Washington

September 14, 2013 — Northeast fishermen whose businesses have been gutted by government regulations go to Washington seeking relief. Fox News Channel's Griff Jenkins speaks with the Northeast Seafood Coalition's VIto Giacalone in Washington for "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren."

 
Watch the video from Fox News

September 13, 2013 — He had already finished preparing his testimony last week for the congressional committee on the re-authorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act when the National Research Council report on rebuilding fish stocks fell into his lap like manna from heaven.

With that, Gloucester’s Vito Giacalone went to Washington with a little more credibility in his Wednesday testimony before the House Committee on Natural Resources.

“I thought (the NRC report) was notable enough to take up a portion of my five minutes,” Giacalone said Thursday of his testimony. “Who cares what ‘Guido’ has to say? They want to know what the NRC has to say.”

Clearly, the committee wanted to hear exactly what Giacalone had to say, both as a long-time commercial fisherman and as policy director for the Gloucester-based Northeast Seafood Coalition.

But it also didn’t hurt the coalition’s cause that many of the conclusions of the recently released NRC report dovetailed nicely with what Giacalone wanted to impart to the committee members — particularly on issues related to scientific uncertainty and the need for more flexibility in managing stocks.

“The basic management strategy set forth in (Magnuson-Stevens) places demands on science that far exceed its capacity in the case of Northeast groundfish,” Giacalone testified. “In many ways, it feels like our fishery is the poster child for their findings and recommendations.”

The NRC report’s findings, which also complimented NOAA in its efforts to rebuild U.S. fish stocks, highlighted the limitations of the science used in the rebuilding and questioned the value of the 10-year timelines imposed by Magnuson-Stevens.

Read the full story at the Gloucester Daily Times

SEAFOOD.COM NEWS [Seafoodnews.com] — September 12, 2013 — In Congressional testimony on Monday, NOAA Acting Assistant Adminstrator for Fisheries Sam Rauch repsonded to the the latest NRC report calling for more flexibility in stock rebuilding timelines. A portion of his comments are below:

"We've heard concerns from stakeholders that the 10-year rebuilding timeline may be arbitrary and too restrictive. In response to these concerns and similar concerns expressed by Members of Congress, in 2011 NOAA commissioned the National Academy of Sciences` National Research Council (NRC) to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of success in stock rebuilding and identification of changes made to fisheries management in response to rebuilding requirements. NOAA asked the NRC to study seven topics related to rebuilding to help us and the Councils better construct efficient and effective rebuilding plans.

The NRC rebuilding study was released on September 5, 2013. We are thankful for the in-depth and forward-looking review provided by the NRC, and at present we are carefully analyzing the report`s details. The timing of the report fits nicely with our work to revise National Standard 1 Guidelines. Since the guidelines were last updated in 2009, a number of issues regarding the application of the guidelines have been identified by stakeholders and managers, and these issues may warrant revisions. An Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published on May 3, 2012 to solicit public input, and several report findings reflect possible revisions to the guidelines similar to those currently being considered by NMFS. At this time, NMFS would like to acknowledge a few aspects of the report:

— From the NRC`s assembly of technical results from all rebuilding plans, we are pleased to see that rebuilding plans are effective at increasing stock abundance, especially when fishing mortality is quickly reduced below overfishing levels.

— The report identifies several challenges with implementation of rebuilding plans that are based upon specific biomass targets and rebuilding timeframes. They note that more flexible rebuilding plans could be based on strict requirements to keep fishing mortality rates at about 75 percent of the overfishing limit.

— The report notes that some rebuilding plans have had large social and economic consequences in order to rebuild to specific biomass levels in fixed time frames but that the economic consequences had rebuilding not occurred are difficult to determine. Continued investments in social and economic data collection and analysis will inform the process of developing future rebuilding plans.

— The report`s investigation of ecosystem factors includes a general finding about the complexity of ecosystems and the challenges of making specific forecasts, especially over longer- term time frames. NMFS is keenly interested in increasing the linkage between ecosystem/environmental factors and fish stock assessments and forecasts. The FY 2014 President`s Budget Request includes a $10 million increase for NOAA to fund research on the impacts of climate on fisheries with a focus on the Northeast groundfish region and NOAA has a variety of activities underway to understand climate impacts on marine ecosystems and increase the use of this information in management of fisheries resources.

Conclusion

The Magnuson-Stevens Act has galvanized the United States` efforts to end overfishing in federally managed fisheries, rebuild stocks, and ensure conservation and sustainable use of our marine fisheries. Fishery harvests in the United States are scientifically monitored, regionally managed, and legally enforced under 10 strict national standards of sustainability. But we did not get here overnight. Our Nation`s journey toward sustainable fisheries has evolved over the course of over 35 years.

