Saving Seafood

Lawsuit alleges government colluded with sportfishing sector on red snapper

October 19, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Three additional documents have emerged as part of the lawsuit filed against the US Commerce Department that appear to show an intent to end-run normal channels of public comment and regulated processes for regional council activities, only to serve the needs of the sportfishing industry.

The lawsuit, filed by Ocean Conservancy and the Environmental Defense Fund last July, focused on mismanagement of the Gulf Red Snapper fishery, but documents released last week show the recreational industry expects a level of allowance that flies in the face of the legal requirements of the Magnuson Stevens Act, and the processes for managing fisheries that is contained within it.

The documents are part of a 70-page package submitted by the government in response to the plaintiff’s lawsuit. They show clear intent to receive special treatment when it comes to taking more of the annual catch, and broader influence on choosing who sits on the regional management councils, a process specified by the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) which is poised for reauthorization in 2018.

Moreover, in at least three instances, Department of Commerce employees, after briefing sports industry stakeholders on the requirements of MSA, go on to suggest various legislative — not regulatory — “fixes” for breaking the rules with the red snapper action.

Indeed, the documents point to a blurred state of authorities and influence wielding between the Commerce Department and the US Congress. Whether it is a beleaguered agency’s attempts to protect its standing among Gulf states or an intentional violation of the law remains unclear, but no one is disputing that the regulations within MSA are clear, and have, in the case of red snapper, been ignored.

A letter to commerce secretary Wilbur Ross from Ben Speciale, president of Yamaha Marine Group, was sent on April 3, less than a week after Ross met with Speciale, Mike Nussman, Scott Deal and Pat Murray to discuss the need for a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) fisheries administrator who had experience with the recreational sector. Chris Oliver was hired as head of NOAA Fisheries two and a half months later.

Nussman is the president of the American Sportfishing Association, Deal is from Maverick Boats and Murray is from the Coastal Conservation Association.

Ross posed questions to the group and asked them to respond later. One topic that may have been brought up — Ross certainly raised it frequently during his confirmation hearing and in separate interviews following his confirmation — was ways to reverse the seafood imbalance of trade.

It was a topic Speciale responded to in his April 3 letter to Ross.

“We support imposing assessments on imported seafood based on the country of origin’s management program,” wrote Speciale. “We believe this will help level the playing field and allow our domestic commercial fishermen to increase revenue without increasing their landings. We also support efforts to promote aquaculture….and we must not forget that all recreational landed fish are consumed in the US,” Speciale pointed out.

“Promoting recreational fishing is a conservation-minded way of increasing the consumption of US-caught fish,” he wrote.

Speciale did not elaborate on the ramifications of increased per capita consumption coming from sports landings and the impact on sustainably managed populations of fish.

Speciale’s first request was about more red snapper for Gulf of Mexico anglers.

“…we must return to a recreational red snapper season of no less [than] the 60 days for the 2017 and 2018 seasons,” he wrote.

“I understand that the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and the regional administrator for NOAA Fisheries in the southeast region will present obstacles to this initiative, but they must be overcome so that we may restore a sense of fairness for recreational anglers.”

Speciale continued: “Excessive precaution and fear of frivolous litigation from the environmental industry has created a massive bureaucrat roadblock that has been unfair to anglers and stifled our industry.

“We ask that you overcome these obstacles at the regional fishery management councils and Regional Administrators’ Offices.”

Speciale’s second request was to appoint a person within the Office of Policy and Strategic Planning (currently headed up by Earl Comstock) to have direct oversight on all regional fishery management council appointments. Further, that every appointment should be made only after coordinated consulting with the recreational industry.

Finally, Speciale asked for NOAA Fisheries to adopt a long-term strategy to increase public access to state and federal waters and “eliminate any management effort or technique that attempts to privatize federal fisheries, which are and should remain a public resource.”

Almost two months later, as the red snapper season caught its quota in a matter of days, Shannon Cass-Calay, Chief of the Gulf and Caribbean Branch of the Sustainable Fisheries Division at NOAA Fisheries’ Southeast Fisheries Science Center ran the numbers on what the impact a 45-day extension would have on the red snapper stock in the gulf.

She sent a summary of the research to five of her colleagues, asking them to consider it, emphasizing the uncertainties in the data, and warning that an extended season “…will very likely cause catches to exceed OFL (Over Fishing Limit) and delay recovery by 4-6 years. Each additional overage will degrade the condition of the stock further.”

The final dissemination of that memo is not known, but it must have reached Earl Comstock, because he referenced it in one of two memos to Secretary Ross in early June.

