Pew, why won’t you talk about the monument?

I am truly embarrassed for the Pew monument proponents. In a desperate act to keep their project alive, they have stooped to a new low by mounting a smear campaign against everyone who just happens to disagree with their view of resource management, the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, and the National Marine Fisheries Service. They proclaim that their preservationist approach to resource management is the only way to save the world.

I am astonished at the number of recent self-proclaimed fishery biologists and experts in fishery management issues within the pro-monument camp. All this gloom and doom anti-fishing discussion smells suspiciously like Pew involvement and it stinks. For those who wish to learn more about Pew and their fanatical anti-fishing agenda, may I suggest a computer search for “pew anti fishing” and read some of the articles. But this is not the real issue at hand, is it?

Sugar Dock, Wespac, NMFS, Ms. Simonds, and Mr. Gourley are all irrelevant topics and are simply diversions created by Pew to take the focus away from the real issue before the people of the CNMI—designation of a National Monument (a “no-take” Marine Protected Area) that would encompass over one-third of the CNMI’s Exclusive Economic Zone before President Bush leaves office.

Pew is trying to draw attention away from the fact that they still don’t have any significant justification for the designation of a National Monument in the CNMI. Here it is over one year after the project was first introduced and it’s still smoke and mirrors, glossy photos, and unsubstantiated promises of fame and fortune that the federal government (or private sector ventures) will give the CNMI sometime in the future. In return, the people of the CNMI will permanently give up any future responsible extractive resource potential within 115,000 square miles of our EEZ. Why would anyone with this much to lose agree to this scenario?

Why can’t Pew discuss the real issues being asked by community members instead of personally attacking those who have a different opinion? With this blatant display of disrespect, it’s no wonder that Pew is being ignored. It appears to me that Pew doesn’t care who they step on to get what they want—the end justifies the means, eh?