In 2007, Congress gave NOAA and the Councils a clear mandate, new authority, and new tools to achieve the goal of sustainable fisheries within measurable timeframes. Notable among these were the requirements for annual catch limits and accountability measures to prevent, respond to, and end overfishing.

We are seeing progress in our effort to end overfishing and rebuild stocks. Both the number of stocks subject to overfishing and the number of stocks that are overfished are at an all-time low. This progress has been due to the collaborative involvement of our U.S. commercial and recreational fishing fleets and their commitment to science-based management, improving gear technologies, and application of best-stewardship practices. These rebuilt fish stocks have often resulted in improved revenues, helping sustain fishing communities.

While we are seeing progress and realizing benefits in some fisheries, we recognize that challenges remain. Looking ahead, we must continue to increase the quality and quantity of scientific data, continue progress made to address overfishing and rebuild stocks, and better address the difficult transitions that can come with management changes leading to more biologically and economically sustainable fishery resources.

It is also increasingly important that we better understand ecosystem and habitat factors, including climate change, and incorporate them into our stock assessments and management decisions, because resilient ecosystems and habitat form the foundation for robust fisheries and robust economies.

It is important to take time to reflect on where we have been to understand where we are. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides flexibility in adapting management plans to the life history differences among species and nuances of particular fisheries, as well as to the unique regional and operational differences among fisheries and in the fishing communities they support.

NOAA supports the collaborative and transparent process embodied in the Councils, as authorized in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and strongly believes that all viable management tools should continue to be available as options for the Councils to consider when developing management programs.

Together with our partners, we continue to explore alternative approaches that will produce the best available information to incorporate into management. We had productive discussions at the recent Managing Our Nation's Fisheries Conference, and we will continue to engage with our stakeholders. We are also thankful for having the new National Academy of Sciences study on rebuilding and will be reviewing it carefully.

Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss implementation progress of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and future efforts of reauthorization. We look forward to the discussions that will take place and will work with Congress on efforts to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

This story originally appeared on Seafood.com, a subscription site. It has been reprinted with permission.

 

September 11, 2013 — WASHINGTON — Environmental groups, the fishing industry and government agencies don't often see eye to eye, but they agree the federal law regulating fishing off America's coasts has contributed to an extraordinary rebound in marine life during the past decade.

As Congress prepares to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and Conservation Management Act, the question is whether to ease some restrictions that have helped nurse once-endangered fish populations back to healthier levels but are criticized as overly protective by recreational fishermen.

Rep. Doc Hastings, the Washington state Republican who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee, said fishery managers should have additional latitude when setting commercial and recreational catch limits, which are key to the health of the nation's multi-billion-dollar fishing industry.

“At a time when fisheries jobs and the economic activity they create are critical to keeping our coastal communities alive, it is important that we ensure the laws and regulations that govern these activities are not unnecessarily rigid,” he said during a Wednesday hearing on renewing the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

But Chris Dorsett with the Ocean Conservancy cautioned against weakening a law he says has been key to restoring internationally important ecosystems.

“Going forward, we need ideas for better management, not loopholes that undo recent successes,” he said. “Once fish stocks are depleted, there are limited options for minimizing the inevitable pain of cutting back on fishing and rebuilding populations.”

Read the full story at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

SEAFOOD.COM NEWS [Seafoodnews.com] — September 12, 2013 — Ray Hilborn, Professor, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences University of Washington was one of the people who testified at the House Committee on Natural Resources Magnuson hearing this week. Ray makes the point that we have lost sight of the original goals of Magnuson, which were to achieve jobs and economic benefits from sustainable resources, as well as protecting those resources from over use. Accordingly, he suggests that too rigid an approach to fishery management focusing exclusively on overfishing has distorted the outcome, so that while we lose perhaps 3% of total yield to continued overfishing, we lose as much as 48% of achievable yield by not fishing enough.  He calls for a rebalancing of these goals, so that we may have both sustainable fisheries, and the economic benefits that are acheivable from our resources.

The testimony is below:

Committee on House Natural Resources

September 11, 2013

Introduction

Good morning and I want to thank the members and staff for the opportunity to address this committee. My name is Ray Hilborn, I am a Professor of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences at the University of Washington. I have been studying fisheries management for over 40 years, both in the U.S. and in a number of other countries and international commissions. This has resulted in 250 peer reviewed journal articles, and several books including most recently “Overfishing: what everyone needs to know“ published by Oxford University Press.

I am not representing any group, although I do receive research funding from a wide range of foundations, NGOs, and commercial and recreational interest groups, the National Science Foundation and NOAA.

