Saving Seafood

NOAA to monitor 15 percent of fish trips

January 29, 2018 — Groundfishermen can expect to have at-sea monitors aboard 15 percent of all sector trips in 2018, representing a very slight decline from the groundfish sector coverage rates in place for the current fishing season.

The question now is whether NOAA Fisheries will find money to reimburse groundfishermen for their at-sea monitoring costs as the agency has in the past two seasons.

In 2017, NOAA reimbursed groundfishermen for 60 percent of their at-sea monitoring expenses — estimated at about $710 per day per vessel — which was down significantly from the 85 percent reimbursement provided fishermen in 2016, the first year the industry was responsible for funding at-sea monitoring.

“We await the enactment of a final Fiscal Year 2018 appropriations bill to determine what funding may be available for the upcoming fishing season,” NOAA Fisheries said in the statement announcing the 2018 at-sea monitoring targets.

The 2018 at-sea monitoring target, established by using at-sea monitoring data from the past three full groundfishing seasons, represents a 1 percent decline from 2017 levels of 16 percent of all groundfish sector trips and a 1 percent increase over the percentage of 2016 sector trips.

“The total monitoring coverage, ultimately, should provide confidence that the overall catch estimate is accurate enough to ensure that sector fishing activities are consistent (with federal national standards) to prevent overfishing while achieving on a continuing basis optimum yield from the fishery,” according to NOAA Fisheries’ summary of the analysis used to set the coverage rate.

Some sector trips are excluded from the new coverage target rate.

“Those using gillnets with 10-inch or greater mesh in Southern New England and Inshore Georges Bank are excluded from the ASM requirement due to their low catch of groundfish species,” NOAA Fisheries said. “This further reduces the portion of sector trips subject to industry-funded monitoring and better focuses monitoring resources.”

The New England Fishery Management Council is scheduled to discuss industry-funded, at-sea monitoring on Tuesday, the first day of its two-day meetings next week in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

Read the full story at the Gloucester Times

 

Massachusetts: A day at sea: Cod, skate, discards and an observer

January 29, 2018 — It’s cold, dark and slippery at 2 a.m. at the Gloucester pier, and as most people are in bed or just going home from a late night out, Capt. Al Cottone is trying to start his engine and prepare his fishing vessel, the Sabrina Maria, for a day out at sea.

The Sabrina Maria is a member of Gloucester’s day fishing fleet, now hovering around 12 boats of what used to be a much larger contingent. This morning Cottone is taking the 42-foot trawler out around Stellwagen Bank, about 15 miles southeast of Gloucester, to trawl for cod, haddock and other groundfish as he skims the coast.

It’s a calm Friday in week of days of snow and freezing rain. Cottone and other fishermen have few good weather days in winter to fish, so they take advantage of whatever clear and calm days they can.

“In the wintertime you sometimes go two-week stretches without going out with the weather,” Cottone said. “Small boats have limitations.” An icy deck, big waves, a false step or slip and Cottone would be in the water with no one to pull him back on deck. He cannot afford a first mate or deckhand, and usually fishes alone.

“The days you fish, you save your money,” said Cottone. No fish means no money. “The winters are usually tough. Once the weather breaks, usually in the spring, you work harder and you make up for it.”

The weather is not all Cottone has to deal with. He also has to deal with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). It controls what he and other fishermen can catch, how they must catch it, and how much they can bring back. It’s called the quota.

On this trip Cottone catches well over a thousand pounds of skate fish, but because of quota limitations is only allowed to bring in 500 pounds. The rest is thrown back overboard, mostly dead from being out of the water and in the frigid air for so long.

Cottone also has to deal with and pay for NOAA observers on his boat.

“Once federal at-sea observers became a reality, they added further insult to injury when they forced fishermen to pay for it,” Mayor Sefatia Romeo Theken said. “If they created the mandate for these observers, they should pay for them to go out with their own money instead of shifting the costs to those that are most vulnerable.”

Last week, NOAA announced groundfishermen such as Cottone can expect to have at-sea monitors aboard 15 percent of all trips boats in their sectors take in 2018. Still in the air is whether NOAA Fisheries will find money to reimburse the groundfishermen for any of their at-sea monitoring costs as the agency has in the past two seasons. In 2017, NOAA reimbursed groundfishermen for 60 percent of their at-sea monitoring expenses — estimated at about $710 per day per vessel — which was down significantly from the 85 percent reimbursement provided fishermen in 2016, the first year the industry was responsible for funding at-sea monitoring.

