Saving Seafood

Federal government should fully fund fisherman safety programs

December 28, 2015 —  Commercial fishing is one of the most dangerous jobs in America. Groundfishermen in the Northeast are 37 times more likely to die on the job than police officers, according to U.S. Department of Labor statistics. They are 171 times more likely to die on the job than that average American worker.

As Massachusetts lawmakers noted in a joint letter to the president earlier this year, “If our school teachers died on the job at the same rate as our fishermen in Massachusetts, we would lose 400 public school teachers each year.”

Because there is no controlling the open ocean and offshore weather is difficult to impossible to consistently predict, fishing will always carry an element of danger.

It can, however, be safer. Only 10 percent of New England’s offshore fishermen have been through safety training. Raising that percentage will save lives.

Congress decided as much in 2010, when it passed the Coast Guard Authorization Act, which among other things required additional safety and survival training for those operating commercial fishing boats more than 3 nautical miles from shore.

The act established two competitive grant programs to help pay for the needed training; $3 million was to be set aside for fishing safety training, with another $3 million for fishing safety research grant programs and safety equipment.

Read the full opinion piece at the Gloucester Daily Times

 

DAVID GOETHEL: Fishermen on the Hook to Pay for Their Own Regulators

December 27, 2015 — Few professions are as significant to New England’s economy and history as fishing. Yet the ranks of groundfish fishermen have dwindled so much that we’re now an endangered species. The causes are many—but the one now threatening us with extinction is the federal government. Along with one other plaintiff, I’m suing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to stop it from sinking New England’s groundfish industry for good.

Groundfish include cod, haddock and 11 other common bottom-dwelling species. After years of dwindling stocks, in 2012 the U.S. Department of Commerce issued a disaster declaration for groundfish territory off the coast of New England. Over the past four years my cod quota—my bread and butter—plummeted from 60,000 pounds to 3,700 this year. I caught my limit in four days in June.

Shifting ocean patterns have certainly contributed to our struggles, but regulators are a separate anchor altogether. Groundfish fishermen are organized into a patchwork of 15 sectors, i.e., government-designed cooperative organizations. We operate under at least seven overlapping federal and state entities and programs, all of which have their own regulatory nets.

Read the full opinion piece at the Wall Street Journal

 

DAVID GOETHEL: Fishermen on the Hook to Pay for Their Own Regulators

December 28, 2015 — The following is a excerpt from an opinion piece published today in The Wall Street Journal. Mr. Goethel, a groundfish fisherman out of Hampton, N.H., writes that he is suing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration “to stop it from sinking New England’s groundfish industry for good.” He is represented by Cause of Action, a government watchdog group based in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Goethel writes: “The courts are the industry’s last chance. This month, along with the Northeast Fishery Sector 13, I filed a federal lawsuit- Goethel v. Pritzker. Our claim: Neither NOAA nor its subsidiary, the National Marine Fisheries Service, has the authority to charge groundfishermen for at-sea monitors. Even if Congress had granted this authority, they would have had to follow the process called for in the Administrative Procedure Act and other statutes-which they haven’t.  A bipartisan group of senators, including Susan Collins (R., Maine) and Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), highlighted this troubling fact in April. Writing to the assistant administrator of NOAA Fisheries, they stated NOAA ‘has chosen an interpretation of the FY15 report language that is inconsistent with congressional intent, and consequently, that very high [at-sea monitoring] costs will soon unreasonably burden already struggling members of the fishing industry in the Northeast.'”

Few professions are as significant to New England’s economy and history as fishing. Yet the ranks of groundfish fishermen have dwindled so much that we’re now an endangered species. The causes are many-but the one now threatening us with extinction is the federal government. Along with one other plaintiff, I’m suing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to stop it from sinking New England’s groundfish industry for good.

Groundfish include cod, haddock and 11 other common bottom-dwelling species. After years of dwindling stocks, in 2012 the U.S. Department of Commerce issued a disaster declaration for groundfish territory off the coast of New England. Over the past four years my cod quota-my bread and butter-plummeted from 60,000 pounds to 3,700 this year. I caught my limit in four days in June.