I am not here to argue for specific changes to the Magnuson- Stevens Act, rather to provide background on our growing knowledge of how fish populations behave, and how U.S. fisheries are performing.

What are our objectives?

The text of the Act begins with “To provide for the conservation and management of the fisheries, and for other purposes“, but then becomes more specific by stating that rebuilding fish stocks, ensuring conservation and protecting essential habitat are all intentions of the act. Also, the Act makes it clear that one objective is to provide for “the development of fisheries which are underutilized or not utilized . . . to assure that our citizens benefit from the employment, food supply and revenue which could be generated thereby.“

In short, the objective of the Act appears to be to provide for sustainable employment, food supply, recreational opportunity and revenue, and to achieve that, conservation of fish stocks and habitats is essential. The two specifically targeted actions are to rebuild overexploited stocks and develop fisheries on underutilized species. Yet, as I will show below, while we have reduced overfishing, one consequence has been far more underutilized fish stocks and we seem to have lost sight of the actual goals of employment, food supply, recreational opportunity and revenue.

In its annual report to Congress, NOAA reports on the status of our fisheries regarding the biological status and whether the stocks are assessed. The biological status is reported as both the number of stocks that are overfished (are at low enough abundance to reduce sustainable yield), and the number of stocks that are subject to overfishing (fished at a rate harder than would produce long term maximum sustainable yield). There is no systematic scorecard of the fisheries contribution to employment, food supply, recreational opportunity or revenue with reference to the potential contribution, or is there any evaluation of underutilization. While measuring these no doubt requires specific assumptions, there appears to be a tacit assumption among policy makers that if we prevent overfishing, we will produce something like maximum food production, employment, recreational opportunity and revenue, or at least that the greatest threat to these objectives is overfishing.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act has been quite effective at reducing overfishing so that the proportion of stocks estimated to be overfished, which the Act defines as fish stocks at lower abundance levels due to environmental factors, fishing pressure, or other factors, has declined from 38% in 2000 to 19% in 2012, and the proportion subject to overfishing declined from 33% in 1999 to 10% in 2012. The decline in the number of fish stocks subject to overfishing has largely been accomplished by major reductions in fishing pressure off the west coast, east coast and Gulf of Mexico. Alaskan fisheries were never subject to major overfishing and there has been no need to reduce fishing pressure there. Fishing pressure has declined dramatically from previous peaks; a 40% decline in the East Coast a 48% decline in the Southeast and Gulf of Mexico and a 75% decline on the West Coast. Across all U.S. fisheries where assessments are available, the exploitation rate is about 40% of what would produce maximum sustainable yield. U.S. fisheries management is now extremely conservative and while almost all attention seems to be focused on the few stocks where overfishing is occurring, we seem to be ignoring the fact that exploitation rates are now, on average, so low.

The status of stocks

The status of fish stocks can be summarized by plots that compare the biomass of the stock to the level that would produce maximum sustainable yield (called BMSY) on the X axis, and the fishing pressure compared to the level that would produce maximum sustainable yield (called FMSY) on the Y axis. Figure 1 is such a plot for US west coast stocks status as reported in NMFS stock assessments.

Each point on the graph represents one fish stock and the size of the point is proportional to the potential maximum sustainable yield for the stock if the stock was fully rebuilt. The thick cross-hairs represent the traditional target of maximum sustainable yield. In the U.S. terminology any F greater than 1.0 on the Y axis would be classified as “overfishing“ and any biomass less than 0.5 on the X axis would be classified as “overfished.“ The thin black lines are the median values of the x and y axes, showing that, on average U.S. west coast stocks are exploited at about 40% of the level that would produce maximum sustainable yield and biomass is, on average, about 130% of the biomass that would produce maximum sustainable yield. If our management objective is to produce maximum sustainable yield we are missing the target by quite a bit, hitting well below and to the right of the target.

If we combine all U.S. fisheries in a single plot we see a generally similar pattern in Figure 2, with blue representing the West Coast, green Alaska, yellow the Gulf of Mexico and S.E. Atlantic, and red the mid-Atlantic and New England. We see the most overfished stocks in the northeast.

On average, the biomass of U.S. fish stocks is above the level that would produce maximum sustainable yield and fishing pressure is much lower than would produce maximum sustainable yield. Also, the overfished stocks are generally small stocks, while the large stocks are typically fished very lightly.

Behavior of fish stocks

The modern theory of fisheries management developed in the early 20th century and by the 1950s the basic principles had been well established around the general theory that holding a stock at or near a specific biomass, often called BMSY or the biomass that produces maximum sustainable yield, was optimal. This theory and approach was written into national regulations around the world, including the original Magnuson Act, and international agreements like the Law of the Sea.

