NOT SO WONDROUS

Al, thanks for pointing out the transparency of the emperor’s oilskins. (See “Too many fish in the sea,” at portlandphoenix.com.) Other than that vague term “overfishing,” there seems little effort to explain the cause of the near wipeout of the Gulf of Maine’s finny denizens. But, like forestry, there are ways to do it right and ways to do it wrong. For perspective, let’s go back a little further in time than 1994. Say . . . six centuries. What were fishermen’s gripes then?

In 1376, in Merrie Olde England, hookfishermen were royally ticked by a new form of fishing technology suddenly in vogue. So angry that, Carter-like, they put together a petition, gathered signatures, and presented it to Parliament during the reign of Edward III. What were these early fish-huggers aggrieved about? The use of draggers — the same form of fishing tech still stubbornly used today by most of the fishermen quoted in your column. The then-new device was so spectacular in its ability to catch everything on the seafloor that it was dubbed the “wondyrchoun,” literally “wondrous machine.”

Wondrous indeed for the investors that fitted out company boats with them, but the hookfishers weren’t so thrilled:

“Great complaints are made against the use of the net called ‘wondyrchoun’ which drags from the bottom of the sea all the bait that used to be the food of great fish,” the Parliamentary Rolls of 1376 reveal. “The wondyrchoun runs so heavily and hardly over the ground when fishing that it destroys the flowers of the land below the water and also the spat of oysters, mussels, and other fish upon which the great fish are nourished . . . to the great damage of the commons of the realm and the destruction of the fisheries.”

Parliament ignored the hooksters’ complaints. Then, as now, big money talked and the hookfishermen walked. To this day, the boats of dragger fleet operator Barbara Stevenson and most other groundfishing vessels in New England continue to use modernized (read: bigger) versions of the wondyrchoun; continue to pull up from the floor of the Gulf of Maine “all the bait that used to be the food of great fish.” So ingrained is this fell instrument now that judges and politicians alike do little more than tweak dragger mesh sizes and reduce the number of days the commons get defoliated.

Our political class should limit its upcoming multi-million dollar federal handout to paying boat owners to retool to less destructive technology, not to keep draggers ready for another swipe at “the flowers of the land below the water.” But that would require vision of a sort in short supply on Capitol Hill and on the federal bench.

Ron Huber

Rockland

ALL FROTH, NO TEETH

So how much did the Phoenix pay for the white space that constitutes the bulk of Al Diamon’s May 23, phoned-in diatribe, “Too many fish in the sea”? I suppose when you install a used battery, you shouldn’t expect too much juice.

If Diamon had actually done some research (even on the Web, so he wouldn’t have to move too much), he would’ve found some facts: According to National Marine Fisheries Service, groundfish stocks have increased by an average of 2.5 times between 1993 and 2000; on May 2, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that in turn, stocks increased by 45 percent between 2000 and December 2001. Even the Conservation Law Foundation, the lead plaintiffs in the recent groundfish lawsuit chaos, have reversed their stance and appealed Judge Judy Kessler’s ruling because, in light of obvious groundfish stock recovery, the restrictions are unnecessarily harsh. NMFS is also considering appealing the decision.

These estimates are not by biased interest groups, but by federal agencies that oversee the resource as well as industry; hence, it is not in their best interest to inflate them (if anything, they’re conservative). Unfortunately, most people don’t bother digging deeply enough into the matter to realize that stock recovery is not a myth; the restrictions of the past decade have already worked.

In other words, Diamon has missed the point entirely regarding “this mess [fishermen] are in”; essentially, he’s chosen a side in a debate that no longer exists. The dilemma at hand is how best to manage the fishery in light of an impending moratorium deadline on individual fishing quotas. For all but the uninformed, “how many fish are in the sea” is an issue that’s long been floating in the wake.

