Saving Seafood

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

South Atlantic Council Requests Allowing Harvest of Red Snapper in 2017 and 2018

September 26, 2017 — CHARLESTON, S.C. — The following was released by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council:

Members of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council voted today to approve a request to NOAA Fisheries that would allow fishermen access to red snapper in federal waters in the South Atlantic beginning in mid-to late October this year. If approved by NOAA Fisheries, it will be the first time since 2014 that the red snapper fishery has been open in federal waters off the coasts of the Carolinas, Georgia, and the east coast of Florida. The Council is requesting that NOAA Fisheries allow an interim annual catch limit (recreational and commercial) of 42,510 fish for 2017 via an emergency rule. The annual catch limit would allow for a recreational mini-season likely beginning the end of October, with approximately 6 to 12 days of fishing over a period of 3-day weekends. The recreational bag limit would be 1 fish per person/day with no minimum size limit. Commercial harvest would be allowed with a 75-pound trip limit. The recreational sector is allocated 71.93% of the total catch limit. If the Council’s request is approved, the number of days and specific dates of the recreational mini-season will be determined by NOAA Fisheries. A decision is expected in the coming weeks and will be announced by NOAA Fisheries.

In addition to the emergency rule request to allow an opening this year, the Council also approved measures in Amendment 43 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan with the intent to have a red snapper season in 2018. The amendment would revise the process to calculate the annual catch limit for red snapper, allowing mini-seasons for red snapper beginning in July. If allowed, the recreational fishery would open the second Friday in July (July 13, 2018) and the commercial fishery the second Monday in July (July 9, 2018). The annual opening dates for the fishery were established through an earlier amendment.

Under the Council’s approved preferred alternative, the 2018 annual catch limit would also be 42,510 fish. Because fishing pressure would be greater during the summer months in most areas, it is estimated that the recreational mini-season would last between 4 to 7 weekend days with a 1 fish per person/day bag limit and no minimum size limit. The commercial trip limit would remain at 75 pounds. The number of recreational fishing days would be determined by NOAA Fisheries and announced prior to the July opening. The Secretary of Commerce must approve Amendment 43 before it is implemented.

There was much discussion on various management alternatives as Council members reviewed public input. Public hearings on Amendment 43 were held in August and over 230 written public comments were recently received on both the emergency rule request and Amendment 43. Public comment was also taken during today’s meeting. “We’ve consistently heard from our constituents about the increasing number of red snapper encountered and concerns that harvest has been prohibited for the past four years,” said Council Chair, Dr. Michelle Duval. “The majority of comments support allowing a limited harvest of red snapper.”

The Council’s decision to move forward with options to establish an interim annual catch limit and allow limited harvest of red snapper was based in part on the public testimony and support. The Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee had recommended acceptable biological catch levels for red snapper following a 2017 stock assessment using both landings and estimated discards. Annual catch limits are based on those recommended catch levels. However, NOAA Fisheries later stated that using recreational discard estimates is likely ineffective for monitoring red snapper removals due to uncertainty in the estimates of discards. This inhibits the ability to set an acceptable biological catch that can be effectively monitored. In addition, the Council considered increases in the numbers of red snapper observed through a long-term scientific survey using fish traps.

Council members also noted the positive social and economic benefits of allowing mini-seasons beginning this year, especially on the heels of recent damage to fishing communities by Hurricane Irma.

State agency personnel will work diligently to collect information from fishermen if harvest is allowed. Personnel will be stationed at boat ramps, marinas, and other locations to gather data, similar to data collected during the 2012-2014 mini-seasons. “The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute will be conducting surveys of private recreational anglers and charter-for-hire crew,” explained Jessica McCawley, Council representative for FWC. “Additionally, biologists will be collecting tissue samples (ear bones and gonad samples) to evaluate the sizes, ages, and reproductive condition of the fish being harvested.” Council members noted that additional data collected during the mini-seasons would be useful in future management decisions.

Private recreational fishermen will also have an opportunity to report their catch information as part of a voluntary pilot project using the mobile iAngler tournament app. The free mobile app will allow fishermen to report their landings of red snapper, the number of fish released, depths fished, and other valuable information. Additional details will be publicized from the Council office as they become available.