In this theory, the average sustainable yield depends upon the biomass of the stock, and sustainable yield is maximized at an intermediate stock level, usually 35-50% of what it would be in the absence of fishing. Environmental variability is acknowledged as a form of year to year noise, good years and bad years come randomly.

This view of the world has dominated our management strategies, including setting target biomass and harvest rates, and in the stock rebuilding requirements. The theory asserts that if stock biomass controls productivity, then reducing fishing pressure on stocks at low abundance allows biomass to rebuild, and stock productivity will increase as the biomass increases.

In the last two decades, the evidence has become strong that this view of the world is incorrect, and most fish stocks experience sustained periods of good times and bad times. This is often called productivity regime shifts. In a paper published in 2013 a group of us showed that for 230 fish stocks where we had long term data, 69% showed such regime shifts, and only 18% of fish stocks appeared to conform to the simple theory that biomass determines productivity. The remaining 13% of stocks showed no relationship between biomass and productivity or temporal regime shifts. We found that increases in productivity were slightly more common than declines.

If regime shifts, which are natural environmental fluctuations, are driving productivity, then reducing fishing pressure will increase the abundance of the stock, but productivity (and subsequent sustainable yield) will not increase until the regime changes. Rebuilding to former biomass may indeed be impossible unless productivity changes, regardless of reductions in fishing.

Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the relationship between fish stock abundance and productivity for cod in Iceland (figure 3), and the temporal pattern in productivity (Figure 4). It appears that there was a major drop in productivity for this cod stock in the mid 1980s (as there was for most cod in the Western Atlantic), and for the present Iceland must simply live with a less productive cod stock.

Accepting that regime shifts are common does not mean we do not need to regulate fisheries. We must always be careful not to harvest more than the production, and when regime shifts move systems from high to low productivity, the yield must decline.

Lost Yield, Jobs, Recreational Opportunity and Revenue

U.S. fisheries management has been successful at largely stopping overfishing and reducing the number of overfished stocks — but since stopping overfishing is a means to an end, not an end itself, we must ask how is the U.S. doing at producing food, jobs, recreational opportunity and revenue?

We can calculate the lost food production by comparing the long term yield under current fishing pressure with the long term yield under the fishing pressure that would produce maximum sustainable yield. We lose food production (and potential jobs, recreational opportunity and revenue) in two ways, by fishing too hard or fishing too little, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act makes specific reference to both of these in its objectives. U.S. stocks for which we have assessments have a potential sustainable yield of a little over 7 million tons per year. Under current fishing pressure the stocks that are subject to overfishing (22% of stocks) would lose, on average, 44% of their potential yield, but because these are generally small stocks it only constitutes 1-3% of the potential yield of U.S. fisheries combined. Thus overfishing has almost no impact on the long term yield of U.S. fish stocks.

In contrast, 77% of stocks are “underfished,“ that is, fished at rates less than would produce maximum sustainable yield. These stocks on average lose 55% of their potential yield, and because these are the larger fish stocks in the U.S. we are losing 30-48% of U.S. potential yield by underfishing. Further, 95% of this lost yield comes from stocks that are at or above the level that produces maximum sustainable yield. So we are losing almost all of our yield from underfishing abundant productive stocks.

We lose 1-3% of US potential yield by fishing too hard, 30-48% of potential yield by fishing too little

The major threat to sustainable jobs, food, recreational opportunity and revenue from U.S. marine fisheries is no longer overfishing, but underfishing. However, many groups, particularly some e-NGOs, are still actively pushing for less fishing pressure by giving a high priority to maintaining fish stocks at high abundance. Perhaps it is time for Congress to explicitly state the extent to which we wish to forego food, jobs, recreational opportunity and revenue in order to have more fish in the ocean either because of their intrinsic value, or as food for marine birds and mammals.

Why is fishing pressure so low? This is a question we are actively investigating but there are a number of explanations. In some cases this is due to lack of markets, but increasingly the low fishing pressure results from the layers of precautionary regulation that have been imposed to prevent overfishing.

We do know that if our national objective were to maximize the profitability of fisheries, our management targets would be less fishing pressure than that which produces maximum sustainable yield, and if we could calculate lost profit under current US fishing pressure, the loss from economic overfishing would likely be higher, and the loss from economic underfishing would be lower.

