think that Angelo Villagomez and his team have made great contributions to this community. Again, nothing but respect for Ken Kramer, Laurie Peterka and Angela Villagomez. No one can be upset by them trying to move forward with such a great endeavor. I myself grew up wanting to be an oceanographer. I knew what the Marianas Trench was at the age of five. But if Pew really wants to do something great with their $6 billion, this is what I propose. Agnes Mcphetres made mention in a recent article how the students of NMC might someday benefit. Well, why should they have to wait? I believe that Pew should finance a world-class oceanographic institute. For those of you who are not familiar, please Google Scripps Institute of Loyola California www.sio.ucsd.edu/ or Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute out of Woods Hole Massachusetts http://www.whoi.edu/. If Pew really wants to show us what this project will do for our community then I give them the real Micronesian Challenge. Put the money up to build a world-class oceanographic and marine biology institute. Use NMC to establish the school. Provide for grants for children worldwide to come to the last real ocean frontier.

Driven by the power of knowledge to solve today’s most challenging problems? Well, if you want to be driven by the power of knowledge then you must provide knowledge, which means providing education. What’s a petri dish, huh? To think that students from around the world could come to live and work in the greatest classroom ever seen. Pew can provide for the infrastructure to put research centers on each island as well as provide oceangoing marine research vessels. Hire the best in their fields to come here and teach students. Now you have an ocean legacy, now you have something. Pew should not just come here to shut it down and then expect us to figure out how to make money on their legacy. Now you can make it your legacy. Are you kidding me? If you had a world-class oceanographic research facility here, now people will travel from all over the world. They just want to give us a visitor’s center. Give us something real; give us something to be really proud of. Put your money where your monument is and give the gift of education.

Now take it one step further: Pew’s mission statement says, “We partner with a diverse range of donors, public and private organizations and concerned citizens who share our commitment to fact-based solutions and goal-driven investments to improve society.” Now you could really accomplish something if you establish an area in which students can learn, teachers can teach, tourists can tour and fishermen can fish. Now you can partner with tourism and education and the fisheries in order to accomplish your mission statement.

“Fact based solutions and goal-driven investments to improve society.” Surely you are not against people fishing to make a living? You just want it respected and sustained. What better way to come up with the solutions to improve society than to have fishermen fishing the waters in coalition with your research in developing something to benefit future generations? What better place to have such a place? I mean really, you don’t build Disneyland and then close the gates. You let people in so they can experience it. How will eco-tourism happen? Where are the boats that will take people north? Let Pew purchase and maintain those boats so that people can go and see the Northern Islands, not just read about it on a sign in a visitors center but to experience in. Now you have my support! Now you have really done something! Now you have put your money where your mouth is and have really put us on the map. Now you have contributed to greater education.

Scripps and Woods Hole are without a doubt world-class icons when it comes to ocean research. Why should Pew shut down this resource and then provide no access to it. I digress back to the topic of working with fishermen. In the Pew pamphlet “Boon or Bane?,” Alexie Villegas Zotomayor makes a false statement that Crystal Seas failed because it could not catch fish. I don’t know where she got the article from but I can say she is absolutely wrong and or the article that she quotes is wrong.

So Pew, how about it? Do you really want to help the world figure out how to improve our society? How do we resolve the problems with fisheries and environmental issues? Do you really want to bridge the gap and find solutions? You claim you are against net fishing, well, so am I. Long liners are already banned for 30 miles off shore. So do you really want to find solutions by working with other groups or do you just want to shut it down?

So people of the CNMI, if this is such a great plan, and it may very well be, then let Pew with its $6 billion come in here and build a world-class school of oceanography because I will be their first student. Let that research center work with local fishermen in order to expand research and education in the development of a sustainable fisheries business that they say that are so knowledgeable about. Mr. Jay Nelson, let that be your Ocean Legacy!