Saving Seafood

  • Coronavirus
  • 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
  • Join Us
    • Individuals
    • Organizations
    • Businesses

NEW BEDFORD STANDARD-TIMES: Fishery management needs balance

September 30, 2015 — The requirement that the cost of at-sea monitors be paid by the fishermen who participate in the Northeast Multispecies Fishery is mere weeks away from being phased in.

Study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration suggests as many as 60 percent of affected boats could be pushed out of profitability by the requirement, based on estimates of monitors costing $700 per day.

Republican U.S. Rep. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire hosted a roundtable mid-month with NOAA representatives and fishermen to address the issue.

“We’re supposed to take into account that we don’t destroy the fishing communities,” Rep. Ayotte said, according to Sept. 18 report by the Portsmouth Herald. “(Requirements to protect fishermen) are being ignored in all this.”

She was referring to National Standard 8 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which says measures used to manage the fishery must “take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities by utilizing economic and social data,” consistent with the prevention of “overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks.”

The requirement for consistency, above, might explain why Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator John Bullard told Rep. Ayotte that “eliminating overfishing” supersedes all other priorities.

The Standard-Times is having a very difficult time trying to understand why a policy that will have such a clear negative impact on fishermen is being instituted when the beneficial impact on the resource — the fishery — is so unclear.

Read the full editorial from the New Bedford Standard-Times

Recent Headlines

  • CALIFORNIA: The San Francisco Bay Once Teemed With Oysters. What Happened?
  • Misinformation, polarization impeding environmental protection efforts
  • In Amy Coney Barrett’s first signed majority opinion, Supreme Court sides with government over environmentalists
  • Multiple companies offering fish fat percentage tech
  • West Coast Dungeness fishery navigates late start, pandemic
  • Pressure builds for IOTC ahead of special session, with several groups calling for urgent action
  • WASHINGTON: Seattle Harbor Expansion Would Push Out Endangered Whales, Conservation Group Says
  • West Coast Seafood Processors ‘Cautiously Hopeful’ for the Remainder of 2021

Most Popular Topics

Alaska Aquaculture ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission California China Climate change Cod Coronavirus COVID-19 Donald Trump Florida 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 Carolina North Pacific offshore energy Offshore wind Pacific right whales Salmon Scallops South Atlantic 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 © 2021 Saving Seafood · WordPress Web Design by Jessee Productions