So perhaps Regional Fisheries Management Councils have explicitly reduced fishing pressure to increase profitability. Some stocks are underexploited because of lack of markets. Others are underexploited because they are subject to rebuilding plans. Many stocks are caught up in mixed stock fisheries, where healthy stocks (Georges Bank haddock) cannot be fully exploited because they are caught in conjunction with rebuilding stocks (Georges Bank cod). Finally, much of the under-exploitation comes from the layers of precaution built into the system. The fact that any stock which is fished at rates above FMSY is called “subject to overfishing“ means that we are intrinsically aiming to fall below FMSY. The consequence of that is we are losing a significant fraction of our potential yield, jobs, recreational opportunity and revenue.

Some would argue that the current low fishing pressure is necessary to rebuild overfished stocks and once all stocks are rebuilt fishing pressure can rise again. Under the current management system this will never happen because some stocks are always going to be depleted due to natural fluctuations and climate change, and, as we add annual catch limits for more minor species in a mixed stock fishery, the problem will only get worse.

In summary, U.S. fisheries policy is currently very conservative, and if our objectives are jobs, food, recreational opportunity and revenue then we should focus national legislation and management guidelines on fully exploiting the underutilized species and place less emphasis on assuring that nothing is overfished.

Layers of independent legislation

Federal fisheries are subject to a wide range of legislation including the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. Each of these imposes independent requirements that result in a set of uncoordinated regulations whose net outcome may result in a combination of lower economic benefits to the nation, and poorer conservation benefits than a coordinated management system. There is no doubt that there are tradeoffs between utilization and preservation, but the current set of regulatory mandates is putting us in a position that is far from the best set of trade-offs. I address some specific recommendations in the section below on ecosystem based management.

The 10 year rebuilding requirement

One of the most influential layers of regulation is the 10-year rebuilding requirement. This has the result of often ratcheting catches down as the 10 year time comes closer even though the stock size may be increasing. So long as it is not rebuilding on a timetable that will hit the 10-year mark, catches must be further reduced to try to make the timeline. Thus we can find decreasing allowable catches even though fish stock abundance is increasing.

The 10-year timeline was largely predicated on two assumptions, (1) that the greatest threat to benefits from the nation`s fisheries is overfishing, and (2) that there are tipping points and stocks that are overfished are in danger of not being able to recover if pushed too low. Our research has shown both of these assumptions to be false. As I showed earlier there is little loss of benefits to U.S. from overfishing, and our research also shows no evidence for tipping points. If fishing pressure is reduced stocks will recover, and the 10-year timeline will definitely speed the recovery, but it is not necessary for recovery to occur.

Annual catch limits for all species

A looming crisis is coming with requirements to set annual catch limits on all stocks. At present the management system does assessments and provides management plans for the great majority of stocks that contribute to the benefits to U.S. society, but there are many stocks that are caught in U.S. fisheries to some degree that are not a significant contribution to these benefits. We simply do not have the money and resources to collect scientific data, perform stock assessments, and manage all of these stocks. Current requirements to greatly expand the number of stocks that are assessed is resulting in highly conservative “low information“ approaches that will combine with other measures such as the 10-year rebuilding requirement to make the management system even more precautionary than it is now and further reduce benefits to the nation from fisheries. I suggest that we focus federal management on the fish stocks that are important to the nation`s food, jobs and income and not subject the hundreds of small stocks to the same process, relying on other legislation such as the Endangered Species Act to protect them.

Integrating with ecosystem based management

In my view, ecosystem based management has two major categories of actions. First is rather straightforward elimination or major reduction of by-catch, reducing fishing pressure to sustainable levels, and protection of sensitive habitats. The councils have done a good job of solving these problems. The second element is the underlying trade-off between utilization and preservation. This trade-off exists and different groups within society have different preferences on where along the range of possible trade- offs we should be. A current topic for such debate is in reduction of fisheries for forage fish. Preservation oriented NGO`s would like to see fishing for forage fish significantly reduced or eliminated in order to provide more food for other species.

Science can provide estimates of the trade-offs between utilization and conservation, but it cannot provide policy guidance on what level of trade-off we should accept. Policy makers such as Congress or the Fishery Management Councils need to provide this guidance, and at present Congress has provided it only with respect to some species through the ESA and MMPA.

The importance of predictability for recreational and commercial fisheries

Recreational and commercial fishing are both economic activities that provide jobs, income and profit to the nation, but also satisfaction and enjoyment to individuals engaged in these activities. As in most economic activities stability is desirable, sudden changes in regulations disrupts commercial supply and demand, and is highly disruptive for recreational fishing when seasons are abruptly closed and fishing opportunities are highly variable from year to year. Given natural variability and uncertainty in our management system, constancy of commercial and recreational opportunity is not possible.

Any harvest strategy effectively assigns some of the intrinsic variability to the harvest, and some of it to the stock abundance. As it happens the typical harvest strategy used to achieve biomass based reference points effectively assigns most of the variability to harvest, and attempts to reduce variability in biomass. Other policies, specifically using exploitation rate reference points, would shift more of the variability from harvest to stock biomass. Such policies typically provide for more social and economic benefit while not threatening conservation and sustainability goals.