Shifting ocean patterns have certainly contributed to our struggles, but regulators are a separate anchor altogether. Groundfish fishermen are organized into a patchwork of 15 sectors, i.e., government-designed cooperative organizations. We operate under at least seven overlapping federal and state entities and programs, all of which have their own regulatory nets.

As if warrantless searches from the Coast Guard, catch inspections upon returning to port, and satellite tracking weren’t enough, at-sea monitors also accompany us on roughly one in five randomly selected fishing trips. They are hired by three for-profit companies-one of which is led by the former NOAA official who designed the monitor program. They follow us around and take notes on everything we do. That includes measuring our nets, measuring fish we bring in and those we throw back, and recording our expenses down to how much we spent on lunch.

The program is unnecessary given the heavy regulation that exists. And last month NOAA informed us that, beginning on Jan. 1, groundfish fishermen must pay an estimated $710 a day when a monitor is present. That fee covers the monitors’ training, mileage to and from the fisherman’s boat, supervisor salaries, data processes and all other administrative costs. It also covers a set profit margin for the three companies providing the monitors. What those margins are, neither NOAA nor the companies have disclosed.

Read the full opinion piece at The Wall Street Journal

Lawsuit plaintiffs: Groundfish observer funding rule will ‘basically destroy industry overnight’

December 11, 2015 — A lawyer representing fishermen suing the federal government over a forthcoming requirement that they pay for the cost of bringing at-sea observers on their boats estimates that “more than half” of the US east coast groundfishermen will go out of business if the new rule takes effect.

Speaking to reporters on Dec. 10 about a lawsuit filed that day against the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the US Department of Commerce, attorney Stephen Schwartz estimated that the rule change would “basically destroy the industry overnight”.

“That’s the fishermen with downstream effects on the crews, on buyers and sellers of seafood, on restaurants with kind of rippling effects throughout the entire economy of New England,” he said.

Schwartz works for Cause of Action, a non-profit Washington, D.C.-based legal advocacy group that is representing New Hampshire groundfisherman

David Goethel as well as the non-profit industry group Sector XIII  filed suit in federal court alleging that a NOAA requirement that groundfishermen begin paying for the cost of at-sea observers on Jan. 1 — a cost that NOAA has previously borne itself — violates existing federal laws including the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

According to Sector XIII manager John Haran, the at-sea observer funding rule will accelerate the decline of the east coast groundfish industry, which has already been in decline for years, he said.

Goethel, who operates a small dayboat from New Hampshire waters, agreed.

“We can not afford to pay for this. It’s that’s simple. I would ask everybody on the call, could you afford to pay $710 to pay for someone to ride to work with you everyday. We can’t either,” Goethel said.

Haran added fishermen are not clear why the cost for the at-sea observers is so high.

“The actual observer, the person on the boat gets paid between $15 and $20 per hour. How they get to $710 from there is one of the great mysteries of this whole program,” he said. “The fishermen are expected to pay for the observers’ training, for observer company overhead, for observer company profit even though we don’t know what that profit is.”

NOAA has defended the program arguing that it needs the information provided by the observers, but doesn’t have the resources to fund it itself. 

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

New England Fishermen File Lawsuit Over At-Sea Monitoring Mandate

WASHINGTON — December 9, 2015 — The following was released by Cause of Action:

Today, Cause of Action is announcing that its clients, David Goethel, owner and operator of F/V Ellen Diane, a 44-foot fishing trawler based in Hampton, N.H., and Northeast Fishery Sector 13, a nonprofit entity comprised of over 20 groundfishermen located up and down the eastern seaboard, are suing the U.S. Department of Commerce over a program that would devastate much of the East Coast’s ground fish industry.

The complaint challenges the legality of a federal mandate requiring groundfishermen in the Northeast United States to not only carry National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) enforcement contractors known as “at-sea monitors” on their vessels during fishing trips, but to soon begin paying out-of-pocket for the cost of these authorities. In addition to the complaint, the Plaintiffs have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction that would protect fishermen from having to bear the costs of the at-sea monitors.

“Fishing is my passion and its 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,” said Goethel.  “I’m doing this not only to protect myself, but to stand up for others out there like me whose livelihoods are in serious jeopardy. I’m grateful to Cause of Action for giving my industry a voice and helping us fight to preserve our way of life.”