“It is important for fishermen to remember that this is their red snapper resource,” explained Dr. Duval. “It is imperative that fishermen do everything possible to minimize the number of red snapper released during the season openings and use best fishing practices to improve the survival of released fish. Anglers are encouraged to move away from area populations after catching their bag limit and to use descending devices to reduce the impacts of barotrauma, especially when fishing in depths over 100 feet.” Dr. Duval also noted the rate of harvest in 2017 will determine the length of the 2018 red snapper season. “We must be cautionary in balancing access to the fishery without negatively impacting the sacrifices made thus far as this important stock continues to rebuild.”

The Council will continue its meeting this week through Friday. Additional meeting information is available at: http://safmc.net/2017-september-council-meeting/.

Commerce chief Ross makes waves, roils fisheries rules

September 21, 2017 — Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has wasted little time in giving a jolt to the nation’s fisheries.

In June, the 79-year-old billionaire investor who now oversees NOAA Fisheries singlehandedly extended the fishing season for red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico, ignoring protests from scientists and environmentalists that it could spur overfishing of the popular species.

Then in an unprecedented decision in July, he handed a big win to New Jersey fishermen and the state’s Republican governor, Chris Christie, by overturning catch limits for summer flounder that had been approved by an interstate fisheries commission.

While Ross wants more fishing and more seafood exports, critics say his early moves have smacked of meddling and favoritism and will ultimately sabotage hard-won conservation gains.

And many fear that states and fishing groups will directly seek political relief instead of following NOAA procedures and adhering to fishing quotas set by government experts and scientists.

“It just really seems that it’s kind of setting a bad precedent,” said Trey Blackiston, a former commercial fisherman from Chestertown, Md.

Noah Oppenheim, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, said he’s still waiting for Ross to sign an emergency declaration for California crabbers and salmon fishermen. But he’s worried about the signals from Washington.

“We’re asking maybe the wrong questions, right?” Oppenheim said. “If the Trump administration is finding it easier to disrupt the status quo than to follow the normal procedures to get this done, we don’t want any part of that. We’re sort of sitting on the West Coast with one of the best fishery management council processes in place … watching the country crumble and wondering what the hell’s going on. But I’m not inclined to seek political favors.”

Read the full story at E&E News

Atlantic Menhaden Catch Limits May Get Overhaul

September 18, 2017 — A major overhaul could be coming in how menhaden are managed along the East Coast — one that might, for the first time, try to account for the ecological role of the small and oily fish.

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), which oversees migratory fish along the coast, is preparing to update its menhaden management plan this fall. It’s looking to revisit how the catch is distributed among states and fisheries and may adjust the catch limit for the Chesapeake. Public hearings on potential changes are scheduled for September, with written comments accepted through Oct. 20.

It should be noted that a July ruling by the U. S. Commerce Department has thrown into doubt the ASMFC’s authority in regulating fisheries. The federal ruling allowed New Jersey, one of the 15 states regulated by (and represented on) the ASMFC, to reject the commission’s harvest restrictions on Atlantic flounder, which has been declining since 2000. It’s the first time since the commission was authorized by Congress in 1993 to adopt and enforce coastwide harvest restrictions that a state has been allowed to ignore the commission’s harvest regulations. Fisheries managers are concerned that other states might follow suit if pressure from fishing interests is great enough.

Regarding menhaden, people generally don’t eat the small, oily fish, yet it has been the focus of heated debates in recent years over how many should be caught. By weight, menhaden are the largest catch in the Bay, primarily because Reedville, VA — home port of Omega Protein’s “reduction” fishing fleet — is where the fish are reduced (processed) into vitamin supplements, fish meal and other products.

Read the full story at Chesapeake Bay Magazine

California Acting Governor Gavin Newsom Requests Disaster Relief for Sardine, Urchin Fisheries

September 13, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Sardine and sea urchin closures in California have prompted Acting Gov. Gavin Newsom to request fishery failure declarations for both.

Newsom noted in his Sept. 5 letters to U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross that ocean conditions caused the closure for sardines and affected the kelp forest ecosystems on which red urchins depend.

