Saving Seafood

  • Home
  • News
    • Alerts
    • Conservation & Environment
    • Council Actions
    • Economic Impact
    • Enforcement
    • International & Trade
    • Law
    • Management & Regulation
    • Regulations
    • Nutrition
    • Opinion
    • Other News
    • Safety
    • Science
    • State and Local
  • News by Region
    • New England
    • Mid-Atlantic
    • South Atlantic
    • Gulf of Mexico
    • Pacific
    • North Pacific
    • Western Pacific
  • About
    • Contact Us
    • Fishing Terms Glossary

East Coast fishermen spar with federal government over cost of at-sea monitors

July 14, 2016 — Every year, the federal government spends millions monitoring New England commercial fishermen to ensure they ply their timeless maritime trade in accordance with the law.

Now, a judge is set to rule on who should foot the bill for the on-board monitors: the government or the fishing boat owners. The East Coast fishermen say sticking them with the bill would be the “death knell” for their  industry and is illegal on the part of the federal government.

Fishermen of important New England food species such as cod and haddock will have to start paying the cost of at-sea monitors soon under new rules. Monitors — third-party workers hired to observe fishermen’s compliance with federal regulations — collect data to help determine future fishing quotas and can cost about $18,000 a year, or $710 per voyage.

The Cause of Action Institute, a legal watchdog representing a group of East Coast fishermen, sued the federal government in December in U.S. District Court in Concord, N.H., seeking to block the transfer of payments from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to the fishermen.

“It is unlawful for NOAA to force struggling fishermen to pay for their own at-sea monitors,” said former federal judge Alfred Lechner, the institute’s president and CEO. “The significant costs of these regulations should be the responsibility of the government.”

The lawsuit was filed against the Department of Commerce on behalf of David Goethel, owner and operator of F/V Ellen Diane, a 44-foot trawler based in Hampton, N.H., and Northeast Fishery Sector 13, a nonprofit representing fishermen from Massachusetts to North Carolina.

It called the transfer of payments the “death knell for much of what remains of a once-thriving ground fish industry that has been decimated by burdensome federal overreach.”

“Fishing is my passion and it’s how I’ve made a living, but right now, I’m extremely fearful that I won’t be able to do what I love and provide for my family if I’m forced to pay out of pocket for at-sea monitors,” Goethel said when the suit was filed last December.

Read the full story at Fox News

Exactly where do Maine lobstermen find their catch? Hard to say

July 13, 2016 — It is the state’s largest fishery, bringing in more than $500 million a year and employing tens of thousands of people up and down the supply chain, but there is no map that shows exactly where Maine’s lobstermen trap their catch.

Most of them fish within 3 miles of the coast, and thus do not fill out detailed federal catch reports or have onboard satellite tracking systems that lend themselves to detailed maps of valuable fishing territories.

That suits many lobstermen just fine, because they say their territory changes from year to year and they don’t like the notion of the government tracking where they fish. But that attitude makes life difficult for regulatory agencies responsible for permitting non-fishing activities in the Gulf of Maine, such as wind farms or mining operations.

The lack of detailed, up-to-date maps of lobster fishing grounds is obvious when reviewing the hundreds of maps collected by the Northeast Regional Planning Body, the federal planning body that is overseeing the nation’s regional ocean planning from the Gulf of Maine to Long Island Sound. The council is building a trove of online data, maps and information tracking a wide range of coastal and marine activities, from popular cruise ship routes to protected marine mammal habitats to public beaches and beach restoration projects.

Trying to fill the information gap

The data portal has maps that paint a detailed picture of other fisheries, with current and historical views of the number of fishermen who work any given area for each species of groundfish and how much they are catching in each area. But the information about lobstering is limited to a few lobster biomass maps and management area maps.

The Island Institute, a nonprofit group out of Rockland that represents the interests of Maine’s island and more remote coastal communities, is trying to step up to fill that gap, if not with maps, then with voices from the lobstering industry.

The group has issued a report on the “spatial characterization” of the lobster fishery, which is government-speak for what a map of the lobster industry would look like if such a map existed, said Nick Battista, marine programs director for the institute and part of the team that produced the report.

Read the full story at the Portland Press Herald

40 years of change: For fishing industry, the spring of 1976 was the start of a new era

June 20, 2016 — The following is excerpted from a story published Saturday by the New Bedford Standard-Times:

NEW BEDFORD, Mass. — When you talk about fishing here in New Bedford, you have to start with the whaling era — and the lessons learned.

For decades, the pursuit of whaling chugged along without any dramatic changes. The ships, the equipment, the culture remained essentially the same for years, feeding countless families, lining countless pockets … until the bonanza ran out and the industry collapsed in the early part of the 20th century, never to be revived.