Conclusions

U.S. citizens should be proud of our record of fisheries management, it is unrivaled for rebuilding of fish stocks, transparency of management, and quality of the science that goes into it. NOAA should be congratulated on the job it has done.

However, there has been a loss of focus on what we are trying to achieve, and sustainable jobs, recreational opportunity, and income seem to have been lost in the focus on overfishing as the threat to fisheries benefits. The reauthorization of the Magnuson- Stevens act is a time where the management system can be fine- tuned to maintain our current healthy fish stocks, but dramatically increase the benefits the citizens of the U.S. receive from those stocks.

This story originally appeared on Seafood.com, a subscription site. It has been reprinted with permission.

 

 

WASHINGTON — September 11, 2013– The following was released by the Northeast Seafood Coalition:

Today, Gloucester fisherman and Policy Director of the Northeast Seafood Coalition Vito Giacalone testified before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources for the hearing on the “Reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act” (MSA). Giacalone testified about the critical need for a stable management regime that reflects the realities of the Northeast groundfish fishery.

Giacalone’s testimony came one year after the U.S. Department of Commerce declared the Northeast groundfish fishery a “commercial fishery failure.” In Fishing Year 2013, catch limits have been dramatically reduced for key groundfish stocks that are the core of the economic engine that runs the fishery and fishing communities in the Northeast. Today, as a result of dramatic instability within the fishery, many fishermen and groundfish-dependent businesses are not only facing the loss of their business and source of income, but they are also facing the loss of their homes that have been mortgaged to support their businesses.

For nearly a decade, fishermen have adhered to strict rebuilding timeframes and targets set forth in the law, while abiding by a progressive fisheries management style that includes hard Total Allowable Catches (TACs) and a catch share system. Yet, according to Giacalone, with many stock assessments, scientists report that their abundance estimates and fishing mortality rate predictions were incorrect—often substantially incorrect—and result in retrospective overfishing.

“The current statute does not work for NE groundfish,” Giacalone’s written testimony reads. “…The basic management strategy set forth in the statute places demands on science that far exceed its capacity… I believe this is due in part to the inherent and perhaps increasing instability in the physical and biological elements of the ecosystem in which our fishery operates.”

In his written testimony, Giacalone references the recently released National Research Council’s report “Evaluating the Effectiveness of Fish Stock Rebuilding Plans in the United States,” which reflects Giacalone’s testimony that there is often a mismatch between policy makers’ expectations for scientific precision and the inherent limits of science because of data limitations and complex ecosystem dynamics.

Giacalone said the instability in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank ecosystem is due in part to rapidly changing ecological conditions and factors. He pointed out dramatic environmental changes have been seen before and fish stocks follow cycles that have no correlation to fishing mortality. Rather, he noted biological parameters beyond the control of man—including recruitment, individual growth, and natural mortality rates—play a far greater role in determining future status of groundfish stocks than regulation of fishing mortality.

With instability comes unpredictability, according to Giacalone’s written testimony. “…The current statute is founded on predictability. It depends on the ability of science to predict future levels of recruitment, growth and natural mortality, and worse, to predict exactly when those levels will occur.” These realities, Giacalone argues, were not contemplated in MSA or reflected in the National Marine Fisheries Service’s interpretations and implementation.

The Northeast groundfish fishery needs flexibility that would allow regional Councils the ability to develop tools that tailor management strategies to reflect the realities of their region and fisheries. Such tools should enable management responses that account for known volatility from scientific stock assessments, and the severe social and economic costs of pretending to know the unknowable. Additionally, Giacalone testified on the need for Congress to provide authority for regional Councils to implement alternative rebuilding strategies to achieve fundamental goals to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks. He argued, statutory tools should be implemented that can enable managers to protect fish stocks while providing a more stable fishery.

“…Scientific unpredictability and dramatic swings in perceived stock abundance have completely confounded fishery management and every aspect of our fishing industry and community. We are perilously close to losing the oldest fishery in America, which was at the core of our colonial economy four centuries and is still at the core of our communities today,” Giacalone’s testimony reads.

Giacalone concluded his testimony by emphasizing the immediate reality of the Northeast groundfish fishery: we are in the midst of a crisis that needs immediate attention. Giacalone wrote, all the long term policy improvements in the world will not matter if there are no small fishing businesses left standing when they are implemented. This fishery critically needs disaster funding to survive, as has been relentlessly championed by Senators and Representatives representing the Northeast region. Giacalone plead with members of the Committee and the full House of Representatives to support measures such as those included in the Senate FY 2014 appropriations to provide fisheries disaster assistance funding.