The California Wetfish Producers Association lauded Newsom’s request to Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross to approve a declaration of a commercial fishery failure for California’s Pacific sardine fishery. His action was precipitated by La Niña’s cold-water oceanic conditions that are believed to have caused sharply reduced sardine recruitment and the closure of this commercial fishery since 2015.

“This declaration is very important as it will enable California’s historic sardine fishery and its participants to seek federal disaster relief to offset the economic harm fishermen and processors have suffered since the fishery closure,” California Wetfish Producers Association Executive Director Diane Pleschner-Steele said in a statement Tuesday.

The Pacific sardine fishery has been managed under the federal Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan (CPS FMP) since 2000. The CPS FMP established a harvest cutoff, prohibiting directed fishing if the sardine population falls below an estimated 150,000 metric tons. Due to low stock assessments, the fishery was closed in 2015 and 2016, and will remain closed in 2017 and possibly even 2018, although sardines have returned to abundance in the nearshore area, where fishing normally takes place.

Certain thresholds have been established that help the National Marine Fisheries Service and Secretary of Commerce make a determination of whether a commercial fishery failure has occurred. One of these involves an analysis of the economic impact and states that revenue losses greater than 80 percent are presumed to be a commercial fishery failure. This is determined by comparing the loss of 12-month revenue to average annual revenue in the most recent five-year period.

“This fishery is historically one of the top 10 highest valued commercial fisheries in California,” Newsom said in his letter regarding the iconic sardine fishery. “Statewide, the commercial closure in 2015 resulted in a total value of $343,148, which is 90 percent less than the 2010-14 average of $3,504,098. That dropped to $95,657 in 2016, which was 96 percent less than the 2011-15 average of $2,711,679.”

The figures for the urchin fishery, particularly in northern California and Orange County, were dire as well.
“The impacts to the regions are evident in the fishery landings data,” Newsom wrote. “In 2016, the northern California fishery ex-vessel revenue fell by 77 percent compared to the 5-year average from $2,587,419 to $604,440, Orange County ports fell by 93 percent from $85,382 to $6,045, and San Diego County ports fell by 48 percent from $574,526 to $297,594.”

Newsom’s letter noted the initial estimates for both fisheries are based on the average ex-vessel value of commercial landings but do not account for additional impacts to seafood processors or related industry businesses that rely on the either or both fisheries.

The sardine fishery is the foundation of California’s wetfish industry, which for decades has produced 80 percent or more of annual statewide commercial fishery landings, until recent years, the CWPA statement said. While fishermen and markets may harvest and process other species in the coastal pelagic species complex, sardines have been the historic mainstay of this industry, and the loss of fishing opportunity has created severe economic impact to both fishermen and processors.

The urchin fishery has been a staple for small-boat fishermen throughout the state for a number of years — until recently.

“Persistent warm ocean conditions that began in 2014 in northern California and 2015 in southern California has affected the fishery in these two regions,” Newsom’s letter said. “In northern California, the warm water event devastated kelp production (93 percent loss of surface kelp canopies compared to 2008 levels), a primary food source for urchins that created persistent starvation conditions. Starvation has led to reductions in the food value of the urchins targeted by the fishery in northern California.

In addition, a population explosion of the less marketable purple sea urchin continues to overgraze the recovering kelp beds, adding further stress to the fishery. In southern California, urchin mortality increased in response to warm El Nino conditions and disease in 2015. This has reduced the numbers of healthy red sea urchins in southern California available to the fishery.”

The Governor’s request for federal declaration now opens the door for fishermen and processors in California’s fisheries to pursue a federal disaster declaration from the Secretary of Commerce and appeal to California’s congressional delegation to pursue legislation allocating funding for disaster relief. Such funds would help alleviate the economic and social harm suffered as a result of these disasters.

Funds could also be used for cooperative research projects, Pleschner-Steele said, such as the collaborative aerial survey of the nearshore area that CWPA participates in with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife in efforts to improve the accuracy of stock assessments.

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

Sturgeon ruling may impact federally funded projects

Merrimack River made ‘critical habitat’ for Atlantic sturgeon

September 1, 2017 — They are large, bony fish whose ancestors began swimming the Earth during the Triassic period, some 245 million years ago.