“The fishermen in my sector are hard-working and compassionate folks who would give the shirts off of their backs to help a fellow fisherman in need,” said Northeast Fishery Sector 13 Manager John Haran. “Our sector will be effectively shut down if these fishermen are forced to pay, themselves, for the cost of at-sea monitors.”

“By the federal government’s own estimate, this unlawful regulation will be the death knell for much of what remains of a once-thriving ground fish industry that has been decimated by burdensome federal overreach,” said Cause of Action Executive Director Dan Epstein. “Americans, particularly those who enjoy good, quality seafood, should be extremely concerned that an industry that has been around since before our nation was even founded is slowly going extinct, having been left out at sea by a federal government that seems more interested in caving to special interests than protecting jobs, families and consumers everywhere.”

 

BACKGROUND: 

“Catch Shares” are a fishery management tool that dedicates a secure share of quota allowing fishermen or other entities to harvest a fixed amount of fish. Since 2010, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has coerced New England groundfishermen like Mr. Goethel into joining a form of catch shares known as “sectors,” where they share quota, and are forced to invite federally-contracted monitors onto their boats anytime they set out to sea. 

Although the agency has claimed in Federal court that “Sector membership is voluntary; permit holders need not join a sector in order to be able to fish,” the reality is they have designed the alternative, known as the “common pool” to be so prohibitive, that fisherman are forced to join a sector to remain economically viable in the groundfish industry. 

Catch Shares were promoted heavily by environmental groups and NOAA during the first years of the Obama Administration. Former NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, asserted that “fisheries managed with catch share programs perform better than fisheries managed with traditional tools.” She promised that catch shares are “the best way for many fisheries to both meet [federal mandates] and have healthy, profitable fisheries that are sustainable.” However, the promises made by Federal appointees and environmentalists have not been fulfilled in New England.

Unfortunately, it’s about to get much worse for these struggling fishermen, who are already policed by the U.S. Coast Guard, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and agents from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Some time in “early 2016,”, NOAA will begin forcing them to pay the costs associated with having at-sea monitors watch over their shoulders.

This unlawful mandate will cost Mr. Goethel and the groundfishermen of Sector 13 hundreds of dollars per day at sea, which, for many of them, is the difference between sinking and staying afloat. In fact, according to a study produced by NOAA, nearly 60% of the industry will be rendered unprofitable if it is required to pay out of pocket for these monitors. 

NOAA has implemented the industry funding requirement for monitoring despite the fact that:

  • The Secretary of Commerce declared the groundfish fishery an economic disaster in 2012.
  • The industry continues to struggle with the precipitous decline in groundfish profitability, as evidenced by a four-year low in groundfish revenue of $55.2 million for Fishing Year 2013 – a 33.6 percent decline from Fishing Year 2010.
  • Congress has directed NOAA to use its appropriated funding to cover the cost of these at-sea monitors, which NOAA has refused to properly utilize and allocate in accordance with congressional intent.
  • NOAA is specifically required by statute to implement regulations that allow fishing communities sustainable prosperity and “minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities.”
  • As mentioned above, NOAA itself produced a study indicating that upwards of 60 percent of the groundfish industry could be rendered unprofitable if it is required to pay for at-sea monitors.

About David Goethel:

Mr. Goethel, who has been fishing for over 30 years, holds a B.S. in Biology from Boston University, and worked at the New England Aquarium as a research biologist before choosing to go back out to sea as a fisherman. Mr. Goethel served two terms on the New England Fishery Management Council, and has been an advisor to seven state and federal fishery management boards, including the Atlantic State Marine Fisheries Commission and the governor’s commission on marine biology. Mr. Goethel has been awarded the National Fisherman’s Highliners Award for his active involvement in cooperative efforts to research and manage marine fisheries resources, and is a member of the Yankee Fishermen’s Cooperative.

About Northeast Fishery Sector 13:

Northeast Fishery Sector 13 is a nonprofit organization comprised of 20 active groundfishermen who are permitted in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia. The number of groundfishing activity within the sector has declined sharply in the past five years due to poor science and overregulation, which has resulted in quota cuts. Click here for more information about the sector.

About Cause of Action:

Cause of Action is a government accountability organization committed to ensuring that decisions made by federal agencies are open, honest, and fair.