After consulting with all five gulf state fisheries managers, Comstock asked Ross if he could move ahead on crafting an extension to the red snapper season. At the bottom of his first memo to Ross, dated June 1, Comstock hand wrote “Secretary said go with two days plus holidays. OK to proceed.”

On June 7, Comstock sent a memo to Ross preparing him for a hearing on appropriations where Senator Shelby (R-AL) may ask Ross about the gulf snapper issue. He also presented two options for the extension and asked Ross to pick one.

“As discussed, under either option the increased angler catch will result in the overall catch limit for this year being exceeded by 30% and 50%,” Comstock explained to Ross. “Either option would mean that, absent Congressional action to modify the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements for the gulf, the recreational season next year would be significantly reduced.  All the state fishery managers know this, but agree the coordinated action has the greater long-term benefit,” Comstock wrote.

He acknowledged that either option will be opposed by commercial fishermen and charter operators, and “it will almost certainly draw a lawsuit.”

Comstock noted that any plaintiffs in a suit “cannot get a temporary restraining order because the Magnuson-Stevens Act prohibits them. However, they might be able to get an injunction based on the argument we are violating a recent court order that stopped a 2% reallocation from commercial to recreational that the Gulf Council had adopted,” he wrote.

A third new document appears to depict a National Marine Fisheries Service administrator suggesting work arounds for an action that would be in direct violation of MSA. It’s a memo from Harry Blanchet, Biologist Administrator of the Fisheries Division, Louisiana Department of Wildlife, to John Searle, the Congressional staffer to Louisiana Representative Steve Scalise. Searle had been in discussions with the state fisheries department regarding the red snapper situation.

Blanchet, who also sits on the Gulf Council’s Science and Statistical panel, warned Scalise that “recreational red snapper harvest for 2017 may well overrun the recreational allocation by a substantial amount, and as a result, overall harvest may overrun the total allowable catch.”

Blanchet, like those before him, warned Searle that, “historically, and required by Magnuson, those over-runs would have to be paid back in following years, resulting in even lower recreational quota and thus federal seasons,” he told Seale.

Blanchet’s solution was a waiver.

“My thought was that a simple waiver of those Magnuson requirements in another bill in the current Congress could help a lot in terms of allowing there to be a federal waters recreational red snapper season in 2018. I understand that you may want to do a lot more, but just want to be sure that those payback provisions to not come back to bite next year,” he wrote.

This story originally appeared on Seafood News, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

NOAA defends U.S. Fisheries

October 17, 2017 — This week, NOAA Fisheries Assistant Administrator, Chris Oliver, sent a letter to the editor of Marine Policy that does not mince words. In response to a new report on IUU fishing, Mr. Oliver asks the editor, “to publish a retraction, and to ensure future articles undergo adequate review to avoid publication of misleading information.”

The article in question, “Estimates of illegal and unreported seafood imports to Japan,” claims a portion of IUU seafood coming to Japan include salmon, crab, and Alaska pollock from the United States. However, these three species in particular are considered among the best managed and most closely monitored in the world. (Not to mention, they’re healthy).

A flawed methodology

Mr. Oliver calls the allegations absent of any transparency regarding the data sources and methodology used by the authors to come up with these claims. The letter goes into more detail about data and methodology concerns and then provides ample information about the robust management of U.S. Alaska pollock, salmon, and crab fisheries.

Read the full story at the National Fisheries Institute

Read the letter from Chris Oliver to Marine Policy at NOAA

Walton Foundation Flops As NOAA Demands an Outrageous Paper They Funded on IUU Fishing be Retracted

October 17, 2017 — Seafood News — The Head of NOAA Fisheries, Chris Oliver, has called for a major paper on IUU fishing published in Marine Policy to be retracted in its entirety due to egregious factual errors and misreporting as regards US fisheries.

The paper, Estimates of Illegal and Unreported Seafood Imports to Japan,  was funded by the Walton Family Foundation (WFF).The lead author, Ganapathiraju Pramod conceived the design, conducted the study, analyzed information and drafted the paper. He has made a career out of constructing a model of trade in illegal fisheries, and has previously published a paper claiming up to 32% of US Fisheries Imports are from IUU fish.

He used the same basic methodology in both papers.  First, he develops estimates for trade flows, including fish processed in 3rd countries.  Then he searches for all possible indications of IUU fishing from news accounts, literature citations, government and fisheries association reports, consultants reports, NGO reports, Oral or Written interviews, and finally, peer reviewed academic papers.

He takes the mishmash of sources and assigns a weight to IUU fishing in each major sourcing area.

In the Marine Policy paper, he concluded that 24% to 36% by weight of seafood imported into Japan in 2015 came from IUU fishing.