The fishing industry, both local and national, might have fallen into that same trap, but 40 years ago the U.S. government changed the game, adopting the most sweeping changes in the laws governing fisheries that reverberates to this day.

On April 13, 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act was passed and immediately accomplished two major goals.

One, it set into motion a new and unique scheme of regulation to rebuild dwindling fish stocks, a system dramatically different than anything else the government had tried until 1976.

Two, it expelled foreign fishing vessels from fishing inside a 200-mile limit from America’s shoreline.

It isn’t talked about much today, but until 1976 the capacity of the foreign fleet exceeded the Americans, sending huge factory ships into fertile places like Georges Bank to virtually vacuum the fish into the hold and freeze it on the spot, allowing the ships to stay for weeks at a time. “There were West Germans, Poles, Russians, East Germans,” recalled former fisherman James Kendall, now a seafood consultant.

In 1975, the National Marine Fisheries Service reported there were 133 foreign fishing vessels fishing on Georges Bank. The Magnuson-Stevens Act ended that decisively.

Since 1976, much has changed. The unions, which once represented the fishermen and the workers in the fish houses, virtually disappeared from the waterfront. The venerable fish auction at the Wharfinger Building on City Pier 3 is now a museum piece, since the brokers years ago put down their chalkboards and picked up computer screens. Today it has evolved into a computerized display auction elsewhere on the waterfront, with complete transparency and documentation, and bidders located across the nation.

What else has changed?

For lack of a better term, everything.

Where, oh where has our groundfish fleet gone?

At the BASE New Bedford Seafood Display Auction, co-owner Richard Canastra called up data of groundfish sales in recent years that demonstrate a dropoff of more than 30 percent in the last few years alone.

Today there are some days that don’t warrant conducting the auction at all. “Sometimes it’s like a candy store,” he said. “Five pounds of this and three pounds of that.”

Much of the blame for the shrinking of the groundfish fleet, particularly in New Bedford and Gloucester, is laid at the feet of the catch shares and sector management introduced in 2010 by NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco. It dispensed with most of the old days-at-sea  system, which had reduced the annual days at sea to 50, down from around 225, that the boats once had available to them.

The term “sectors” was unfamiliar to the industry when NOAA announced their arrival in 2010. Essentially they are cooperatives, in which individual boats are grouped together along with their catch allocations, and the sector manager manages them as efficiently as he or she can.

This was predicted to cause a consolidation of the industry into the bigger players as the smaller ones weren’t getting enough quota to make it profitable to fish.

For some boat owners, the problem was that the catch shares were determined by the history of the boats but the practice of shack left no paper trail, no formal record, so catch shares were reduced in many cases.

Dr. Brian Rothschild, dean emeritus of the UMass Dartmouth School for Marine Science and Technology and a critic of NOAA, noted that many boat owners found that they can “own it and lease it out and obtain money in windfall profits” without even going fishing.

Oh, those pesky environmentalists!

It was “not right from the beginning that NOAA has enforced this,” Rothschild said. “On top of that, NOAA enforcement didn’t come from a desire to make good public policy but because it came under the influence of organizations like the Environmental Defense Fund,” he said.

Catch shares and sector management have, however, withstood legal challenges in federal court, because of a legal doctrine named Chevron, in which government institutions are allowed to interpret laws such as Magnuson any way they wish unless the departures from congressional intent are egregious.

Rothschild is among those who believe that sector management under Magnuson has been ignoring key provisions of the act, notably the socio-economic impact evaluation and the instruction to use the best available science. That has largely excluded scientists outside of NOAA itself.

Outside scientists have occasionally run rings around NOAA. For example, SMAST’s Dr. Kevin  Stokesbury’s invention of a camera apparatus to quite literally count the scallops on the seabed individually has revolutionized scallop management, opened the door to a treasure trove of healthy scallops, and made New Bedford the No. 1 fishing port in the nation.

But NOAA now employs its own camera apparatus. It conducts regular surveys of fish populations and that has been a very sore point at times in recent years.

This is a departure from the days before Magnuson, when fishermen were issued permits for various species and were left largely on their own to discover how many fish were in the ocean, which were already dwindling at the time.

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times

CAPE COD TIMES: Promoting sustainability

May 10, 2016 — At the sustainable fisheries conference held at Rhode Island College last month, audience members were asked questions about the ocean, fisheries, and management that were tabulated and presented on the spot. Unscientific, yes, but very interesting.

A question of whether the groundfish fishery is sustainable was asked of the audience before and after the conference, and the results suggest that some opinions changed — for the positive — by the two hours of discussion.

When asked who would best regulate the fishery, the answer showed the thoughts of those in the audience based on biases and attitudes, but there is only one answer to that question. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, passed by Congress and administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is the fishery’s manager, and that won’t change.