The federal government says the Atlantic sturgeon is now an endangered species in some places and is threatened in others, and that states up and down the Eastern Seaboard must take necessary measures to ensure their survival.

A ruling handed down on Aug. 16 by the Department of Commerce through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, designates the Gulf of Maine as a critical habitat for the fish, which includes approximately 152 miles of water in the Merrimack River in Massachusetts, the Penobscot, Kennebec, Androscoggin and Piscataqua rivers of Maine, and the Cocheco and Salmon Falls rivers of New Hampshire.

But what sort of impact will the efforts to replenish the Atlantic sturgeon population have on Merrimack Valley cities like Haverhill and Lawrence?

Allison Ferreira, spokeswoman for NOAA’s Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, said Friday that the ruling mandates that when a federal agency constructs or develops a project near the river or there is a project that is receiving some amount of federal money, such as a highway or bridge project where there could be significant water runoff, that agency must contact NOAA to ensure proper measures are taken so as not to upset the fish’s natural habitat.

Read the full story at the Haverhill Gazette

Industry’s challenge to seafood import monitoring program rejected

August 29, 2017 — A legal challenge to the Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP) – a set of regulations requiring increased traceability for seafood imports – was rejected on Monday, 28 August.

The lawsuit was filed earlier this year by the National Fisheries Institute (NFI) and a large group of U.S. seafood companies, including Trident Seafoods, Fortune Fish and Gourmet, Handy Seafood, and Alfa International Seafood. The industry representatives argued that the program violated federal law and that their businesses would be harmed as a result of its implementation.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled against the plaintiffs, finding that the Commerce Department’s implementation of the program was not done inappropriately. Specifically, Mehta found that SIMP was issued under rules allowed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and Administrative Procedure Act, and that the department properly completed a regulatory flexibility analysis to determine SIMP’s impact on small businesses.

“The court finds that the rule’s issuance did not run afoul of the MSA, and the current Secretary of Commerce validly ratified the rule, thereby curing any alleged constitutional defect in the rule’s promulgation,” Mehta wrote.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Marine Monument Economics: The Atlantic Red Crab Fishery

August 15, 2017 (Saving Seafood) — A July 25, 2017, article published by the Center for American Progress [“Big Oil Could Benefit Most from Review of Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Monument” by Michael Conathan and Avery Siciliano] made the accusation that “commercial fishing interests have spouted inflated numbers about what the economic impact of the [Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National] monument designation would be.”

Accordingly, today, Saving Seafood begins a series on “Marine Monument Economics.” In the coming weeks, we will publish commentrom the fishing industry submitted to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. We start with the Atlantic Red Crab fishery. Red crab is recommended by both the Monterrey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch and the New England Aquarium.

Today’s comments were submitted to Secretary Zinke by Mr. Michael Carroll. Mr. Carroll is a fishery economist specializing in seafood markets and economic impacts. He is both a Statistical and Scientific Committee member and an Advisory Panel member to the Deep Sea Red Crab Fishery governed under the New England Fishery Management Council. Mr. Carroll is founder and CEO of BackTracker Inc. and VP of Fisheries and Aquaculture Vertex, both in Boston. From 2008-2012, he was the business development manager of the New England Aquarium. He is lead author of “An Analysis of the Impacts of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on the Gulf of Mexico Seafood Industry” published in March 2016 by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Mr. Carroll holds a bachelor’s degree in business and economics from Saint Michael’s College, and a master’s degree in environmental and natural resource economics from the University of Rhode Island.

Mr. Carroll observes that in the Atlantic red crab fishery, there “has never been any indication that overfishing has occurred or even that the stock has declined.” And that a review of the current academic literature indicates that the actual market economic values produced by the fishery have been understated, while the types of non-market values ascribed to elements of the ecosystem such as deep-sea corals, have not been included in calculating the value of the fishery.

In his comments he observes that, “An Economic Impact (or cost to the fishery) … if done properly this figure will represent value lost throughout the entire supply chain (vessel to consumer) as well as other associated losses incurred by shore side infrastructure, such as fuel, bait, ice, marine service, etc.”  But to date, the publicly-available data from NOAA “has only presented impact figures in vessel landing dollars, which is approximately understating impacts by seven times the true economic damages to the economy.”