The reasons NOAA called for the complete retraction of the paper can be seen in his estimates of IUU catches of Alaska Pollock, Crab, and Salmon.

He estimates that out of the 122,280 tons of US Alaska pollock products exported to Japan in 2015, from 15% to 22% (26,901 tons) came from IUU fisheries.

To put this in perspective, his estimate would mean about 20% of surimi destined for Japan is produced from IUU fish.  Since US surimi is produced by vessels with 100% onboard observer coverage, or in plants that are meticulously inspected and required to pay tax on all fish landed in Alaska, it seems that the authors are living in some alternate universe where their own perspective replaces hard facts.

So how does the paper get from the fact that the US Alaska pollock fishery is one of the cleanest, most transparent, industrialized, and most highly regulated fisheries in the world, to a claim that 20% of their exports are illegal fish.

He does so through the murky process of conflating all his sources where ever any source has mentioned a fisheries problem.  So for example, if a source wrote about high grading Alaska pollock, or roe stripping (both activities which would be impossible to hide from the 100% observer coverage), he then applies this to the export numbers and assumes a certain percentage of the charge must be true.

Writing to Marine Policy, Chris Oliver said “the Bering Sea pollock industry has long-established and contractually binding requirements among all vessels to share all catch data with an independent third-party. Discard of pollock is prohibited. Were it to occur, discard and high-grading of pollock would be detected by the numerous monitoring and enforcements provisions in place, and would result in a significant enforcement action.”

On Salmon, Oliver says “The authors’ suggestion that sockeye and coho salmon taken as bycatch in trawl fisheries makes its way to Japan as IUU product is a particularly egregious example of inadequate research and flawed conclusions. Easily accessible and publically available reports indicate that Chinook salmon in Alaska and along the West Coast of the U.S. and chum salmon in Alaska are the predominant species taken incidentally in trawl fisheries. Bycatch of sockeye and coho across all trawl (and for that matter, most other gear types) is de minimis, and occurs primarily in the highly-monitored pollock fishery.”

The paper claims that between 2200 and 4400 tons of Illegal salmon are caught in Alaska and exported to Japan.  The authors likely don’t realize that monitoring of salmon bycatch by trawl fisheries is highly developed in Alaska, with vessels reporting bycatch down to the individual fish.  These fish cannot be legally sold.

It is quite likely that the authors have confused US practices where bycatch is highly regulated with those in Russia, where the pollock fleet is allowed to keep whatever salmon they catch, and that salmon is subsequently sold in the commercial market.  The Russian system does not require that pollock vessels identify the species of salmon; and it assumes all pollock vessel bycatch of salmon is legal.

The authors make a similar mistake with US crab fisheries, once again assuming that because they have heard people talk about IUU crab in some instance, therefore up to 18*% of the US crab exports to Japan represent illegal fishing.  As anyone in the crab industry will tell you, this is simply laughable, given the regulatory oversight and close inspection of the Bering Sea snow crab and king crab fisheries.

Furthermore, most of the crab exports to Japan are made by very large exporting companies.  None of these major companies would allow their business or their markets to be jeopardized by engaging in illegal behavior.  The fact that the authors accept their model output without thinking twice about the real-world implications is the key reason they should withdraw their paper.

In short, this paper has sullied the reputation of all associated with it, because it is such an egregious example of constructing a fantasy world and then justifying it with a numeric model.

There has been a problem of IUU fish imports to Japan, especially in the crab and tuna fisheries.

if the authors had looked at the real world instead of just models, they would have seen that since the Russia-Japanese agreement on documentation for crab vessels, illegal live crab landings in Japan have dwindled to nearly zero.  In fact, plants closed, the supply chain shifted, and the market felt a huge impact in the collapse of IUU crab fishing to Japan.  But none of this makes it into the paper.

The problem here is that papers such as this one are based on fantasy but they become the basis for NGO claims about generalized IUU fishing, and they take away resources, attention and commitments from actions that actually address some of the problems.  These include the Port State Measures agreement, universal vessel registration in the tuna fisheries, US, Japanese, and EU import traceability requirements, all of which have served to dramatically reduce the marketability of IUU fish products.

NOAA is right to demand Marine Policy retract this paper and submit it to additional peer review,  if it is ever to be published again.

The Walton Family Foundation also needs to think about its own reputation.  Although they do fund many important fishery projects, allowing a paper as misguided as this to result from their funding actually undermines their efforts to promote sustainable seafood, because it sows doubts about their competence and understanding of fisheries issues.

This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

North Carolina Fisheries Association Weekly Update for October 13, 2017

October 13, 2017 — The following was released by the North Carolina Fisheries Association:

HAPPY FRIDAY THE 13th!!!

