March 8, 2016 — CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — A judge’s ruling about a new cost imposed on New England fishermen by the federal government could come as soon as this week.
Fishermen of key commercial species such as New England cod and haddock must pay the cost of fishing monitors under new rules. The federal government had been paying for the monitors.
Read the full story from the associated press at San Francisco Chronicle
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
January 22, 2016 (AP) — CONCORD, N.H. — East Coast fishermen are awaiting a judge’s decision about their contention that the federal government’s plan to hand them the cost of at-sea monitoring is illegal.
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 collect data to help determine future fishing quotas and can cost about $800 per day.
Read the full story from the Associated Press at the Boston Herald
January 5, 2016 — Fish lovers have slapped Trader Joe’s with a class-action lawsuit accusing the grocery store of “cheating” customers by not filling their 5-ounce cans of tuna all the way.
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Manhattan federal court, says tests by a US government lab found that the cans of various Trader Joe’s tuna brands actually contain less than 3 ounces of the fish and that “every lot tested, and nearly every single can, was underfilled in violation of the federally mandated minimum standard of fill.”
One test found that 24 cans of Trader Joe’s Albacore Tuna in Water Half Salt contained, on average, just 2.43 ounces of pressed cake tuna — 24.8 percent below 3.23 ounces, the federally mandated minimum standard of fill.
Read the full story at the New York Post
December 31, 2015 — Twenty-six fishermen, fish markets and industry groups have again sued the US government alleging that regulators are allowing recreational fisherman to deplete scarce red snapper stocks in the Gulf of Mexico.
The lawsuit, filed against commerce secretary Penny Pritzker, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and its parent agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) comes in the wake previous litigation that has seen the commercial fishing industry succeed in challenging regulators’ red snapper management policies.
Previously, courts ruled that regulators did not have enough enforcement measures in place to ensure that recreational fishermen did not exceed their total allowable catch (TAC) of red snapper, a species under strict management because it is considered to be “overfished.”
The lack of adequate controls on recreational fishing violated provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and prompted regulators to develop new measures for recreational fishing. However, in the lawsuit filed Dec. 28, commercial fishermen argue that a new regulatory proposal to “reallocate” a portion of future red snapper TAC from recreational to commercial use violates existing federal law.
Read the full story at Undercurrent News
December 30, 2015 — HAMPTON, N.H. — New Hampshire fishermen locked horns with a federal agency this year over fishing regulations and mandatory costs they said would put them out of business for good.
The fight ultimately led to a federal lawsuit filed in December against the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversees the nation’s fisheries. The suit challenged the legality of NOAA’s intent to make fishermen pay for observers to monitor their compliance with federal regulations. Fishermen said it was unfair they would be forced to pay for their own policing.
Fishermen were already struggling with regulations in the start of 2015. In August 2014, NOAA’s scientific arm reported that Gulf of Maine cod was down 97 percent from historic sustainable levels. That led NOAA to cut fishing allocations for commercial fishermen in 2015 by roughly 70 percent from last year. NOAA also prohibited recreational fishermen from catching any cod and limited haddock this year.
Half of the commercial groundfishing fleet went inactive this year as a result, leaving only nine. Many recreational fishermen have picked up land jobs for supplemental income and anticipate leaving the fishing business eventually for good.
Read the full story at the Portsmouth Herald
January 3, 2016 (AP) — A lawsuit filed by a group of East Coast fishermen challenging the federal government over the cost of at-sea monitors will have a hearing in US District Court in Concord, N.H. on Jan. 21. New England fishermen will have to start paying the cost of at-sea monitors early this year under new rules.
Read the full story from the Associated Press at the Boston Globe
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
December 16, 2015 — Monterey, California, used to be an epicenter in the West Coast commercial fishing industry. But these days the city’s waterfront is full of restaurants serving shrimp and tilapia imported from China. And it’s not the only place doing so.
Many small ports around the United States have fallen into disrepair as more Americans consume imported, often farmed seafood. But there’s also an evolution taking place in commercial fishing in some small port towns that might just bring them back to life.
Cities up and down the West Coast once relied heavily on local “groundfish,” such as rockfish, sand dabs, and petrale sole. But the groundfish fishery saw a dramatic decline by 2000, and although many of the fish themselves have come back, the industry hasn’t recovered. Now, a public-private partnership is working to bring access to local fish in small port communities. And it’s a change that could benefit fishermen and women and the environment, and help small port towns rebuild more robust, stable, and diversified economies.
The Dark Days
Guiseppe “Joe” Pennisi, a third generation Monterey fisherman, has been running a boat since he was 18. He saw the West Coast ground fishery begin to grow in 1987 and balloon to hit 11,000 vessels by 2000. That was the year the federal government declared the coast of Oregon, Washington, and California an “economic disaster” due to groundfish stocks collapsing.
At the time, the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program moved most species of West Coast groundfish on to their red “Avoid” list, and by 2005, the nonprofits Oceana and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit against the National Marine Fisheries Service for failing to protect groundfish.
Read the full story at Civil Eats
December 16, 2015 — WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — Last Saturday, December 12, on the Ken Pittman Show on WBSM in New Bedford, Massachusetts, Cause of Action Counselor Stephen Schwartz, discussed a lawsuit that the organization filed against NOAA for their at-sea monitoring program. During the interview, Mr. Schwartz explained that the federal requirement that fishermen fund at-sea-monitors is overly intrusive and too burdensome for the fishing industry.
“The federal government is making a huge imposition even when top agencies and regional administrators agree that fishermen can’t afford to fund the observers, and more than half of them would go out of business,” he said.
Mr. Schwartz said that most federal observers do not have the same expertise that fishermen do – fishermen who have made their living on New England waters often in inclement conditions – and present a danger to the fishermen by taking up space on the boats, and preventing them from efficiently collecting data on fish stocks.
“If fishermen were left to their own devices, they would actually protect fish stocks and be more productive,” he said.
Mr. Schwartz and Cause of Action are arguing that NOAA does not have the power to require that the industry fund the observer program, and that the principles of constitutional law involved have the potential to restructure fishing industry regulations in order to not place the burden solely on fishermen.