MEDIA CONTACT: Geoff Holtzman, geoff.holtzman@causeofaction.org, 703-405-3511

Read the Complaint here

Read the Motion here

Watch a YouTube video to learn more about the case here

Fishermen File Suit in N.H. Against NOAA Over Observers

December 9, 2015 — The following is an excerpt from a story published today in the Boston Globe. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are David Goethel, who has been a fisherman for over 30 years and has served two terms on the New England Fishery Management Council, and Northeast Sector 13, a nonprofit organization comprised of 20 active groundfishermen who are permitted in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia. They are represented in the lawsuit by Cause of Action, a government accountability organization committed to ensuring that decisions made by federal agencies are open, honest, and fair. 

A group of fishermen in the region filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in federal district court in Concord, N.H., arguing that the agency violated their rights by forcing them to pay for a controversial program that requires government-trained monitors on their vessels to observe their catch.

The fishermen, who in the coming weeks will be required to pay hundreds of dollars every time an observer accompanies them to sea, argue that the costs are too much to bear and will put many of them out of business. 

They’re asking the court to prevent the regulations from taking effect when the federal dollars now subsidizing the program run out early next year. 

“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,” said David Goethel, one of the plaintiffs, who for 30 years has been fishing for cod and other bottom-dwelling fish out of Hampton, N.H. “I’m doing this not only to protect myself, but to stand up for others out there like me whose livelihoods are in serious jeopardy.” 

The lawsuit alleges that, by forcing fishermen to pay for the monitors, regulators have violated their Constitutional rights and that their actions are “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.”

It adds that agency officials are “acting in excess of any statutory authority granted by Congress” and “improperly infringing on Congress’s exclusive taxation authority.”

As a result, the fishermen claim, the government’s authority to require the payments are “void and unenforceable.”

Fishing officials acknowledge that requiring the fishermen to pay for the so-called “at-sea monitoring” program will increase the hardship of fishermen who are already struggling with major cuts to their quotas. A federal report this year found that the costs could cause 59 percent of the region’s groundfishing fleet to lose money.

But agency officials have said that NOAA no longer has the money to pay for the program, and that by law, the fishermen were supposed to start paying for the observers three years ago.

The government has defrayed the costs because of the industry’s financial turmoil, said John Bullard, the agency’s regional administrator. In February, the agency told fishermen they would have to start paying later this year.

Bullard declined to comment on the lawsuit.

“NOAA Fisheries does not discuss ongoing litigation,” he said. “Independent of any litigation, we appreciate the challenge that paying for at-sea monitoring raises for fishermen.”

He and others noted that the fishermen may end up paying less than they expect for the observer program.

Read the full story at the Boston Globe  

Read the Legal Memo here 

Read the Complaint here

Fishermen sue to block impending fishing monitor costs

December 10, 2015 — PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A group of East Coast fishermen is suing the federal government over a shift in the cost of at-sea fishing monitors that they say will cripple the fishery during an already difficult time.

Officials with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have said money for monitors in New England groundfisheries such as cod and haddock will be gone by early 2016. The monitors are trained workers who collect data to help determine future quotas on certain species of commercial fish.

Under the new rules, fishermen will have to pay for the monitors, which can cost about $800 per trip. Fishermen have spoken out for months against shifting the cost, saying it will sink many who are already dealing with the dwindling New England cod population and choking cuts to quotas.

A group including more than 20 groundfishermen is suing the federal Department of Commerce, which includes NOAA, in federal court in New Hampshire with a contention that the cost shift is illegal. The group is from New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia and it is seeking an injunction to protect fishermen from having to pay up.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at San Francisco Chronicle

 

Rhode Island’s Groundfish Economic Assistance Program Now Accepting Applications

December 10, 2015 — The following was released by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management:

A new federal funding opportunity is available for Rhode Island fishermen through the Groundfish Disaster Economic Assistance Program, a direct-aid disbursement plan funded by the NOAA in response to the September 12, 2012 Northeast Multispecies (groundfish) disaster declaration by the Acting Secretary of Commerce. The groundfish disaster was declared for the 2013 fishing year in the states of Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, and New York. 

