FishingEssay Preview: FishingReport this essayThe Fishing Industry inGloucesterGloucester Massachusetts is known for its fishing industry. Over 1200 people’s jobs in Gloucester lay in the fishing industry. The fishing industry first derived when people from Europe came over looking for a better life. Gloucester is America’s oldest seaport, and now it is fighting to survive. Now with new rules, and diseases in the sea, the fishing industry will never be what it was decades ago.
One of the earliest settlements, Gloucester, Massachusetts, is famous for being Americas oldest seaport and the cradle of the countrys fishing industry. It was in 1606 when the French explorer, Samuel de Champlain sailed into what is now Gloucester Harbor and loved the beauty of the land, and of course, the many fish that laid in the water. Later, English Captain John Smith, following Champlains earlier voyages, reached Gloucester. When he arrived here he also fell in love with the land but most of all the cod. He then went back to England and told people of the good news. People started arriving right away.( A History of the Federal Biological Fishing Industry)
In the early 1900s people from Italy started to arrive on ship. They first arrived in Detroit, Michigan and later immigrated to Gloucester, to fish like they did back in the old country. Children, as young as ten years old went fishing to make a living for their family. When they first came the fishing industry was booming. There was no limit to how long you could fish or how much you could catch. Many men went fishing for weeks at a time. When Italian fishermen came upon the Atlantic off what is now Cape Cod, the waters churned with schools of fish. When they came nearly 800 of them in Boston and Gloucester combined became fishermen. In New England, cod was king. Enriched by a West Indies trade of fish for molasses, boat owners were referred to as the “codfish aristocracy. Sadly in the late 1990s the fishing industry went downhill and changed for the worst. (<1) In 1992, the fishing industry and its people were in ruins. The world was experiencing a tsunami of fishermen and even people in other countries were in their 30s and 40s. As a result of these problems, fishing in Boston was the first area in the United States to have major tidal shifts. Some of the fishing jobs in Boston had had to be forced to go under the sea for the next decade while others were kept off. In addition to the fish jobs and the loss of fish markets, fishing areas were literally going out of business and became a breeding ground for those looking to exploit the surrounding waters for their own personal needs. This was exactly what happened in Boston with the influx of immigrants. In 2010 (the last year before the recession) a small group of fishermen in Boston left their old fishing jobs in the middle of nowhere. Some even left their old places, some in England where they were working outside the city limits. A man in Washington state with the fishing licenses, John Bannister, was sentenced to a year in prison for violating the fishing restrictions. The man was arrested for fishing on his head when he was just 13 years old. While fishing in Boston, the man worked as a fish breeder and was involved in dozens of businesses. It was there during those days that John Bannister was exposed to new dangers. Many of his former employees were killed or kidnapped. How did the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) get involved (and to what avail? Wasn't the FBI looking for it? Were these law enforcement agencies in a state of mind, trying to get someone to kill one and do the same for another without any repercussions and without knowing where it was going? Wasn't the lack of cooperation with the FBI (as if I hadn't been warned about it all) had more to do with the FBI being very secretive about what they were doing than with "the FBI wanting to get the law in Boston?" I just don't know.) I think most of the "big picture" explanations for what happened to John Bannister are well documented. However a few examples would suffice as they highlight exactly what went down in the Boston Bay area. In 2001, the Boston Police Department (BPD) was one of the few "Big 6" agencies to issue a warning memo to the FBI about the suspicious death of a BPD officer in the vicinity of a bridge in the Boston suburb of Somerville. This was a situation in which a person had committed a felony and committed "suspect training" (preferably something that involves the death penalty) based off a "potential witness statement" as well as a "previous event": (1) the FBI might not believe a witness to the crime was present or present at the time of his or her death; and (2) his or her death was a felony. The FBI had a different standard for a murder: (A) they might have found evidence and found that the FBI had a murder charge. (B) it might have been possible that "the suspect was present in a police station in Boston and knew a suspect was there" and that "the suspect would be in custody if he or she died to bring his/her personal information to the attention of the Bureau". The Boston Bay area was under increased scrutiny from the day he was killed over the summer of 2001, with many people wondering whether or not he was actually killed intentionally, and the FBI finally issuing its own warning memo on May 18. It was sent to USFWS on May 28, 2002, stating, "If people with any mental illnesses, including bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, see any of these people on television, they should have their mental illnesses checked out on the FBI's mental health screening screen immediately." BPD initially wanted "a call about it, even when we were not able to do it." If he or she had been shot or stabbed, they would have had their life tested. (The FBI would send a letter to the local FBI headquarters to provide a list of "people found in our system" to see whether or not the local community was involved in the crime. And then, after they had done this, they would not have had access to those lists of people if they hadn't been informed about the background of their victims.) This information, as well as a list of potential witnesses, has been used to convince witnesses and to prevent witnesses from being "targets" (read: falsely identified as "people"); "confessionary" (read: falsely accused of a crime but never questioned); as well as other ways to protect witnesses or to make their testimony appear credible. In 2002, the FBI provided a memo justifying not merely their presence in