I can well understand the editor’s enthusiasm [in a May 25-26 editorial] engendered by Sen. Olympia Snowe’s support for making $5 million available in grants from the U.S. Department of Commerce for aquaculture projects emphasizing research and technology.

However, the view that “… there is a new round of federal money and this is where the advancing can really begin,” appears inconsistent with the information in the final paragraph that “This $5 million, and another $5 million available for other projects elsewhere this year, is the result of the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act of 1954…,” which “… recognized that commercial fishing was an increasingly uncertain business and so a fund was created using a portion of duties on imported fish to help American fishermen survive the inevitable downturns.” Is aquaculture commercial fishing”?

Questions arise from the rest of the editorial, the content of which suggests that $5 million will lead to a second coming for the seafood economy. One that comes to mind is the federal money – some $8 million more or less – that either has been or will be spent to reimburse a current crop of salmon farmers (some of whom are either large foreign corporations, or soon will be) for losses caused by salmon disease in Cobscook Bay alone.

Incidentally, that bay – a mere three to four months following the destruction and disposal of two million farm fish – is being restocked with another million- plus infant fish. Clearly, the cost of this single disastrous incident exceeds the total $5 million funding for “… projects emphasizing research and technology.” And, if the hastily restocked fish fall victim to infection again, what then?

The bulk of the editorial deals with the promise of a bright commercial future for the aquaculture industry – if species other than salmon are developed; if the industry is diversified; if its presence in the marketplace is expanded; and if the problems associated with single-crop farming are avoided. Tall order to fill with a $5 million bank account? And, more importantly, how does it help the American fisherman to “…survive the inevitable downturns”?

It seems to me, before striking out in diverse directions with aquaculture research and technology, we might concentrate some additional and substantial effort and resources on naturally occurring fish stocks and uses. In that effort we ought to use, to the maximum extent, the knowledge and history of the fisheries that is available from the people who have the most intimate, detailed information about them – the “working fishermen.” It’s going to take cooperation, not diversification, by federal, state and local agencies which, currently, appear to be incapable of working together or even sharing each other’s information.

Robert C. Dick lives in Castine.