On May 28, 2014 the state fishery directors from Rhode Island and other affected states, in partnership with NOAA, announced a three-part framework for the distribution of $32.8 million in federal disaster aid monies to the New England groundfish industry. Rhode Island has completed the distribution of about $1.4 million to 43 pre-qualified federally permitted commercial groundfishermen (phase one) and this week began accepting applications for phase two of this framework.  In this phase, Rhode Island will distribute $519,656 for additional assistance to the Rhode Island commercial groundfish industry.

This state-specific program will be used by DEM to mitigate economic hardship experienced by the commercial groundfish industry not previously addressed by the phase one aid to qualified federal permit holders. This objective responds to cumulative economic impacts, which include lost harvest opportunities because of reduced quota allocations, high costs to operate within a sector, past debt incurred to survive the management program, and added investment needed to continue in sector programs, all of which have contributed to decreased revenue for a significant portion of the industry. 

Phase two of Rhode Island’s aid disbursement, the Groundfish Disaster Economic Assistance Program, extends direct-aid payments beyond the federal permit holders, to the captains and crew members who worked aboard the 43 vessels during the same four-year period when the reduced quotas were having the most impact on the commercial industry. It also extends direct-aid payments to the for-hire permit holders who were active in the groundfish fishery during the same period, as well as captains and crew associated with those permitted vessels, thereby addressing the impacts incurred by that sector of the groundfish industry.

Rhode Island’s Groundfish Disaster Economic Assistance program addresses the restoration and sustainability of the State’s commercial groundfish industry by also providing direct aid for the administration of RI-based sectors, which play a central role in the management program and are in need of financial support to remain viable. It is the goal of this disaster aid to ensure the needs and interests of the groundfish community are being met so that we can promote long-term stability in the Rhode Island commercial fishing industry. Additional information and applications can be found online at www.dem.ri.gov/groundfish.htm. Interested applicants should contact the program administrator, Amy MacKown, at 401-782-4492 or amy.mackown@dem.ri.gov. The deadline to submit an application is January 15th.

DON CUDDY: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help you’

September 24, 2105 — The Working Waterfront Festival takes place this weekend and features the traditional Blessing of the Fleet, to be held Sunday afternoon on the State Pier. This year, New Bedford welcomes NOAA’s Eileen Sobeck to the ceremony. Ms. Sobeck holds the title of Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, and in that capacity oversees the management and conservation of marine fisheries. According to the NOAA web site: “Her focus is on rebuilding the nation’s fisheries and the jobs and livelihoods that depend on them by promoting management approaches that will achieve both sustainable fisheries and vibrant coastal communities.”

It is difficult to reconcile such lofty goals with the harsh reality facing New England groundfishermen today. The National Marine Fisheries Service and its regional administrator John Bullard, in the face of widespread opposition, is intent on forcing fishing vessel owners to pick up the tab for the at-sea monitors that accompany them on fishing trips to estimate the catch and observe bycatch.

Last April, at the request of the New England Fishery Management Council, NOAA’s own social sciences branch conducted an evaluation of the impact the promotion of this particular management approach would have if industry funded. Here is a quote taken from the study’s findings: “Predictions for FY 2015 are that nearly 60% of the fleet could see negative returns to owner when full 2015 ASM costs are factored in.” The study also predicted that “industry funded ASM could result in restructuring of the fleet.”

Read the full story at New Bedford Standard-Times

NOAA issues report on at-sea monitors  

September 12, 2015 — The issue of at-sea monitoring seems to pervade almost every current discussion of the future viability of the Northeast groundfish industry, including the distribution of federal fishing disaster money and the ongoing battles over who will  pay for the monitoring program going forward.

NOAA Fisheries this week stepped further into that maelstrom with a largely internally generated report that focuses on cost comparisons between the current manual system of at-sea monitoring and electronic monitoring. It also released an independent review of the NOAA report.

The conclusions?

Electronic monitoring might be a more cost-effective option. Maybe. In some cases. Depending on the fishery and the goals and design of whatever electronic monitoring program ultimately is utilized.

The NOAA report, generated with the assistance of the Gulf of Maine Research Institute and other non-governmental organizations, concedes a wide array of assumptions — it is based on hypothetical Northeast multi-species and Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries — and accepts that it is merely “a starting point for developing future [electronic monitoring] program designs.”

Read the full story at the Gloucester Daily Times