Saving Seafood

MSA Reauthorization Fault Lines on Recreation and Stock Target Flexibility Exposed in House Hearing

July 25, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — In last week’s hearing on HR200, the latest version of amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the flash points between recreational and commercial fisheries management — one of the most visible in the suite of proposed changes to the MSA — were made clear.

The last time Magnuson-Stevens was amended, stock conservation efforts were strengthened and the standards to which the regional council system was held, were tightened. This go-around, “flexibility” in allowing conservation methods and goals to be more responsive to needs in the recreational sector is getting some traction in Congress.

HR 200, authored by Alaska’s Representative Don Young, eases requirements for a 10-year rebuilding plan, extends state’s jurisdiction to 9 miles in certain regions, and shifts authority to MSA when other laws, such as the Endangered Species Act or the Antiquities Act (to create marine monuments), are involved.

At last week’s hearing, four industry representatives before the House Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans provided balanced comments from both the commercial and recreational sectors. The four — Nick Wiley, Executive Director of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission; Jeff Kaelin from Lunds Fisheries; Charles Witek, New York angler and fisheries writer; and Sean Martin, president of the Hawaii Longliners Association — were invited to comment on “Exploring the Successes and Challenges of the Magnuson-Stevens Act” and the viability of HR 200.

The questions posed after testimonies, most focused on summer flounder, red snapper, and recreational involvement in these fisheries, shed light on what House members are thinking.

Chairman Doug Lamborn, from Colorado, noted that the “best available science” may be improved upon “dramatically, by using fisheries-based platforms.” He added that “if we work with commercial and recreational fishermen to improve the science, we’ll get more buy in.”

“Scientific uncertainty is killing us — it really is,” noted Kaelin. He explained that when uncertainty is high, managers use precautionary methods to set catch limits, season times, size limits, etc. “The error bars are like this,” Kaelin said, stretching his hands apart. “And all the decisions are being made at the lower end of the error bars.”

Lamborn said, “That indicates that we must pass this legislation.”

He also noted that “restrictive ACLs (annual catch limits) that were applied across all recreational programs may not work. It works well for the commercial sector, but not recreational.

“HR 200 would help in this matter,” Lamborn said.

Witek pushed back on some assertions that MSA was failing in management of red snapper, summer flounder, and other contentious fisheries stocks.

“The [summer founder] decision has done very serious harm to the interjurisdictional cooperative management on the east coast,” Witek said, referring the Secretary Ross’s recent overturning of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission decision that New Jersey was in violation of summer flounder catch limits, the penalty of which would be a moratorium on that fishery.

“The Secretary’s decision has taken the stick away,” Witek said. “The stick was the moratorium. The carrot was a compromise. Other states are now looking for a pass from the Secretary, for instance with striped bass in the Chesapeake.”

Witek said the red snapper decision to extend the red snapper recreational fishery by more than a month in the Gulf “could very well be the death knell to red snapper in the Gulf coast.

“It’s a death spiral that I see no way out of. Except the Gulf council may have a way out of it because they’re talking about changing the definition of overfished stock. By shifting the goals posts they solve the problem,” Witek said.

While Lamborn said the current MSA needs improved science, better transparency and more flexibility, subcommittee member Jared Huffman (California) said MSA is working well, noting that over 40 stocks have now been rebuilt under the MSA guidance and that the precursor to HR200, HR 1335 would not be acceptable by the U.S. Senate.

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

Committee Calls for Improved Science, Local Flexibility and Regulatory Certainty in Magnuson-Stevens

July 19, 2017 — The following was released by the House Committee on Natural Resources:

Today, the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans held a hearing examining the successes and needed updates to the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). Passed in 1976, MSA is the primary law governing fisheries in federal waters.

The law requires federal fishery managers to impose an annual catch limit on both commercial and recreational fisheries. Critics of this system argue that it represents deficient science, disproportionately hurts the recreational industry and is unnecessarily inflexible.

“Management of the recreational sector under strict annual catch limits generates devastating socioeconomic effects and is highly unreasonable due to the insufficiency of the recreational data collection system.” Director of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Service Nick Wiley stated. “[It] is truly a square peg in a round hole causing high levels of frustration.”

“Sometimes the ‘best science available’ is no science at all, and that’s what hurts us,” Congressman Don Yong (R-AK) said.

