Saving Seafood

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.

NEFMC Bids Farewell to One Member, Welcomes Another

August 11, 2017 — The following was released by the New England Fishery Management Council:

The New England Fishery Management Council is bidding farewell to Mary Beth Tooley of Maine and welcoming a new face to the Council table – Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR) Commissioner Patrick Keliher.

On June 28, 2017, the Secretary of Commerce announced that three New England Council members, whose terms were scheduled to expire, had been reappointed to serve for another three years effective August 12, 2017.

  • Peter Kendall of New Hampshire was appointed to his third term on the Council;
  • Elizabeth “Libby” Etrie of Massachusetts was appointed to a second term; and
  • John Pappalardo of Massachusetts was appointed to a second term.

Terry Stockwell of Maine was appointed to fill the seat being vacated by Tooley, who had served three consecutive terms. Stockwell is the Council’s vice chairman and previously served as the state of Maine’s designated fisheries official to the Council. In June, however, Stockwell retired from state service following a 21-year career at DMR, and he now is beginning his first term as a secretarial appointee.

Read the full release at the NEFMC

NOAA rejects bid to list tuna as endangered

August 9, 2017 — The Trump administration on Tuesday chose not to list the Pacific bluefin tuna as an endangered species, rejecting a petition by the largest global conservation group that the U.S. is a member of, with France, South Korea, Australia, and several other countries.

The Commerce Department’s National Marine Fisheries Service announced the decision after a 12-month review of the request that started under the Obama administration.

In response, environmentalists are organizing an international boycott of sushi restaurants, decrying what they say is the startling reversal of the agency’s original intent to list the tuna under the Obama administration.

The agency said that it looked at all factors affecting the bluefin tuna’s habitat, and based “on the best scientific and commercial data available … and after taking into account efforts being made to protect the species, we have determined that listing of the Pacific bluefin tuna is not warranted,” the agency said in a notice published in the Federal Register.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature had petitioned the U.S. government to list the tuna after assessing “the status of Pacific bluefin tuna and categorized the species as ‘vulnerable’ in 2014, meaning that the species was considered to be facing a high risk of extinction in the wild,” the notice read.

Read the full story at the Washington Examiner

Jim Lovgren: Managers responsible for summer flounder mismanagement

Fisherman Jim Lovgren

August 9, 2017 — The following was submitted to Saving Seafood by Mr. Jim Lovgren:

Earlier this year New Jersey was found to be out of compliance by the Atlantic States Marine Fishery Commission (ASMFC) in regard to the proposed recreational catch specifications for summer flounder, or fluke. The ASMFC, which jointly manages summer flounder with the Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC), had recommended an increase in the recreational size limit for summer flounder to 19 inches for New Jersey. New Jersey fishery management representatives balked at that proposal and instead presented an alternative proposal that would keep the size limit at the present 18 inches but with a shorter season which would still meet the same conservation goals as the Commission’s plan.

The Commission denied this alternative and declared New Jersey out of compliance, an action that would result in the shutdown of the summer flounder fishery, both recreational and commercial, sometime later this summer. Unfairly, this shutdown would have occurred after the recreational season was over, and would only impact New Jersey’s commercial fishermen, who are already struggling with a 50% cut in their quota over the last two years.

New Jersey appealed the ASMFC’s finding of non-compliance to U.S. Department of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who on July 11th announced that he agreed with New Jersey, and found its proposed specifications would meet the mandated conservation goals as well as the Commission’s regulations would. The Commission responded with a “sky is falling” press release objecting to the Secretary’s decision, and setting up New Jersey as the fall guy for the so-called collapse of the stock.

Even though I firmly disagree with the assertion that the summer flounder stock is in trouble, fishery managers need to examine their past mistakes in managing the species. It is their mismanagement that has caused the recreational industry to target only the largest breeders in the biomass, killing the large females that produce the most viable eggs, while at the same time causing millions of fluke to be discarded dead every year because they do not meet the stringent length requirements.

Fifteen years ago, as a member of the MAFMC, I stated that the constant increasing of the recreational size limit was at some point going to do more damage than good. I said then that I believe that once you reach a size limit of 16 or more inches that the effects of discarding would nullify any effect a higher limit had on reducing the catch. At that time, with a possession size limit of 16 inches, I estimated a five-to-one discard-to-catch rate. That has since climbed to twenty-to-one in some areas, meaning that to catch a single “keeper” an angler will discard 19 smaller fish.

Obviously many of those twenty fish will die, and the National Marine Fishery Service is sticking with a 10% mortality rate for those discards. I personally know of nobody who believes that percentage to be correct, and mortality may well be as high as 50%.

Regardless of what the real mortality rate is, at 10% with a twenty-to-one keeper rate would lead to millions of dead fish annually, and hundreds of thousands of disaffected anglers, who now disregard the regulations because they find them ridiculous. I urged the Council/Commission to do the math and to find the number where discard mortality negates any benefits from increasing the size limit. They never did.