Read a PDF version of the press release  

Read Vito Giacalone's testimony before the House Natural Resources Committee  

 

September 10, 2013 — The National Research Council’s report on the rebuilding of U.S. fisheries released last week has provided a frenzy of we-told-you-so statements — even from those on opposite sides of the fishery management issue.

At its core, the report and it conclusions give a glimpse into the complexities of managing the nation’s fisheries in such a way that balances the needs of the commercial fishing industry while protecting fisheries and the ecosystem.

Patrick J. Sullivan, a professor at Cornell University and co-chair of the committee of scientists and researchers who contributed to the report, was asked how the report’s findings could engender so many interpretations by so many different parties involved in the fisheries management issue.

“These are very complex issues,” Sullivan said. “We want to create a livelihood and provide nutrition, all while keeping the ecosystem intact.”

The key, he said, was finding the proper balance. That might help explain why the report included morsels of positive reinforcement for parties on both sides.

Read the full story at the Gloucester Daily Times 

September 10, 2013 — The following was released by the House Committee on Natural Resources:

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

1324 Longworth House Office Building
September 11, 2013
10:00 a.m.

AGENDA

Oversight Hearing on:
“The Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act”

WITNESSES

Panel I:

Mr. Samuel Rauch
Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Dr. Patrick J. Sullivan
Co-Chair
Committee on Evaluating the Effectiveness of Stock Rebuilding Plansof the 2006 Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act
Ocean Studies Board
The National Academies

Mr. Richard B. Robins
Chairman
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council

Panel II:

Dr. Ray Hilborn
Professor
University of Washington
School of Aquatic & Fishery Sciences

Mr. Rod Moore
Executive Director
West Coast Seafood Processors Association

Mr. Vito Giacalone
Policy Director
Northeast Seafood Coalition

Mr. Jeff Deem
Recreational Fishing Alliance

Dr. John Bruno
Professor, Department of Biology
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Mr. Chris Dorsett
Director
Ecosystem Conservation Programs
Ocean Conservancy

Read the notice for the Committee meeting here

To watch the hearing live, click here

SEAFOOD.COM NEWS [Seafoodnews.com]– September 6, 2013 — A new report from the National Research Council, (Evaluating the Effectiveness of Fish Stock Rebuilding Plans in the United States ( 2013 ) requested by Congress, shows that current strict timetables and targets for rebuilding fish populations, as presently mandated under the Magnuson Act, may not be the best means for controlling overfishing.

The report says that federal efforts to rebuild depleted fish populations have been generally successful but outcomes have been mixed across fisheries; fishing pressure is still too high for some fish stocks, and others have not rebounded as quickly as plans projected.

Much of the variation in performance reflects a mismatch between the current prescriptions for rebuilding within a limited time frame and the uncertainties inherent in assessing and managing fisheries given data limitations and complex ecosystem dynamics where fishing is only one of many influences on fish populations, the report says. Because climate change and other ecological factors can also drive changes in fish stocks, rebuilding fish populations within a certain timeframe cannot be assured.

The report identifies the following strategies for accommodating these uncertainties that, while still promoting rebuilding, could lessen its short-term economic and social impacts for the fishing industry and communities:

1.  Basing rebuilding plans on monitoring and controlling fishing levels, rather than on requiring that fish populations recover to a pre-specified target size within a certain timeframe. This strategy would be less disruptive to the fisheries and less subject to uncertainty.

2.  Taking earlier action to avoid overfishing — imposing gradual limits on fishing when fish populations start to drop rather than waiting until they are overfished. This strategy could help fisheries avoid the stricter limits that come with rebuilding plans.

3.  Modifying the “mixed-stock exception” to expand the range of situations to which it could be applied. This strategy could also lessen economic impacts relative to current rebuilding plans, which often limit fishing for other healthy species in the same fishery.

About 20 percent of the U.S. fisheries that have been assessed are overfished, according to a 2012 report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In most cases, a fish stock is considered overfished when it has been depleted to half the size associated with producing “maximum sustainable yield” – in other words, the maximum, sustainable average amount of fish that can be harvested from a fishery in a year.

When fish stocks drop to an overfished level, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) – the law that regulates U.S. fisheries – requires that fishery managers implement plans that will rebuild the fish stocks, in most cases within 10 years. These rebuilding plans usually require significant restrictions on fishing for the depleted species, limits that may also affect fishing for other species in the same complex. Concerned about the economic and social impacts of these restrictions, members of Congress requested that NOAA fund a National Research Council assessment of the rebuilding plans and their associated ecological and economic effects.