Read the full story at the Gloucester Times

 

Cape fishermen reap benefits of monitoring program

November 13, 2017 — CAPE COD, Mass. — With fleets on the West Coast and in Alaska, members of the East Coast swordfishing and herring fleets and 20 New England groundfishermen all using cameras to record their fishing, the technology is gaining ground as a fisheries management tool, including off Cape Cod.

This year, Cape fishermen — pioneers of the movement in New England — working with the Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen’s Alliance, along with members of the Maine Coast Fishermen’s Association, are set to reap some unexpected benefits for their willingness to play guinea pig: greater access to Atlantic bluefin tuna, one of the most valuable fish in the sea.

This was the second year the fishing activity of Mike Russo and his crew was recorded by cameras as voluntary participants in a program to replace costly human fishery observers. Instead of occasionally carrying an observer — at-sea-monitors are only required on 16 percent of all groundfish trips — Russo and other local fishermen volunteered for electronic monitoring on 100 percent of their trips.

“It’s proving that we are responsible stewards of the ocean, that we are fishing in a responsible way within the laws set out for us,” said Nick Muto, who fishes out of Harwich and Chatham and carries three of the cameras on his vessel.

A 2016 report by The Nature Conservancy showed that in 2015, 92 percent of videos were good enough for technicians to get catch and discard data and weight and length estimates, up from 23 percent in 2013, as crews and researchers learned to work with the system. Christopher McGuire, marine program manager for the conservancy, expects the development of video recognition software that will automate data gathering is imminent and will greatly reduce the cost of electronic monitoring.

Read the full story at Cape Cod Times

Artificial Intelligence for Fisheries Monitoring

October 23, 2017 — Right now, fewer than one in five ground fishing trips in New England is monitored by an independent observer.

Fishermen say it’s too expensive, and unfair to ask them to pay the cost. The Nature Conservancy is experimenting with an alternative: video monitoring systems, and computer algorithms that could identify fish being caught and thrown overboard on every trip.

Read and listen to the full story at WCAI

David Goethel: NOAA Fisheries rule should alarm taxpayers

October 16, 2017 — NOAA Fisheries has discovered a devious way to increase their budget without the checks and balances guaranteed by our forefathers, and the courts have let it stand.

I have been involved in a lawsuit with NOAA Fisheries over who pays for at-sea monitors (ASM) for the last three years. These are basically our own personal state police men who ride along on the boat and watch and record everything fishermen do at sea. Fishermen have been forced to sign contracts with for-profit third-party companies that provide this service for $710 per day. Recently, the Supreme Court refused to hear our case, effectively ending our pursuit of justice. Readers should be concerned, not only because this job-killing regulation effects their ability to obtain local seafood, but also because the loss leaves in place a precedent that will allow regulatory agencies to tax citizens by passing regulations while bypassing Congress.

Readers should forget most of what they learned in civics class and anything they see on courtroom television. You do have equal access to justice but it comes at a very high price. Taking this case through the legal system probably cost in excess of half a million dollars. Regulatory agencies make shrewd calculations about who can afford to sue over an action. They assume large corporations and environmental non-government organizations (NGOs) will sue and regulations are tailored accordingly. Absent a group like Cause of Action (COA) providing pro-bono counsel to someone like me, I and by extension ordinary citizens, are effectively blocked from seeking justice by the cost.

Read the full op-ed at Foster’s Daily Democrat

Groundfishermen: ‘It feels like we’re just forgotten’

October 16, 2017 — HAMPTON, New Hampshire — New Hampshire fishermen say temporary federal aid for at-sea monitor coverage is barely holding their industry afloat now that a court battle over the cost appears to have ended.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is currently covering 60 percent of the cost for third-party at-sea monitors to observe commercial groundfishermen’s compliance with federal regulations. That coverage is projected to end May 1, 2018, when fishermen will be expected to cover the entire cost, according to NOAA spokeswoman Allison Ferreira. Groundfish include New England seafood staples like cod and haddock.

Hampton fisherman David Goethel said he would probably sell his boat and stop fishing if NOAA stops funding its portion of the cost. He and other fishermen filed a federal suit arguing it was unfair for fishermen to pay for monitors required by NOAA. Judges at the district and circuit court levels ruled the fishermen filed the suit too late to be considered on its merits, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition to have the case heard this month.

Read the full story at Fosters’s Daily Democrat

After Supreme Court ruling, fight over at-sea monitoring costs may head to Congress

October 10, 2017 — Despite a recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, a New Hampshire fisherman pledges to continue his fight against having to pay for monitors to accompany them while at sea.