I have been commercial fishing for over forty years and summer flounder is my primary target. The stock reached a historical high about five years ago, and has since declined slightly according to my fishing experience. The last two years I’ve noted a small decline in my catch per unit of effort (CPUE), but this year I have seen the best recruitment of 14 and 15 inch fish I have seen in at least five years. This past month my CPUE has been the best ever, resulting in short day trips of 5 hours dock to dock for my 500 pound trip limit: one two-hour tow, and go home. The two-month season lasted two weeks thanks to the ease of catch, combined with the recent reductions in quota. The summer flounder stock is still near the historic high level of spawning stock biomass, yet the fishing industry is allowed to catch only 20% of the landings that were common 35 years ago with a lower spawning stock biomass.

There is no shortage of summer flounder, only some angry stock assessment scientists who’re still mad that the fishing industry hired their own scientist a few years back to do his own independent stock assessment using the same NMFS data. The scientist, Dr. Maunder, discovered the science was wrong. Coincidentally the fishing industry has hired their own scientists on the east coast for two other fisheries, scallops and monkfish. In both those fisheries the Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s stock assessment science was found to be inaccurate, resulting in a higher quota for the species. So it seems like there is a pattern regarding the NEFSC that indicate the quotas have been set too low.

This brings up the National Academy of Science’s review of all of the fishery management plans that underwent rebuilding after being found to be overfished since the Sustainable Fisheries Act was implemented in 1996. They discovered that in the whole country twenty stocks underwent rebuilding plans that were later found to have not needed them, causing reductions in quota, closures, and putting people out of business. Amazingly, the study found that of those twenty stocks ten of the wrong assessments originated in the NEFSC. There are 6 Fishery Science Centers in the U.S. and no other one had more than two mistakes. Not included in the study were butterfish and menhaden, which were erroneously declared overfished after the study was concluded, which were also wrongly assessed by the NEFSC. That makes 12 out of 22 stocks wrongly assessed by the NEFSC, which is clear incompetence in anybody’s book. These mistakes cost the American public hundreds of millions of dollars, yet no one was held accountable, and the results were swept under the rug.

A decade before the National Academy of Science study, “Trawlgate” occurred, where it was discovered that a trawl survey vessel had been towing their net around for at least two annual surveys with one tow cable shorter than the other. As a result, a trawl survey advisory group was formed, of which I was a member, and designed a new net for the new survey vessel that was soon to be deployed. This net was going to use two different sweeps, a large “rock hopper” sweep for the Gulf of Maine with 12 inch rubber “cookies,” while a smaller 4 inch “cookie” sweep would be used in the Georges Bank and Mid Atlantic regions due to their sand/ mud bottom habitat. The 4 inch cookie sweep is the industry standard size and is designed to catch flatfish and other demersal species. The large rock hopper just rolls over flatfish.

At the same time, the NEFSC cancelled their annual winter trawl survey which was designed to catch flatfish, explaining that by using the new 4 inch cookie sweep in the spring and fall surveys they should get accurate data on flatfish. Within months of the winter survey cancellation they decided that they would only use the large rock hopper sweep throughout the whole of the survey area, resulting in the abandonment of the trawl survey advisory panel, as industry members quit in disgust.

With that track record in mind, we return to Dr. Maunder, who discovered that although summer flounder stock assessments were performed for over 40 years, no one noticed that males rarely grew bigger than 17 inches, and that fish bigger than 18 inches are almost all female. Not taking this important basic biological fact into consideration in doing a stock assessment is going to lead to very inaccurate spawning stock biomass numbers, and hence, another wrong assessment. How embarrassing, of course doing the science right resulted in an increased quota. NMFS has been trying to get those fish back ever since.

So congratulations to Secretary Ross for his well-reasoned decision. As for the Commission and the Council, get your act together and develop a management plan that does not target all the spawning stock biomass, while creating an enormous discard problem, think about a slot limit or total length, ideas that have been suggested for decades, and ignored.

About Mr. Jim Lovgren: Mr. Lovgren is the Captain and owner of the F/V Shadowfax out of Point Pleasant, New Jersey, targeting whiting, fluke, and squid. He is a third generation fisherman who was raised and still resides in Brick, New Jersey. Mr. Lovgren’s grandfather, who was a lifelong fisherman himself, came to New Jersey from Sweden after World War I. Mr. Lovgren has been active in fishery management issues for decades. He currently holds the position of the Director at the Fisherman’s Dock Cooperative, is a Board of Trustee member for Clean Ocean Action, is on the board of directors for the Garden State Seafood Association, and is President of the Ocean County Farm Bureau. Additionally, he has served as the Director of the New Jersey Seafood Harvesters’ Association. Mr. Lovgren has also served on several state and regional fishery advisory councils and served two terms on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. In addition to the various councils and boards he has served on, Mr. Lovgren has also presented on Fishing Responsibility for Dogfish at the Responsible Fishing Workshop in Providence, Rhode Island. In 2006, Mr. Lovgren received the Highliner Achievement Award for lifetime service to the fishing industry.