The committee that wrote the report reviewed the current set of federally implemented rebuilding plans and their outcomes.

In general, restrictions on fishing included in rebuilding plans have led to growth in fish population size, the report says. Of the subset of 55 fisheries assessed by the committee, 10 are rebuilt and 5 show good progress toward rebuilding. Eleven have not shown strong progress in rebuilding but are expected to rebuild if fishing levels remain reduced, and nine continue to experience overfishing.

Recent analyses reveal that 20 of the 55 stocks were not actually overfished despite being classified as such – a finding that reveals the level of uncertainty in assessments of fish stocks and how their perceived status can change as more data become available and assessment methods change over time, the report notes. This uncertainty cuts both ways; though the number cannot be quantified, there is a high probability that some fish stocks that were classified as healthy may actually be overfished.

Much of the variation in performance of rebuilding plans reflects intrinsic limitations in the ability to estimate the size of fish stocks and to set rebuilding targets in the context of complex ecosystems where many factors that affect fish stocks are not predictable or controllable, the report says.  This, in part, explains why not all fish stocks rebuild according to the pre-set timeline generally required in rebuilding plans. For example, current plans depend on predicting how much and how fast fish populations will increase if fishing pressure is reduced to various levels. However, there is much uncertainty about how fast fish populations will grow, given the many environmental factors that can affect population size in addition to fishing.

Fishery managers could use additional management strategies to reduce and accommodate environmental variability and uncertainties of rebuilding. Currently, when rebuilding is going slower than expected, fishery managers may impose ever-stricter fishing limits in an effort to meet that deadline. If these managers could instead keep fishing at a reduced but constant level for a longer period of time, they could rebuild fish stocks while allowing higher harvest levels, alleviating some of the socio-economic impacts on the fishing industry and coastal communities.

The requirement to end overfishing for all stocks in mixed-stock fisheries has protected depleted species but has reduced fishing for healthy fish stocks in the same fishery, the report notes. The MSFCMA has a “mixed-stock exception” that offers a way to maintain fishing for healthy stocks, but it has not been invoked, in part due to the narrow range of situations under which it can be applied and also because of the complexity of the issue it is meant to address. The mixed-stock exception could be modified to expand the range of situations to which it could be applied, subject to assurances that the less productive species are not driven to unacceptably low levels, the report says.

Fishery managers can also work to avoid overfishing and rebuilding plans altogether by taking action earlier, the report says.  Applying prompt but gradual controls on fish harvesting as the estimated size of fish stocks falls below the Maximum Sustainable Yield level could lower the likelihood that the fish stock will become overfished, and stricter limits may not be needed.

This story originally appeared on Seafood.com, a subscription site. It has been reprinted with permission.

September 6, 2013 — 20 of 55 fish stocks examined by the research council were not actually overfished despite being classified as such by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

While overfishing is a key cause of depleted fish stocks, climate change and other ecological factors can also drive changes in fish stock populations.

Cutting back on cod fishing before the species faced disaster "would have helped, instead of waiting to the end when a huge balloon payment" of drastic fishing reductions was needed, said Patrick Sullivan, an associate professor of natural resources at Cornell University who co-chaired the research council report.

The report also takes aim at the 10-year timeline to rebuild fisheries. The time frame was mandated by Congress in the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, the law that regulates fishing in the United States. 

New England fishermen and members of Congress in the region have blamed the 10-year rebuilding requirement for drastic cuts in New England groundfish, including cod and haddock, that have failed to recover. Former Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. and former Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, requested the research council report in 2010, in part because of concerns over the 10-year rule.

Cutting back on cod fishing before the species faced disaster “would have helped, instead of waiting to the end when a huge balloon payment” of drastic fishing reductions was needed, said Patrick Sullivan, an associate professor of natural resources at Cornell University who co-chaired the research council report.

The report also takes aim at the 10-year timeline to rebuild fisheries. The time frame was mandated by Congress in the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, the law that regulates fishing in the United States.

While a fixed time-frame can help ensure rebuilding occurs at a reasonable pace, it “also can create inefficiencies in practice,” the report said. If fish recovery is slower than expected, it could lead to “severe reductions in target fishing” levels that could in turn cause economic hardship, the report said.

New England fishermen and members of Congress in the region have blamed the 10-year rebuilding requirement for drastic cuts in New England groundfish, including cod and haddock, that have failed to recover. Former Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. and former Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, requested the research council report in 2010, in part because of concerns over the 10-year rule.

Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., a longtime NOAA critic, said Thursday there are “serious flaws with the current catch share system, which are leaving our struggling fishermen without options.”

Read the full story from the Associated Press at the Washington Post