OCTOBER IS SEAFOOD MONTH!

Seafood month got a great kickoff in North Carolina with last Saturday’s Fisherman’s Village on the Morehead City waterfront, and on Sunday morning at the Blessing of the Fleet.

For a message from Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries, or NMFS, click the link below.
Message from Chris Oliver about Seafood Month

FROM THE DIVISION OF MARINE FISHERIES:

Advisory committee meetings to focus on cobia management measures – Three advisory committees to the N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission will meet on separate dates in October to discuss issues related to the cobia fishery.

The advisory committees will be asked to provide input to the N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission on management measures contained in the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Draft Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Migratory Group Cobia (Georgia to New York). The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s South Atlantic State/Federal Fisheries Management Board will meet Oct. 19 to vote on this plan.

The draft plan includes size, bag and vessel limits to complement federal measures. Most notably, the draft plan includes several proposed options for state-specific recreational harvest targets that will give individual states more flexibility in developing management measures to best suit their needs.

Currently, the recreational annual catch limit for Georgia to New York is managed on a coastwide basis. This has resulted in federal closures and significant overages, disrupting fishing opportunities and jeopardizing the health of the stock.

The N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission will discuss North Carolina’s recreational cobia management measures at its Nov. 15-16 meeting at the Doubletree by Hilton Garden Inn Outer Banks in Kitty Hawk.

For more information, contact Steve Poland, cobia staff lead with the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries, at 252-808-8159 or Steve.Poland@ncdenr.gov.

CALENDAR

Oct 15 – 19; ASMFC Annual Meeting; Waterside Marriott; Norfolk, VA

Oct 24; 6:00pm MFC Northern Advisory Committee; Dare County Complex; Manteo, NC

Oct 25; 6:00pm MFC Southern Advisory Committee; Cardinal Drive; Wilmington, NC

Oct 26; 6:00pm MFC Finfish Advisory Committee; DMF District Office; Morehead City, NC

Nov 8; Noon; NCFA Board of Directors; Civic Center; Washington, NC

Nov 15-16; NC Marine Fisheries Commission; Kitty Hawk

Dec 4 – 8; South Atlantic Council; Doubletree; Atlantic Beach, NC

Dec 6; Noon; NCFA Board of Directors; Civic Center, Washington, NC

Dec 11 – 14; Mid Atlantic Council; Westin Annapolis; Annapolis, MD

Sen. Warren: New Bedford should keep Rafael’s fishing permits

October 10, 2017 — And another voice enters the fray.

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has weighed in on the debate over the ultimate fate of Carlos Rafael’s seized commercial fishing permits, saying in a letter to NOAA Fisheries the permits should remain in New Bedford.

“It has been reported that (Rafael’s) fishing permits may be cancelled or seized by the federal government and I am urging you to do everything possible to ensure that those permits stay in the port of New Bedford,” Warren wrote to Chris Oliver, NOAA Fisheries’ assistant administrator for fisheries. “Not doing so has the potential to devastate the local economy and effectively punish numerous innocent workers and businesses in New Bedford for Mr. Rafael’s crimes.”

Warren’s position aligns her with New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell, who has led the campaign to keep Rafael’s permits in New Bedford. Other public officials, such as Gov. Charlie Baker, have called for the seized Rafael permits to be redistributed to Massachusetts fishermen.

Read the full story at the Gloucester Times

Rep Young’s Magnuson Bill to Move Ahead with Input from Calif. Rep Huffman; Aim is No Poison Pills

September 28, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Alaska’s Representative Don Young closed Tuesday’s hearing on four fisheries bills, by remarking to the panel, “We are going to use the vehicle of [HR] 200. I’m going to work with Mr. Huffman and see if we can’t come to some conclusion.

“The basic skeleton of the Magnuson Act … we’re going to keep the skeleton whole. Get those comments and suggestions to us, because we’re going to try to get something moving by October or November this year,” Young said.

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) introduced a discussion draft called “Strengthening Fishing Communities through Improving Science, Increasing Flexibility, and Modernizing Fisheries Management Act.” The discussion paper includes sections on Council transparency, flexibility in rebuilding fish stocks, Saltonstall-Kennedy Act reform, red snapper cooperative research and others.

Rep. Jared Huffman said after the hearing Tuesday that Democrats and Republicans have many agreements when it comes to fishery regulations and management.

However, he said previous attempts in recent years to amend and reauthorize the law have stalled because of “poison pill” riders that would exempt fisheries from conservation policies such as the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Protection Act.