“Many of the issues faced by our commercial and recreational anglers could be alleviated if sound science was actually being applied,” Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) added. “I have faith that the new administration will do just that.”

MSA also requires that overfished species be rebuilt within ten years. The industry has generally condemned this provision as arbitrary and harmful to both fisheries and the many communities that rely on them.

“The result has been that a founding principle of the Act has been eroded to the extent where we have lost our collective ability to ‘achieve optimum yield on a continuing basis’ in our region,” Lund’s Fisheries, Inc. Jeff Kaelin stated.

Uncertainty has plagued many fisheries due to duplicative and ill-suited regulations from a host of environmental statutes and, more recently, capricious and disruptive marine monument designations acted upon through executive fiat.

“In our view marine monument designations were politically motivated and addressed non-existing problems,” President of the Hawaii Longline Association Sean Martin said. “Fisheries operating in these areas were sustainably managed for several decades under the MSA and the Western Pacific Council. There was no serious attempt to work with the fishing industry in the designations of these monuments.”

“I may not live in a coastal community, however – like many of my colleagues – I have constituents that want fresh, sustainable, U.S. caught seafood on their dinner plates,” Subcommittee Chairman Doug Lamborn (R-CO) said. “[W]e can maintain sustainability while also increasing access to our waters for all. We can strike a balance and it is incumbent on us to do so.”

Click here to view full witness testimony.

Read the full release here

New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell Submits Additional Testimony on Marine Monuments to Congress

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) – March 30, 2017 – On March 15, Mayor Jon Mitchell of New Bedford, Massachusetts delivered written testimony to the House Natural Resources Committee expressing serious concerns about the impact of marine monuments on fishermen and coastal communities, as well as the process by which president’s designate monuments using the Antiquities Act.

Yesterday, Mayor Mitchell submitted additional answers to questions from Rep. Doug Lamborn, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Water, Power, and Oceans. In his follow-up answers, Mayor Mitchell supported fisheries management under the Council process created by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

“I would argue that the Council has both the resources and the approach necessary to achieve ecosystem protection (while balancing economic productivity) commensurate with any protections that could be pursued in conjunction with a monument designation under the Antiquities Act,” Mayor Mitchell wrote. “I have witnessed firsthand the strengths of the of the Fishery Council’s deliberative- and decision-making processes.”

Mayor Mitchell went on to cite two recent examples of the Council process effectively being used to protect important marine resources. In the Mid-Atlantic, the Frank R. Lautenberg Deep-Sea Coral Protection Area, designated by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council in 2015, brought together a broad range of stakeholders to protect over 38,000 square miles of federal waters. The resulting protected area was applauded by conservation groups and fishermen alike.

In New England, the Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2, passed last year by the New England Fishery Management Council after more than a decade of work, used the most up-to-date science to protect essential and vulnerable New England habitats, while opening up areas no longer considered important for successfully conserving fish stocks. The development of this amendment was deliberative and collaborative, with input from federal and state regulators, environmental groups, scientists and academics, and members of the fishing industry, Mayor Mitchell wrote.

Read Mayor Mitchell’s letter here

New England marine monument gets bad review from lawmakers

March 17, 2017 — Members of subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee are objecting to the way President Barack Obama created a national marine monument off the coast of New England last year.

The subcommittee on water, power and oceans held an oversight hearing on the creation and management of marine monuments on Wednesday. Republican members say the creation of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument lacked significant local input and scientific scrutiny.

The monument is made up of nearly 5,000 square miles of underwater canyons and mountains. A group of commercial fishermen has filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of its creation.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at NH1

Congressional panel says New England marine monument hurts fishing communities

March 16, 2017 — Members of subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee are objecting to the way President Barack Obama created a national marine monument off the coast of New England last year.

The subcommittee on water, power and oceans held an oversight hearing Wednesday on the creation and management of marine monuments. Republican members say the creation of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument lacked significant local input and scientific scrutiny.

The monument is made up of nearly 5,000 square miles of underwater canyons and mountains. A group of commercial fishermen has filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of its creation.

The subcommittee is chaired by Doug Lamborn, a Colorado Republican. The subcommittee issued a statement on Wednesday that said the monument negatively impacts New England fishing communities.

Read the full story at the Portland Press Herald