Anyway, this guy's out $1,100,000 in expected business earnings, because apparently if you wanted BP to pay for losses you had to stay open and eat the costs of doing so:
"In order to apply for payment, you had to keep your business open so you could help mitigate the final cost, so that meant I had to keep staff and pay operating expenses through the end of the year," Lambert said. "But after all that, I'm still out $904,000 in lost income."
He said he was told he should apply again to be made whole.
Another interesting point from the article is the belief that the seafood there is safe to eat - a statement backed up by the FDA, as well - but that there is an (understandable) stigma about fishing there, and it's that stigma that is really what's costing his business.
"The attitude outside this area is that everything here is contaminated," he said. "I've done something like 15 TV shows since the spill, and the guys doing the shows tell me people ask them, 'Why are you going fishing down there -- you can't eat the fish.'
"The only out-of-state bookings I'm getting are old customers who just want to show their support."
What about those of us who don't want to contribute to the further loss of sea life? Perhaps it's less about reputation and more about not eating the fish that have managed to survive the disaster, at least until the area has recovered sufficiently.
Though, I have to wonder - if BP is willing to shaft small and medium-sized businesses by lying to them about repayment for damages caused, who's to say that they don't have enough influence on the FDA - either directly through political pressure, or indirectly by bribing safety researchers - to get them to give potentially contaminated food the green light?