“Instead of making meaningful improvements to our most important fisheries statute, this process has focused on weakening fundamental environmental protections in place of making meaningful improvements to our important fisheries management framework,” Huffman (D-San Rafael) said in his opening statement at the committee hearing. “This partisan process does a disservice to hardworking fishermen across the country including those in my district.”

Members from both sides of the aisle were in agreement that the law — known as the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 — has worked to prevent overfishing and replenish overfished stocks as was intended upon its passage.

Two other bills were discussed and commented on at the hearing by invited witnesses. HR 3588  and HR 2023 are focused on modernizing recreational fisheries and managing red snapper in regional ways, respectively.

The hearing was before the Water, Power, and Industry Subcommittee of the larger House Committee on Natural Resources.

Witnesses included Chris Oliver, Director of NOAA Fisheries; Mayor Johnathan Mitchell of New Bedford; Mike Merrifield, Southeastern Fisheries Association; Susan Boggs, co-owner of a charter operation out of Alabama, and others.

Chairman Doug Lamborn opened the hearing saying “Many of you here today probably consider this to be a fishery hearing, but I assure you it is much more than that. …whether we are talking about a commercial, recreational, or charter boat operation, the working waterfront that provides shore side support, a boat manufacturer or your local mom and pop bait and tackle shop, today’s hearing is about supporting American small business. It’s my hope today that we will create a strong, bi-partisan MSA that supports jobs and our fishermen, and that supports the science data and process used in federal fisheries management.”

Jonathan Mitchell, Mayor of New Bedford, pushed back on the concept of “flexibility.”

“The term “flexibility” should not be understood as a euphemism for deregulation,” Mitchell said. “The councils are in the business of finely calibrating decisions in light of relevant environmental and economic data, and their own experience and expertise.

“In the discharge of their duties, they tend not to win friends either in the fishing industry or in the conservation community, and given the goals of Magnuson-Stevens, that’s probably the way it should be,” Mitchell said.

Susan Boggs, co-owner in a charter boating operation in Alabama, supported the current MSA.

“I am here today to tell you that MSA is working. This law was written to bring fisheries back from collapse, to ensure long-term sustainability for future generations, and to provide a conduit for stakeholders to be a part of the management process.

“There are several species of fish that are critical to the charter/for-hire sector in the Gulf of Mexico, but perhaps none more than red snapper. Since 2007, when annual catch limits became a requirement, the recreational sector’s quota for red snapper has tripled. MSA has worked for us.

“A suggestion that I would offer to this committee that would have a meaningful impact on the management of this fishery would be a Federal Red Snapper angler license,” she said.

“No one can tell you how many anglers target Red Snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. This license does not have to be cost prohibitive. Even a $10 fee would provide better data on the number of anglers targeting this species and could generate millions of dollars that could be used for cost recovery, stock assessments and better landings data which should include more real-time reporting using current technology from private anglers.”

Chris Oliver listed challenges to NOAA, nationwide and how MSA can tackle them.  “We face formidable challenges managing recovering stocks to benefit both commercial and recreational user groups with fundamentally different goals and objectives, and who are experiencing increased fish interactions due to the strong management measures that have improved historically overfished populations.

“Together with our partners, it is essential that we continue to explore innovative, science-based management approaches and regional management tools. We must remain dedicated to exploring ways to maximize economic opportunities from wild-caught fisheries for commercial and recreational fishermen, processors, and communities. We are committed to working with Congress on the bills put forth by this subcommittee, to ensure that annual catch limits, accountability measures, stock rebuilding, and other aspects of our management construct are working, while protecting the overall, long-term conservation and sustainability of the nation’s fishery resources.”

This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

NCFC Members Bring Concerns of Commercial Fishermen to House Hearing on Fisheries Bills

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) – September 26, 2017 – Members of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities testified this morning at a hearing of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans on four bills that would modify federal fisheries management.

Jon Mitchell, mayor of the nation’s top-grossing fishing port New Bedford, Massachusetts and head of the New Bedford Harbor Development Commission, and Mike Merrifield, Fish Section Chairman of the Southeastern Fisheries Association (SFA) testified on the needs of commercial fishermen and reforms they would like to see to the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Mayor Mitchell and Mr. Merrifield were joined by several other witnesses, including Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries Chris Oliver, who testified on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the possibility of allowing additional flexibility in stock rebuilding. Earlier this year, commercial fishermen from around the country united to support Mr. Oliver’s appointment to NOAA.

At this morning’s hearing, the subcommittee considered two bills to amend and reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as well as bills that would alter recreational fisheries and red snapper management.