One very important part of that manager’s charge is ensuring both conservation and economic goals are considered in its management.

One policy tool for those goals is at-sea monitoring, which aims to provide accurate data on what is caught and what is thrown back. Accurate assessments support effective management and more successful fishing. It has been a point of contention for several years, as the cost of monitoring is to be borne by the industry, not the regulator. Cost aside, monitoring can help fishermen.

Read the full editorial at the Cape Cod Times

Scallopers to White House: Marine monument a bad idea

May 6, 2016 — A fishing trade group that represents scallopers from Maine to Virginia has joined Northeast groundfishermen in opposing the designation of any marine national monuments in New England waters.

The Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF) penned a May 4 letter to Obama administration officials stating its opposition to the establishment of the monuments while also criticizing the unilateral process — presidential decree through the Antiquities Act — being considered for designating them.

“A monument designation, with its unilateral implementation and opaque process, is the exact opposite of the fisheries management process in which we participate,” FSF legal counsels David Frulla and Andrew Minkiewicz wrote to Christy Goldfuss and Whitley Saumwebber, executives in the White House Council on Environmental Quality. “Public areas and public resources should be managed in an open and transparent manner, not an imperial stroke of the pen.”

The FSF letter comes almost two months after Goldfuss, the managing director of the White House environmental council, told fishing stakeholders at a March 24 meeting in Boston the White House has shelved the proposal pushed by environmental and conservation groups to establish a marine national monument about 80 miles east of Cape Ann in the area around Cashes Ledge.

Read the full story at the Gloucester Times

Fishermen await trial on NOAA monitors mandate

February 2, 2016 — HAMPTON — Local fisherman David Goethel said he hopes a court ruling comes soon to determine the legality of a new federal mandate, as he and other fishermen are fearful they will go under before the trial begins.

Goethel said he may sell his fishing boat after this summer if the trial isn’t resolved by then. He filed the lawsuit causing the trial, challenging the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s plan to make fishermen pay for their own policing. He filed it in conjunction with a fishing sector based in Massachusetts.

Industry members estimate the observers would cost a given fisherman $700 for each day the observer joined them at sea. Observers are mandated to go with fishermen on 24 percent of their fishing days. Fishermen say their industry was already being devastated by strict restrictions on catch limits.

“I will not be able to pay for this,” Goethel said. “I keep saying over and over: This is the straw that will break the camel’s back.”

Read the full story at the Portsmouth Herald

Massachusetts sector managers detail fishing costs

January 29, 2016 — NEW BEDFORD — Managers of area fishery sectors on Friday said many local groundfish boats could face daily charges of $125 or less-frequent charges of about $500, to pay for government-mandated monitoring of their catches.

Sector 9 manager Stephanie Rafael-DeMello and Sector 13 manager John Haran both said they negotiated with East West Technical Services, which has an office in Narragansett, R.I., for catch-monitoring services for which fishermen expect to begin paying around March 1.

Rafael-DeMello said the negotiated price was “just under $500 a day,” per boat. But because regulators randomly select boats for monitoring, she said, Sector 9 will spread the cost evenly, charging boats a flat rate of $125 per sea day in order to foot the overall costs of monitoring, which will apply only to about 20 percent of trips.

“We figured it will kind of ease the blow,” Rafael-DeMello said. “It will be a fair way for all of the vessels to share that cost.”

Sector 9 has about 21 groundfishing boats, nearly all of which operate out of New Bedford.

“We’re looking to see if we can afford to keep them all fishing, with the (quota) cuts and the costs that are coming next year,” Rafael-DeMello said. “It’s definitely going to be a struggle, to say the least.”

Read the full story at New Bedford Standard Times

 

BANGOR DAILY NEWS: How a groundfish disaster today can spawn a different-looking fishery tomorrow

January 27, 2016 — The federal government declared the Northeast groundfish fishery a disaster in 2012. But disaster arguably struck the region’s groundfishing fleet, particularly in Maine, long before that.

In 1982, there were 328 vessels from Maine actively fishing for groundfish. By 2012, the number had fallen to 63 vessels participating in the first true industry that took root in colonial America — fishing for cod, haddock, flounder, pollock, hake and other ocean bottom dwellers. In 2014, 52 Maine vessels held groundfish permits.

The disaster declaration paved the way for Congress to provide disaster aid, and Congress followed suit in February 2014, granting $32.8 million to New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine.

But the funding the states have distributed so far has largely gone to those who have continued to land groundfish — not the dozens of vessels that have been forced out of the fishery, arguably those most affected by the fishery’s disastrous state. In Maine, 50 groundfish permit holders qualified for $32,500 each in disaster relief because they had caught at least 5,000 pounds of groundfish in at least one of the past four years.