When the court opened its new term last Monday, 2 October, it decided against hearing David Goethel’s case against the U.S. Department of Commerce, allowing the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruling to stand. The Hampton fisherman filed suit in December 2015, about nine months after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced it would begin passing the costs of the monitoring program to the fishermen.

The monitoring costs more than USD 700 (EUR 596.03) per day, a price that Goethel and officials from the Northeast Fishery Sector 13 claim is too steep.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

High court declines to hear fishing monitor case

Fisherman: Justices ruled on technicalities, not merits

October 3, 2017 — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear New Hampshire fisherman David Goethel’s case that challenged the federal government’s ability to force commercial fishermen to pay the costs of at-sea monitoring.

The rejection by the Supreme Court is the third defeat suffered by Goethel and co-plaintiff South Dartmouth-based Northeast Fishing Sector XIII since they first sued NOAA Fisheries and other federal officials in December 2015 in U.S. District Court in New Hampshire.

The court’s rejection closes the door on this particular legal challenge of the government’s right to impose the cost of at-sea monitoring on commercial fishermen, as the Supreme Court also declined to remand the case back to a lower court.

“The Supreme Court was our last judicial hope to save the centuries-old New England industry,” Goethel said in a statement.

Later, in an interview, Goethel let loose against what he said is the “stacked deck” of standing up to regulators, as well as his frustration with the justice system.

“We had three chances and not once was our case decided on the merits,” Goethel said. “I’m bitterly disappointed with the government and I’m bitterly disappointed with the justice system. At each step of the way, our fate was decided by a technicality without ever having a hearing on the merits of the case.”

Read the full story at the Gloucester Times

MASSACHUSETTS: Gov. Baker: Carlos Rafael windfall should fund electronic monitoring

September 20, 2017 — BOSTON — The conviction of New Bedford fishing mogul Carlos “The Codfather” Rafael was a black stain on the iconic Massachusetts seafaring industry.

But Gov. Charlie Baker is urging restitution that some believe could help turn rotten fish into sushi.

Baker, in a letter to federal fishing regulators late last month, sided with a dozen state lawmakers and local officials who are urging the proceeds from the forfeiture of Rafael’s fishing fleet and any financial penalties tied to his case to be used to pay for electronic catch monitoring.

The money to pay for monitoring would relieve a major financial pressure on the state’s fishermen who have to pay for at-sea monitors who ensure compliance with catch-quotas designed to protect the health of groundfish stock.

“This is the best way to provide some level of restitution to the industry that Mr. Rafael harmed through his crimes. While I recognize that these funds would not cover the entire cost of monitoring, it is our hope that a fully funded program could be developed in the near future,” Baker wrote.

The governor also requested that the groundfish permits associated with the 13 boats Rafael will forfeit as a result of his guilty plea in March be redistributed to eligible permit holders in the Massachusetts fleet. Some from neighboring coastal states have advocated for the permits to be more widely disseminated.

Read the full story from State House News Service at the Gloucester Times

JIM KENDALL: Even ‘smart’ video monitoring is onerous to fishermen

August 23, 2017 — I would like to make several observations regarding Michael Bonner’s Aug. 21 article, “Delegation supports Rafael’s forfeiture toward electronic monitoring.”

First of all, state legislators’ support for utilizing the forfeiture to fund the electronic monitoring (surveillance), presupposes that this form of electronic monitoring will be supported and adopted. It surely does not seem to be the favored choice of monitoring, as far as the groundfish industry is concerned. In fact, they are not in favor of any form of monitoring that has been proposed to date.

I know that many of those in the NMFS/NOAA or the conservation industry would claim that my last statement is an expected response from someone who is either in the fishing industry or who supports their way of life. However, show me someone who would like to have basically every minute of their working life surveilled and overseen by “Big Brother,” or anyone else, for that matter.

As an American, you are considered innocent until proven otherwise, but in this case, you are expected to bear the additional burden and costs of video surveillance, along with the costs of the already-imposed vessel tracking systems. The fishing vessel crews already have the considerable burden of paying for the tracking systems that monitor their positions on (at least) an hourly basis. The vessel tracking systems are now a precondition that must be met, endured and paid for by the fishermen if they wish to obtain a permit to fish in almost any of the current local fisheries.

NOAA fisheries Regional Administrator John Bullard (soon to be retiring) is quoted as saying that he thinks that video monitoring is a major benefit to the industry. I’m not sure who he thinks he’s going to convince with that statement. Surely not the fishing industry. If that were the case, New Hampshire fisherman David Goethel likely would not be requesting that this “benefit” be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read the full letter at the New Bedford Standard-Times