While Mayor Mitchell called the Magnuson-Stevens Act “generally speaking…a success story” that has helped make America’s fisheries “at once among the world’s largest and most sustainable,” he called for more flexibility in fisheries management to allow fishermen to catch their full scientifically justified quota. In particular, he criticized the ten-year rebuilding requirement for overfished stocks.

“The ten-year rule is arbitrary, and its establishment was at odds with the underlying premise of regional management,” Mayor Mitchell said. “Regional councils should have the flexibility to set rebuilding timelines for stocks under their jurisdiction based on the unique biological and ecological conditions, and by giving appropriate weight to the economic wellbeing of fishing communities.”

The mayor was also critical of the Antiquities Act, by which presidents can designate large national monuments with little or no input from scientists and local stakeholders. The Act was recently used to create and enlarge several marine monuments, including the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument in New England and the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in Hawaii.

“The continued use of a parallel process outside the Magnuson-Stevens Act, however well-meaning, ultimately works against the long-term interests of all stakeholders,” Mayor Mitchell said. “We all lose when the checks and balances employed in the council process are abandoned.  A decision-making process driven by the simple assertion of executive branch authority ultimately leaves ocean management decisions permanently vulnerable to short-term political considerations.”

Mr. Merrifield voiced skepticism of efforts to shift federally managed species over to state management, saying that states manage many fisheries in such a way that recreational fishermen get most or, in some cases, all of the fish.

“SFA firmly believes there should be no reward for exceeding [annual catch limits] and that all stakeholders – commercial, for-hire and private anglers – should each be held accountable for their impacts on our nation’s fish resources,” Mr. Merrifield testified. “We must resist changes to the law that could be interpreted to remove this accountability.”

Mr. Merrifield also testified about the SFA’s strong opposition to the RED SNAPPER Act, introduced by Rep. Garret Graves of Louisiana, which would give states more authority over red snapper management.

“The justification [for this legislation] is built entirely on the misconception that anglers can only fish for red snapper for 3 days (now 39 days) in federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico,” Mr. Merrifield said. “This is a false narrative. Anglers can fish 365-days per year for red snapper and all of the other 38 species in the Gulf reef fish complex. They can only kill red snapper on 3 (or 39) of those days. To be clear, there is unlimited fishing opportunity for recreational anglers in the federal waters of the Gulf which calls into question the actual need for, and defense of, this legislation.”

Read Mayor Mitchell’s full testimony here

Read Mr. Merrifield’s full testimony here

Members Review Proposals to Modernize Federal Fisheries Management

September 26, 2017 — WASHINGTON — The following was released by the House Committee on Natural Resources:

Today, the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans held a legislative hearing on a series of bills aimed at improving federal fisheries management for commercial and recreational fisherman.

“Many of you here today probably consider this to be a fishery hearing, but I assure you it is much more than that. Whether we are talking about a commercial, recreational, or charter boat operation, the working waterfront that provides shore-side support, a boat manufacturer, or your local mom and pop bait and tackle shop, today’s hearing is about supporting American small businesses,” Subcommittee Chairman Doug Lamborn (R-CO) said. 

H.R. 200, introduced by Chairman Emeritus Don Young (R-AK), reauthorizes the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Since the last reauthorization, fishermen’s access has been eroded by federal agencies that ignore public input and rely upon outdated science in management decisions. Existing implementation of the law has resulted in negative impacts to local economies and a greater regulatory burden on recreational and commercial fishermen.

“My bill works to strengthen the Magnuson-Stevens Act by giving our nation’s regional fisheries councils the added flexibility they need,” Young said. “As a father of the original 1976 legislation, my goal is to reauthorize the MSA with a focus on maintaining the species; ensuring they’re healthy, can retain themselves and can continue to support coastal communities that rely on these fisheries.”

The Committee also discussed two bills from Rep. Garret Graves (R-LA), H.R. 2023, the “Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2017,” and H.R. 3588, the “RED SNAPPER Act,” which looked more closely at systemic issues facing recreational fishers and more specifically red snapper management.

“It is my hope that we can use these bills in front of us today to produce a strong, bipartisan Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization that supports jobs and our fishermen by strengthening the science, data, and process used in federal fisheries management,” Lamborn added.

Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), conveyed the administration’s support for the added flexibility for innovative, regional management plans.

“NOAA Fisheries stands ready to work with the Congress to craft a reauthorization bill that addresses current fishery management challenges and ensures the Nation’s fisheries are able to meet the needs of both current and future generations,” Oliver stated.

Click here for full witness testimony.

First MSA Reauthorization Hearing Acknowledged Successes, Identified Needed Changes

August 2, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — At the first of a series of hearings on the Magnuson-Stevens Act held yesterday at the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, senators from both sides of the aisle voiced support for the regional management council system, NOAA Fisheries, and the science that supports fisheries management, despite the deep cuts proposed in the President’s budget.