In the coming weeks, Maine has a small opportunity to use its remaining disaster funds in a different way — to help set the groundfish fishery on a sustainable path for the future and make it a viable and affordable option for new and small players, including lobstermen looking to diversify beyond the booming crustacean.

Read the full editorial at Bangor Daily News

Massachusetts fishermen fear new rules smothering industry

January 16, 2016 — GLOUCESTER, Mass. (AP) — Gerry O’Neill looks at the water world spinning around him, a world of regulation and re-regulation and over-regulation— in other words, the modern world of commercial fishing —and thinks that he’s seen this movie before.

Two days removed from the public comment hearing at the state Division of Marine Fisheries offices on Emerson Street on potential changes to rules governing the scope and the schedule of the herring season, O’Neill sits in his office on Jodrey State Fish Pier and wonders if his two 141-foot mid-water trawlers Challenger and Endeavour and the Cape Seafood fish processing and sales operations that collectively employ almost 40 full-time workers— and even more when the product is flowing —will survive the future any better than the nearly decimated Gloucester groundfish fleet.

‘‘At the end of the day, the groundfishermen are struggling and everybody knows that and it’s because of over-regulation as well,’’ O’Neill said. ‘‘We’re not dying yet. But if they keep doing what they’re doing, we’re going to go the same way as the groundfishermen.’’

Given the state of the groundfish fleet, that is a chilling phrase, made even more-so by his matter-of-fact delivery in the soft brogue of his native Ireland and his admission that he favors regulations that will sustain the fishery even when they cost him fish and money.

His voice was steady and calm, just as it was at last week’s session in which David Pierce, the executive director of DMF and the state’s representative on the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission which governs the Northeast herring fishery, conceded the fishery remains robust.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at the Boston Globe

Questions schooling around at-sea fishing monitors

January 16, 2016 — The battle over the cost and scope of at-sea monitoring of Northeast groundfish vessels, now being played out on various regulatory and legal platforms, promises a hectic end to the current fishing season and a complex start to the next.

There are no shortage of questions.

  • When will the federal government run out of money and shift the responsibility for paying for observers to the permit holders?
  • How will NOAA Fisheries respond to the recommendations from the New England Fishery Management Council that would significantly alter the at-sea monitoring program in the 2016 fishing season, which begins May 1?
  • How do the fishing sectors, once they are handed the responsibility of paying for observer coverage, negotiate new contracts with monitoring contractors when they don’t know what rules will be in place for the remainder of this fishing season and the beginning of the next?
  • Finally, what affect will the federal lawsuit, filed by New Hampshire fisherman David Goethel seeking the elimination of the monitoring program, have on the process in the short and long terms?
  • “Knowing what the numbers are going to be and what the process is going to be is really important,” Northeast Seafood Coalition Executive Director Jackie Odell told the Gloucester Fishing Commission on Thursday night. “That kind of certainty is really essential.”

Presently, that certainty is nowhere to be found.

Proposed rule changes

Odell was before the board seeking its commitment to support the proposed rule changes for at-sea monitoring approved by the council in December. Those measures are designed to alter the methodology and cost of providing observer coverage to make the program more efficient and ease the ultimate burden of assuming the responsibility for paying for the coverage.

Read the full story at the Gloucester Daily Times

 

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Next Page »

Recent Headlines

  • Scientists did not recommend a 54 percent cut to the menhaden TAC
  • Broad coalition promotes Senate aquaculture bill
  • Chesapeake Bay region leaders approve revised agreement, commit to cleanup through 2040
  • ALASKA: Contamination safeguards of transboundary mining questioned
  • Federal government decides it won’t list American eel as species at risk
  • US Congress holds hearing on sea lion removals and salmon predation
  • MASSACHUSETTS: Seventeen months on, Vineyard Wind blade break investigation isn’t done
  • Sea lions keep gorging on endangered salmon despite 2018 law

Most Popular Topics

Alaska Aquaculture ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission BOEM California China Climate change Coronavirus COVID-19 Donald Trump groundfish Gulf of Maine Gulf of Mexico Illegal fishing IUU fishing Lobster Maine Massachusetts Mid-Atlantic National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NEFMC New Bedford New England New England Fishery Management Council New Jersey New York NMFS NOAA NOAA Fisheries North Atlantic right whales North Carolina North Pacific offshore energy Offshore wind Pacific right whales Salmon South Atlantic Virginia Western Pacific Whales wind energy Wind Farms

Daily Updates & Alerts

Enter your email address to receive daily updates and alerts:
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Tweets by @savingseafood

Copyright © 2025 Saving Seafood · WordPress Web Design by Jessee Productions