Brian Arundel

Portland

BACK TO THE FUTURE

R-6, R-7, 4500 sq. and 3000 sq. ft. lot size boggles the mind and makes the brain go numb. (See “R7: Coming to a neighborhood near you?” at portlandphoenix.com.) What does it all mean in a practical way? Visualize this: In the R-6, it means a 45’ by 100’klot. With a typical 24’-wide cape, it means just enough room for a 8’-wide driveway and a 3’ porch/entry.

An R-7 means a 30’ by 100’ lot with homes three feet apart with attached 3’ porches touching. No room for a driveway, even if the home is put squarely on the property line. Alternatively, it could mean a 40’ by 75’ lot with barely room for a driveway, bu‡ no porch/entry. Or it could mean a home the width of a single wide mobile (14 feet) home with room for a 3’-wide porch and driveway.

There is a reason why minimum lot dimensions were established for the R-6 as 4500 sq. ft. Smaller dimensions were unsafe, unhealthy, and undesirable for a livable city. Earlier conditions are what led to our city’s burning down twice and adoption of our city’s seal and motto: Resurgum (“I will rise again”), with a phoenix rising from the ashes and flames. It’s what led to Bayside being razed during urban renewal, after being designated as blighted, overcrowded, and unhealthy. It sounds like “Back to the Future.”

The problem isn’t an excess of undersized lots that are unbuildable under the current zoning. It’s that those large formerly vacant and currently buildable lots are now lucratively profitable parking lots, netting profits of $100,000 a year for a small parking lot. It’s not profitable to build housing on them when the asking price is $1 million. It’s not profitable when, for little investment, they can net $100,000 a year on low tax paying parking lots.

The city should have built housing on the land when they controlled it, instead of selling it for a song. It was penny wise and pound foolish. It’s something to consider as we once again start selling off some of our most valuable resources at bargain basement prices (Fore Street Garage, Jack, golf course).

What is now called increased density was once called overcrowding. Does being packed in like sardines make for a desirable, livable city?

The solution to rebuilding Bayside and solving the affordable housing problem will not be found in increased density. It will be found when the landowners of Bayside’s buildable lots put Portland’s best interest above self-interest.

Deb Keenan

Portland

DELUSIONAL BRUDNOY

Mr. David Brudnoy, I read your blistering little article “The case for Israel” in the May 24 issue of the Portland Phoenix and you write at the end of paragraph three: “These last (anti-Semites) are oblivious to Martin Luther King Jr.’s acute, unapologetic observation that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.” Right away I dusted off my Everyman’s Library book club edition of the Hebrew Bible, an edition I am sure you are familiar with as well. I flipped it open to Genesis 10:21-32 where something is said about Shem, son of Noah. According to Judaic mythology, Semites are descendants of Shem. That is all descendants of Shem including Phoenicians, Babylonians, Assyrians, and Canaanites. Semitic people. They all spoke Semitic languages. Linguistic classifications are the only sensible classifications worth making where Semitism is concerned. Any ethnic or religious classification “Semitic” or “Anti-Semitism” must convey in the popular imagination of propagandists like yourself seems delusional to me.

Also, Mr. Brudnoy, I hope you or one of the Phoenix editors can explain to me just what you mean by “The ‘occupation’ of Judea and Samaria must continue until their residents begin to act like civilized adults instead of rabid juvenile delinquents routinely employed in the slaughter of innocents. Indeed, this occupation must continue until Palestinians stop teaching their children how to turn themselves into projectile human explosives.” Surely you don’t believe the state of Israel expects to pacify Palestinians in the illegally occupied territories do you? Hasn’t history demonstrated on numerous occasions how, when people are victims of apartheid, when their land is expropriated, when they are deprived of basic things like water and transportation, the right to vote, and education, they invariably fight back by whatever desperate means they can afford?

Furthermore, it would make no sense for Israel to remove Arafat from his “rancid leadership” then he might be replaced by some intelligent statesman like Saeb Erekat or Hanna Ashrawi, someone the Knesset couldn’t manipulate nearly as well.

Martin Shields

Portland

---