Conservation Law Foundation reported on its' "CLF Scoop" website and email that Science and Statistical Committee (SSC) of the New England Fisheries Management Council rejected Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick's science and economic arguments on New England fisheries that were contained in a report and request to Commerce Secretary Gary Locke late last year after Secretary Locke visited Massachusetts and announced he was prepared to use his emergency powers to raise fishing limits. However, according to two SSC members who contributed to the Governor's report, CLF's assessment of the meeting is "premature, incomplete and inaccurate." The Conservation Law Foundation opposed the Governor's request in a formal letter to the Secretary of Commerce last November.
Peter Shelley, CLF Senior Council reported the following:
"The SSC did not agree with any of the science-related assertions in the MFI report. In their discussion, they noted a number of places where the conclusions were based on faulty premises or ignored widely recognized issues that the scientists who had developed the original catch limit recommendations had addressed when they set the limits."
"They concluded that the stock assessment and catch specification process was fully consistent with best scientific practices, that there was no “double counting” of uncertainty or risk, and that the annual catch limits could not be increased without increasing, in some cases significantly, the risk of meeting the conservation objectives of the New England Council and the federal statute that controls harvest, the Magnuson-Stevens Act."
"In their brief economic review, the SSC rejected the analysis and conclusions from the MFI report. Aside from noting that it was questionable to draw economic or social conclusions from a new management plan that had only been in effect for six months, the SSC noted that the report misrepresented $21 million of theoretical losses as actual losses and did not account for the revenues from the numerous other species that groundfishermen pursue in addition to the groundfish species. A number of SSC members also indicated that comparisons to the 2009 fishing year were not proper since the scientists had all concluded that the 2009 catch limits were set significantly too high for many species. The SSC agreed by and large that the economics of the new fishery plan looked positive for the first year, and provided no evidence of an economic crisis."
Dr. Dan Georgianna, an SSC member who is also UMass Dartmouth Chancellor Professor of Economics:
"Mr. Shelley is lobbying the public to agree with his views, and not accurately presenting the results from the meeting. His statements can not be based on the recommendations of the SSC because they are currently being drafted by the SSC. Many of his statements are inaccurate. For example, his statement that 'The SSC agreed by and large that the economics of the new fishery plan looked positive for the first year' is simply not true."
Dr. Steve Cadrin, an SSC member who is a professor of Fisheries Oceanography at the UMass School for Marine Science & Technology, and president-elect of the American Institute of Fisher Research Biologists stated:
"Mr. Shelley’s summary of the SSC’s conclusions is premature, incomplete and inaccurate. The press release jumps the gun, because the SSC’s report is still in process. Although some draft statements were presented, the consensus document is still in development. There was a diversity of expert opinions among SSC members that still need to be reconciled. I trust that Mr. Shelly isn’t involved in producing the SSC report and cannot know the final conclusions or recommendations."
"Unfortunately, the draft statements considered at the meeting were mostly defensive, which should have been expected from the terms of reference for the meeting. The terms asked the same committee who made recommendations in 2009 to judge the appropriateness of their own decisions. Despite the narrow-minded and backward-looking terms for the meeting, there was some support for the scientific information in the MFI report, and Mr. Shelly appears to have heard only what he wanted to hear."
"The statement that “'the SSC did not agree with any of the science-related assertions in the MFI report” appears to be wishful thinking. The draft statements presented by the SSC at the meeting included some agreement with conclusions in the MFI report; for example further consideration is needed of the risk and management implications of Fmsy proxies, retrospective adjustments and 25% buffers on a stock-by-stock basis. The SSC also discussed more creative solutions to the groundfish problems, such as applying the ‘mixed-stock exemption.’ Experience from the New Zealand catch share system was discussed, in which mixed-stock catches were eventually optimized, … coincidentally, by increasing the catch limits on choke stocks – exactly what the MFI report concluded."
"I’m not aware of any "faulty premises" that were identified by the SSC. Although the SSC defended the catch limits because over-precaution was not intended, some SSC members stated that Fmsy proxies were deliberately ‘precautionary,’ and retrospective adjustments may have over-compensated for the problem. Although Mr. Shelly has been touting increased revenues in the groundfish fishery as a measure of success, the SSC draft statements did not agree that 'by and large that the economics of the new fishery plan looked positive for the first year, and provided no evidence of an economic crisis.'"
"The MFI partners agree that it is time to move on to improve the management of New England fisheries, but we won’t get far if we’re focused on defending past decisions and rejecting viable solutions."
Read the CLF report on the SSC meeting.
Read the letter from the CLF to Secretary Locke from last November.