He urges the secretary to “consider only the facts that can be demonstrated through sound peer reviewed science and proven quantifiable economic valuation methods.”

Today is the last day to submit comments to inform NOAA’s review of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument. If you have not already submitted comments, Saving Seafood encourages you to do so here.

Mr. Carroll’s comments are below:

Dear Secretary Zinke,

My name is Mike Carroll. I am a fishery economist that specializes in seafood markets and economic impacts. I am both a Statistical and Scientific Committee member and an AP member to the Deep Sea Red Crab Fishery governed under the New England Fishery Management Council. We met in Boston on June 16 at the fishery industry meeting you had at Legal Seafood.

I have deep concerns in regards to the lack of valid economic impact evidence supporting the closure of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts to protect deep sea coral and other sea life, in effect creating economic hardship on various fisheries in the North-East Region. Specifically, I am commenting to note that the magnitude of potential impacts associated with this action on the Deep Sea Red Crab fishery are concerning and not based on peer reviewed economic valuation science.

For anyone reading my comments that are not familiar with economic impacts and economic valuation methods I will summarize some key points to remember when making decisions. For more information on this topic you can refer to the NOAA website or for more detailed input on deep sea coral please go here.

An Economic Impact (or cost to the fishery) is basically the effect of an event, policy change, in this case closure of a fishery area, on the associated economy. This is often stated in a stagnant figure that represents a yearly impact value to the business; if done properly this figure will represent value lost throughout the entire supply chain (vessel to consumer) as well as other associated losses incurred by shore side infrastructure, such as fuel, bait, ice, marine service etc… If any, NOAA has only presented cursory impact figures in vessel landing dollars, which is approximately understating impacts by 7 times the true economic damages to the economy. These figures can vary by fishery depending on the level of value added to the product as it travels down the supply chain but 7x is a good bell weather figure for now until NOAA provides us with the real figures. The important piece to note is these are real tangible values of loss to fisherman and our shore side community that are very measurable.

Often there is confusion by fishery managers about how to interpret economic impacts. All too often they think the decision should be made based on the relative impact to the industry but in reality, the decision should be made according to the net economic value the policy change will provide. Economic value is based on a basic calculation of how much benefit does the policy decision generate vs how much does the policy decision cost or the Economic Impact to the industry, therefore simply stated:

Economic Value = Benefit (value of corals) – Cost (value lost is the fishery or Economic Impact)

If the policy change produces a net positive economic value, then it should be perceived as good for our nation as a whole, whereas if it is negative, not good for our nation as a whole.

Now let’s look at how we value the benefit of the deep-sea coral. In the literature, there is mention of market values and values to the ecosystem which could someday be measurable but as it is today neither of these values are relevant to economic value or should be referenced without peer reviewed research that shows relative quantitative figures. True market values for corals are basically irrelevant considering it is not legal to harvest and sell corals for any purpose. The ecosystem value is something we all want to understand more about but arguably no true linkages have been proven where we can estimate the economic value they represent. Current studies indicate that deep sea coral is considered “Facultative Habitat” and not “Essential Fish Habitat,” therefore the absence of this habitat does not result in extinction of the species in question.

There has been considerable mention of market values, such as the value associated with people viewing deep sea coral on the Discovery Channel, and the revenue generated from this represents a true market value for preservation of the coral. Well, I agree completely, that is a true market value but what about the market value associated with the preservation of the fisherman. How much money do you think the Deadliest Catch or other commercial fishing shows on the Discovery Channel generate? I am not sure, but it definitely generates more than deep sea coral viewing shows. If this value is being represented on one side of the value equation (coral value) why is it not represented on the other side (fishery value)?

The value or benefits associated with deep sea coral for all intents and purposes are considered non-market values which are calculated based on value derived by people’s desire for them to exist. Non-market values are soft values based on what people say they are willing to pay or prefer given a set of choices. These values are often criticized because they frequently overstate true values of what people will actually pay in a real market environment. The use of the term existence value, which you see throughout the literature presented, often refers to these non-market valuation methods which may be useful to determine people’s preference but is grossly inadequate in determining value.