Senate Bill on New National Fisheries Marketing Advisory Panel Moves Through Committee

August 7, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — A bill to create an advisory committee to guide seafood marketing and research projects nationwide was approved by the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee on Wednesday, August 2, 2017.

Introduced by Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), S. 3087, The American Fisheries Advisory Committee Act would create a 25-member national panel to advise the Secretary of Commerce on projects aimed at boosting fisheries research and/or seafood marketing initiatives across the country.

The advisory panel would assist the Secretary of Commerce “in the awarding of fisheries research and development grants.”  It establishes six regions within the AFA Committee:

1. Alaska, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Territories of Guam and American Samoa.

2. Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.

3. Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Arkansas, Puerto Rico, and territory of the Virgin Islands.

4. California, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.

5. New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

6. Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Membership would include one representative each from the processing, harvesting, and recreational sector, with at-large appointments from the nation’s distribution, retail, and foodservice sectors, plus a seafood marketer and an individual with experience growing seafood.

Efforts to establish national seafood promotional and research boards have had success in the past, most notably the National Fish and Seafood Promotional Council from the late 1980s.

The current plan has been supported by a coalition of fish harvesting groups who want full throated government support to increase marketing of domestic seafood.

This bill differs from the old national marketing council effort in a few important ways, however. The AFA Committee is not restricted to national promotional initiatives as it will be considering regional projects as well as those that focus on research.

Funding sources were not explicitly mentioned in the bill, but similar marketing and promotional efforts have been supported through Saltonstall-Kennedy funds, industry assessments, and other revenues.  Supporters feel once a vehicle is in place, funding will follow.

The bill was reported to the Senate for a floor vote.

A related House Bill, HR 214, also called the American Fisheries Advisory Committee Act, was introduced by Don Young (R-AK) earlier this year. It was referred to the House Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans on February 10, 2017.

S. 3087 is nearly identical to a bill introduced by Sullivan and Cantwell last year, with the notable addition of a recreational representative on the advisory panel in this year’s version. Last year’s bill was easily passed by the Committee but was never brought to the floor for a Senate vote.

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

Bills would open snapper harvest out to at least 25 miles

August 3, 2017 — Louisiana senators and representatives have introduced companion legislation in Congress that would give states management authority of red snapper out to 25 miles or 25 fathoms, whichever is greater, off their coastlines. Currently, states control red snapper out to nine nautical miles.

Both Louisiana senators, Bill Cassidy and John Kennedy, introduced the bill in the Senate, while Reps. Garret Graves, Cedric Richmond and Clay Higgins joined seven other representatives to propose the House bill.

The legislation is designed to ensure Gulf of Mexico anglers have broader access to rebounding red snapper stocks during 2018 and beyond. This year, the Commerce Department gave recreational anglers 39 additional days in federal waters after NOAA Fisheries set a three-day recreational season.

That move is being contested in court, and without legislation to address the issue, recreational anglers could be locked out of the fishery in 2018.

Graves said the need for legislation is overdue.

“Something has to change,” he said. “It is time to replace the status quo with a management system that more accurately reflects today’s red snapper private recreational fishery.”

Read the full story at the New Orleans Times-Picayune

Fishing managers to meet over Trump official’s flounder rule

July 31, 2017 — Interstate fishing regulators are meeting to discuss a Trump administration decision they say has the ability to jeopardize conservation of marine resources on the East Coast.

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission is meeting Tuesday in Alexandria, Virginia. The commission has disagreed recently with U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross over a decision he made about summer flounder fishing.

The commission announced in June it had found New Jersey out of compliance with management of the fishery.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at the New Jersey Herald

PRESS OF ATLANTIC CITY: One way or another, NJ victory in flounder fight won’t last long

July 31, 2017 — Several months of fighting over catch restrictions for summer flounder, a.k.a. fluke, culminated earlier this month in a striking victory for New Jersey fishing interests and their representatives.

Federal regulators wanted to cut the catch 30 percent by increasing the size of keeper fish an inch (to 19 inches in the ocean and nearby waters, 18 in Delaware Bay), imposing a daily limit of three fish and setting a 128-day season.

Since January, fishing groups such as the Jersey Coast Anglers Association and federal representatives have pushed to avert the restrictions, at least until a fresh assessment of the flounder stock can be made.

Rep. Frank LoBiondo and fellow delegates from New Jersey in January sent the first of four letters against the restrictions to Obama administration Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker. When that got nowhere, a letter went to her replacement in the Trump administration, Wilbur Ross … and then in April one to the chair of the House panel considering a LoBiondo-sponsored bill requiring a new stock assessment.

Read the full editorial at the Press of Atlantic City