“With regard to the budget, I think some of these cuts may not survive the [reauthorization] process,” said Chairman Dan Sullivan (R-AK). “I think we’re going to be adding a lot back to the projects that we think are vital.”

Sullivan was responding in part to a series of questions from Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) to Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries, about the current administration’s proposed budget for the agency.

“My question concerns the budget submitted by the president of the United States. The budget slashes funding for programs like Sea Grant and the Milford Lab at the University of Connecticut [Northeast Fisheries Science Center],” Blumenthal said.

“These federal research efforts to help grow and expand certain aspects of aquaculture are very promising. As a representative of this administration, how can you justify these cuts to the agency that you are responsible for administering? Are you going to commit to me that you’re going to [find funding] for Sea Grant and the Milford Lab?”

Oliver responded, “Senator, I don’t know that I’m in a position to comment very extensively on the President’s budget. I do know that they’ve placed a revised emphasis on the Department of Defense and national security.”

Blumenthal: “I’m on the Armed Services Committee sir, and I very much support that emphasis … but this kind of slashing and trashing of programs that are essential to the kinds of programs you administer, that are vital to our economic future in aquaculture I consider a mockery of the mission of your agency. And if you’re not in a position to justify it, who would be?”

Oliver: “All I can say sir is we’re going to do our best to operate within the budget that we have, and I know that a lot of the programs that were slated to be cut involve cooperative agreements or past grants of funding through the Sea Grant program, for example, and grants to the coastal states. We’re going to do our best to make that up internally…”

Blumenthal: “Are you going to commit to me that you can make up those cuts to the Sea Grant program and the Milford Lab and the University of Connecticut that are essential to those programs?”

Oliver: “I can’t commit that we’re specifically going to be able to make those up from our baseline budget. I think that we’re facing some tough decisions too. I’ve said on many occasions that I feel that this agency may be in a position to refocus on some of its very core mission – science mission…”

Blumenthal: “You’d agree with me that those are valid and important programs?”

Oliver: “Of course sir, I really do.”

Blumenthal: “If you agree these programs are valid, then your agency has a responsibility to fight for them and to make sure they are fully funded.”

The exchange was toward the end of an otherwise non-confrontational hearing on the “long overdue” reauthorization of the MSA with Oliver and Dr. John Quinn, Chair of the New England Fisheries Management Council. Both men lauded the successes brought about by the original 1976 law and the amendments to it, most recently in 2007.

“As a group, we are strong believers in the Magnuson-Stevens Act – and not just because it established the Councils,” said Quinn, who spoke on behalf of the Council Coordination Committee (CCC), which is made up of the chairs, vice chairs, and executive directors of the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils.

“The outcome of our management success is clear: commercial, recreational, and subsistence fisheries are key contributors to our coastal communities and the nation’s economy. In large measure, this is because the Act structured a very successful approach to sustainable fisheries management. Central to the Act are the 10 National Standards that guide our management process.”

“Under the standards set in the Magnuson-Stevens Act the nation has made great strides in maintaining more stocks at biologically sustainable levels, ending overfishing, rebuilding overfished stocks, building a sustainable future for our fishing-dependent communities, and providing more domestic options for U.S. seafood consumers in a market dominated by imports,” echoed Oliver.

Both agreed, however, that changes should be made. Oliver noted in particular ways in which overall production could be increased, particularly in areas where catch limits have not been updated to changes in stock sizes.

“For example, while our West Coast groundfish fisheries have rebuilt several important stocks, in recent years fishermen are leaving a substantial amount of the available harvest of some groundfish species in the water, due to regulatory or bycatch species constraints. We must find ways to maximize allowable harvests that are still protective of non-target species in all of our fisheries,” explained Oliver.

Stakeholders in the West Coast groundfish fishery were enthusiastic about Oliver’s references to the plight of those working in the non-whiting trawl catch shares program. The program has realized far less than full utilization of the resource, with less than one-third of the available fish being harvested annually.

“We applaud Chris Oliver’s recent testimony to the Senate on the state of the West Coast IFQ non-whiting trawl fishery,” Pacific Seafood’s Mike Okoniewski said.

“Members of industry have been testifying for years that while the conservation benefits of the program have passed all expectations, but the economics are performing at abysmal levels,” Okoniewski said.

Oliver’s testimony drilled to the heart of the matter: if you cannot get the fish out of the water you cannot realize the economic benefits outlined in the program’s goals and objectives. Targets such as increasing economic benefits, providing full utilization of the trawl sector allocation, increasing operational flexibility and providing measurable economic and employment benefits throughout the processing and distribution chain have not been met for the non-whiting sector.