Everyone you met in Boston on June 16 cares about setting up a certain level of protections for these deep-sea corals. I would even go to the extent that we may be able to come to mutual agreement on certain zones that would optimize protection of coral while causing minimal impact to the fishery. As a US regulator, I would urge you to consider only the facts that can be demonstrated through sound peer reviewed science and proven quantifiable economic valuation methods. The impacts of these offshore closures on the deep sea red crab fishery and other offshore fisheries are substantially greater than benefits generated by the coral conservation measure being carried out. Even if you were to consider down the road that there could be increased ecosystem values, a decision to close this area to the deep sea red crab fishery is not a fair and equitable decision. It makes no reasonable sense to implement measures that would create impacts that would affect such a large portion of this fishery. This is a small fishery that has been harvested responsibly and made every effort to participate in discussions and share information. It is an exceptional fishery in the United States in that it is very environmentally sound and has gone through the MSC certification process. I would argue if these National Monument protections must go into place for political or legal reasons, regardless of the unsubstantiated economic valuation equation, the deep sea red crab fishery should be exempt from this rule based on sheer economic hardship.

Best Regards,
Michael Carroll

MASSACHUSETTS: Marbleheader cleared in alleged fish smuggling plot

August 15, 2017 –A Marblehead businessman is asking the federal government to pay his attorney’s fees after being cleared of what he described as “being framed” by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Robert Kliss and his company North Atlantic Traders Ltd. was indicted in April, after a nearly five-year investigation. He was charged with smuggling, falsifying records and conspiracy.

In July, it took a jury only about an hour to clear him of all charges.

“This is a case the government never should have brought,” said Kliss’s Attorney Barry Pollack.

“I would have to say it was probably the most stressful thing I’ve very gone through,” Kliss said. “More so than an IRS audit and I’ve been through three.”

The Motion

In his motion for an award of attorney’s fees, which was filed in U.S. District Court Aug. 9, Pollack lays out all the ways the government’s case went wrong, including pressuring witnesses to, in some cases, exaggerate testimony and in one case invoke the Fifth Amendment.

Three cooperating witnesses pled guilty to a misdemeanor, “as the result of a hybrid charge and fact bargaining,” Pollack stated in his motion. “The government paid substantial consideration, in that respect, to each witness while pressuring him to provide testimony against Kliss.”

One of the most damning pieces of evidence against the government’s case however was when Agent Shawn Eusebio testified that during the more than four-year active investigation, no one on the government’s team realized Kliss wasn’t even in the country during the time he was alleged to have created and filed false documents in Massachusetts. Kliss had been in British Columbia with his son.

“My evidence was my stamped passport along with my son’s,” Kliss said. “That’s how bad the investigators and (prosecuting) attorneys are.”

Read the full story at the Marblehead Reporter

Read a statement from Stephen Ouellette, an attorney for North Atlantic Traders, here

 

 

North Atlantic Traders Acquitted on Smuggling and Conspiracy Charges in Less than One Hour of Jury Deliberation

August 15, 2017 — BOSTON — The following was released by Stephen Ouellette, attorney for North Atlantic Traders:

A 12-person federal jury acquitted federal tuna dealer North Atlantic Traders and its principal, Robert Kliss, on Lacey Act, smuggling and conspiracy charges in a case before District Judge William Young, investigated by the Department of Justice working with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.   The jury reached its verdict of not guilty on all five counts against both defendants in less than a full hour of deliberation.

Barry Pollack of Boston, attorney for Kliss, added, “the federal agents engaged in misconduct by pressuring witnesses to make exaggerated statements, which the jury saw through.”

Stephen Ouellette of Gloucester, Massachusetts, attorney for North Atlantic Traders, said “the verdict of not guilty reflected more than two decades of regulatory compliance by my client and its dedication to a sustainable fishery.  That NOAA’s overzealous prosecution in this and other cases following closely on the heels of the highly critical assessment of NOAA law enforcement by the Department of Commerce Office of the Inspector General can only be seen as an attempt to justify NOAA’s enforcement budget at the expense of the fishing industry and fundamental principles of justice.”

For further information, contact Stephen Ouellette at 978-281-7788 or 978-317-2542.