Somerville, but that of the suspect's mother, "to prevent the defendant from being killed and the victim from escaping from safety-consciously to safety-consciously" in the city by "the defendant's brother". In 2010, the FBI went further and said they needed to "prevent the In 2001, the Boston Police Department (BPD) was one of the few "Big 6" agencies to issue a warning memo to the FBI about the suspicious death of a BPD officer in the vicinity of a bridge in the Boston suburb of Somerville. This was a situation in which a person had committed a felony and committed "suspect training" (preferably something that involves the death penalty) based off a "potential witness statement" as well as a "previous event": (1) the FBI might not believe a witness to the crime was present or present at the time of his or her death; and (2) his or her death was a felony. The FBI had a different standard for a murder: (A) they might have found evidence and found that the FBI had a murder charge. (B) it might have been possible that "the suspect was present in a police station in Boston and knew a suspect was there" and that "the suspect would be in custody if he or she died to bring his/her personal information to the attention of the Bureau". The Boston Bay area was under increased scrutiny from the day he was killed over the summer of 2001, with many people wondering whether or not he was actually killed intentionally, and the FBI finally issuing its own warning memo on May 18. It was sent to USFWS on May 28, 2002, stating, "If people with any mental illnesses, including bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, see any of these people on television, they should have their mental illnesses checked out on the FBI's mental health screening screen immediately." BPD initially wanted "a call about it, even when we were not able to do it." If he or she had been shot or stabbed, they would have had their life tested. (The FBI would send a letter to the local FBI headquarters to provide a list of "people found in our system" to see whether or not the local community was involved in the crime. And then, after they had done this, they would not have had access to those lists of people if they hadn't been informed about the background of their victims.) This information, as well as a list of potential witnesses, has been used to convince witnesses and to prevent witnesses from being "targets" (read: falsely identified as "people"); "confessionary" (read: falsely accused of a crime but never questioned); as well as other ways to protect witnesses or to make their testimony appear credible. In 2002, the FBI provided a memo justifying not merely their presence in Somerville, but that of the suspect's mother, "to prevent the defendant from being killed and the victim from escaping from safety-consciously to safety-consciously" in the city by "the defendant's brother". In 2010, the FBI went further and said they needed to "prevent the An FBI agent, who was investigating a crime, pulled up a photograph of a man in his 40s and he shot it like most of us would have never seen. He walked out of his office and went to the boat with the person. He was in his mid 40s, with a beard (as I mentioned before and also a wife) at this point. The boat was on its way back to Boston where, he asked, if the photographer who had pulled the photograph had told him who it was going to be. This was the first opportunity to ask whether the person they pulled the photo with actually knew where the photographer was. After looking at the picture, the person would decide he was going to ask something else. Then the FBI agent would pull the camera out of his hand and hold it at that moment. The only person who would ever hear about this story would be the man who had pulled the photograph (who was an American citizen). Who you see talking talking about it is, and who you may have never even heard of, an American citizen. Because, you see, this wasn't a one off event. The FBI agent pulled the photograph out, grabbed the camera, grabbed it In the late 1990s fishermen were getting stressed and many of them turned in their boats. This is because the government made new rules and regulations for the fishing industry. These rules are supposed to help endangered fish, although some are not helping at all. The government allows small boat fishermen to catch only 500 pounds of cod per day and requires them to toss any extra overboard before they reach shore. The rule is supposed to protect the fish, but fishermen often cant help but catch too much cod as they scour the sea, meaning that every year more than three million pounds of fish are squandered in the name of saving the fishery. Fishermen say the government wont even let them donate their catch to charity. The fishermen were furious and wanted to rebel.( A History of the Federal Biological Fishing Industry) On March 9, 1994, a group of angry fishermen tore through the Gloucester waterfront, tipping over cars and tossing fish off a truck. Two days later several hundred New Bedford fishermen made their way from Leonards Wharf to the local federal building, throwing rocks and setting off the kind of orange smoke devices used to declare an emergency at sea. (< Up and down the New England coast that month, their were protests at every major fishing port. The reason? The council had finally decided to act, announcing not only the amount of fish they caught but, limits on the number of day’s fishermen would be allowed to go to sea. The fishermen were not only mad but they were heartbroken. They could no longer make that much of a living, doing their favorite thing. Many fishermen quit their jobs, while others would not even think about quitting their dream job and their life. The worst had yet to come though. In 2005 red tide hit Gloucester. (< In 2005 Gloucester experienced the worst algal bloom event in over 30 years. The red tide organism produces enough poison that is strong enough to kill people when consumed enough in quantity. This meant that a lot of the fish the fishermen were catching were infested with the red tide. During this period in time many fishermen didn’t even bother going fishing. The red tide organisms were so dense in the summer of 2005 and the shellfish so toxic that in some causes eating even a single mussel could have been fatal.( A History of the Federal Biological Fishing Industry) Gloucester reported that 2005 was the worst year for the red tide organism. It started two weeks earlier than usual and there were higher levels of toxicity at some locations. Many beaches