“Chris Oliver’s testimony is a huge step forward to reverse the present trajectory we are on. Again we thank him and look forward his leadership of NMFS. His focus on balance and economic output, as well as conservation and sustainability, is long overdue,” Okoniewski said.

“Much like Pacific groundfish (to quote AA Oliver), New England groundfish fishermen ‘are leaving a substantial amount of the available harvest of some groundfish species in the water, due to regulatory or bycatch species constraints’”, noted Maggie Raymond, Executive Director of Associated Fisheries of Maine.

Both Quinn and Oliver referenced a need for “flexibility”, Raymond observed.

“Quinn’s testimony is specific to a need for flexibility in rebuilding timelines.  But flexibility in rebuilding timelines is not necessarily the fix, at least not for New England,” she added.

“As long as an otherwise healthy mixed stock fishery remains constrained by a weak stock in the complex, the problem of leaving available harvest in the water cannot be addressed.  We look forward to working with AA Oliver to ‘find ways to maximize allowable harvests that are still protective of non-target species.’

“Let’s start with windowpane flounder. A species with no economic value that puts a significant burden on the NE groundfish and scallop fisheries,” said Raymond.

Oliver acknowledged his testimony from last year on no need for further flexibility on MSA. But, he said, “I’m in a new role now and as I look at the issue more broadly, I’d heard from constituents across the country, listened to the dialog about issues with the Act, and I’ve come to believe that there is a possibility that additional flexibilities should be considered, accountability measures that are used to enforced annual catch limits (ACLs), particularly in fisheries where we don’t have the robust and accurate accounting.

“Many of our recreational fisheries are of a nature that don’t lend themselves well to those monitoring methods.

“The administration has not taken positions on these specific issues,” Oliver said. “But in my personal view, in fisheries that don’t have robust systems of accountability, in particular the recreational fisheries that have different goals, there’s room for flexibility.”

Quinn agreed. “We’re here to reauthorize [the MSA], not repeal it. Data availability and stock assessment, particularly in the recreational side, I think we’ve got a lot of work to do. Data needs are really important. ACLs and AMs work for the commercial, not necessarily for the recreational fisheries.”

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) called the nation’s bycatch quantity “unacceptable” and asked Quinn for an assessment on catch shares.

“In some parts of the country, catch shares have worked,” Quinn responded. “In my part of the country, it hasn’t worked as well. But the CCC’s position is to keep catch shares as a part of our management tool box.”

Sullivan brought up the issue of electronic monitoring as a less expensive alternative to onboard observers and asked, “What can we do to help the councils use EM more efficiently?”

“Like catch shares, the authority for EM is in the Act now,” said Quinn, “but individual regions may have specific fisheries that may or may not use EM. There are a lot of pilot programs using EM now. Decisions should be made region by region.”

“I want to compliment you both on your emphasis on data and science,” Sullivan said in closing comments. “We’re going to back you up on that.”

The next hearing will be August 23, 2017 in Kenai, Alaska.

This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

Senate Subcommittee Holds First Hearing to Guide Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization

August 2, 2017 — The Magnuson-Stevens Act, the primary law regulating fisheries in federal waters, is in need of reauthorization, and Senate Commerce’s Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard on Tuesday held the first in a series of hearings to guide that process. And, unsurprisingly, the issue of climate change made waves.

Chris Oliver, assistant administrator of NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service, and John Quinn, chairman of the New England Fishery Management Council, pushed for a variety of changes, ranging from management of mixed stocks to more flexibility in how the Council Coordination Committee can monitor and collect data. But it was Sen. Richard Blumenthal who made the strongest case for change by criticizing the current system for failing New England’s fishing fleet and leaving the region’s fishermen “angry and frustrated beyond words.”

Because of climate change, Blumenthal said, fish that New England fishermen have traditionally sought were pushed north and fish from southern waters moved into New England. But catch limits for certain fish haven’t been adjusted to meet the reality facing New England fishermen, forcing them to return quota-exceeding fish to the ocean. Billions of dollars in profits are being lost, Blumenthal said, while fishermen from southern states come to New England waters to catch their migrating fish. “There is something profoundly unfair and intolerable about the situation,” he added. “In my view, it violates the present law.”

Quinn responded by pointing out that parts of the New England fishing industry are booming but agreed that groundfish fishermen are struggling. While the CCC’s process is to collect as much data as needed to produce accurate stock assessments, Quinn said they didn’t have “a simple solution for rising water temperatures or the ocean acidification,” which are the roots of the shifting fish populations.

Read the full story at Politico