Saving Seafood

NOAA Fisheries head: Trump administration values regulatory flexibility, regional approach

November 21, 2017 — SEATTLE — The head of the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) fisheries management arm, Chris Oliver, offered a crowd of Alaska fishermen some insight into the Donald Trump administration’s approach toward fisheries management.

Generally speaking, the assistant administrator for NOAA Fisheries said at Seattle’s Pacific Marine Expo on Nov. 17, the administration values flexibility and a regional approach toward regulating commercial fishing of federally managed stocks, an approach that meshes with his own background and views.

“You’re looking at an administration that recognizes that fisheries by nature require a lot of regulation, but I also think they’re looking at councils to take a step back and look at ways to not have a tendency toward micromanagement but to look at the big picture,” Oliver, who took up the job in June, said.

Learning curve

Prior to that, Oliver served as executive director of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council during at a 16-year run that also included stints as a fisheries biologist and its deputy director. That council, one of eight regional bodies created under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), which regulates US commercial and recreational fishing, is arguably the country’s busiest, as it covers Alaska, home to half of all US seafood production.

His experience, he said, left him as a supporter of the council system. His new national-level job — he’s received over 200 briefings to date on the issues facing NOAA Fisheries — affords him a wider perspective.

“It’s been an incredible learning experience and an incredible learning curve. It’s been hectic at times, frenetic at times, and a bit overwhelming at times, but it’s been extremely exciting all the time and never boring,” he said.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

North Pacific Council Weighs in on MSA Reauthorization Bills

November 8, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — In response to a request from Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan, the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council reviewed three bills related to the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, comparing them to the current law and practices used to manage the nation’s largest fisheries.

“The North Pacific Council believes that the current MSA already provides a very successful framework for sustainable fisheries management, and major changes are not necessary at this time,” wrote NPFMC chair Dan Hull.

“Nevertheless, we also recognize the potential benefits of increased flexibility in some circumstances, and amending the Act to provide for such flexibility could provide all the regional councils additional opportunities to optimize their fishery management programs, with appropriate cautionary notes and limitations.

“In order for the Council to provide for the continued conservation of our resources, any changes to the law providing additional flexibility must continue to ensure that fundamental conservation and management tenets based on sound science are upheld, and should not create incentives or justifications to overlook them,” Hull wrote.

Allowing more flexibility in fisheries management, particularly when stocks in a rebuilding phase, is a hot-button issue with many stakeholders, not just in the North Pacific but nationwide. Proponents of adding more flexibility to any new legislation say the current law is too protective of the resource at a cost to the fishery. They urge more flexibility so that each management council can optimize yield without jeopardizing the resource.

“Regarding potential changes and increased flexibility for stock rebuilding plans, the NPFMC believes that further flexibility, would appropriately increase the ability to maximize harvest opportunities while still effecting rebuilding of fish stocks,” noted Hull, referring to HR 200, the bill introduced by Alaska Congressman Don Young.

“The arbitrary 10-year requirement may constrain the Councils management flexibility with overly restrictive management measures, with unnecessary, negative economic impacts, with little or no conservation gain,” Hull wrote.

Another controversal issue is using annual catch limits (ACLs) to manage stocks, something opponents have said needlessly restricts a fishery. Hull defended the importance of ACLs as a foundational part of fisheries management.

“Annual catch limits (ACLs) have been used in the North Pacific for over 30 years, and such limits are a cornerstone of sustainable fisheries management. We also believe there are situations where some flexibility in the establishment of ACLs is warranted, particularly in the case of data poor stocks.

“Consideration of the economic needs of fishing communities is critical in the ACL setting process, and while the current MSA allows for such consideration, we recognize the desire for a more explicit allowance for these considerations.

“We must be careful however, not to jeopardize long term fisheries sustainability, and associated community vitality and resiliency, for the sake of short term preservation of all economic activity associated with a fishery,” he wrote.

“Accounting for uncertainty, articulating policies for acceptable risk, and establishing the necessary precautionary buffers, are all explicit outcomes of the ACL process, and we believe that the [Scientific and Statistical Committees] SSCs are the appropriate gatekeepers to establish the upper limits of ‘safe’ fishing mortality. This limit, which is established as the Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) level, appears to be consistent with the provisions of H.R.200,” Hull added.

Speaking to Rep. Garrett Grave’s (R-LA) S. 1520 Modernizing Recreational Fishing Management Act of 2017, Hull noted that “alternative measures” may not meet the standard in the current MSA.

“The bill provides the councils authority to use alternative measures in recreational fisheries including extraction rates, fishing mortality targets, harvest control rules, or traditional or cultural practices.

“The NPFMC notes that it is unclear if alternative fishery management measures replace the requirement for ACLs. Nevertheless, fisheries managed under alternative measures should be accountable to the conservation and management provisions of the MSA, including prevention of overfishing. ACL’s serve as the primary conservation measure for fish stocks in the North Pacific, and have effectively prevented overharvesting in our fisheries. The NPFMC also notes that traditional or cultural practices are not normally considered as recreational fisheries,” Hull wrote.

Hull also addressed the section in the bill related to rebuilding overfished stocks that would mandate a rebuilding term to be “as short as possible” but in any case not to exceed ten years.

“The NPFMC believes that the arbitrary 10-year time period can be harmful to resource users and fishing communities if it prohibits even limited fishing activity under a scientifically sound rebuilding plan. Replacing the term ‘possible’ with ‘practicable’ provides the councils with more flexibility to incorporate the needs of fishing communities in maintaining economic stability during a rebuilding period,” Hull wrote.

The NPFMC took issue with sections of Rep. Jared Huffman’s Discussion Draft (also called “Strengthening Fishing Communities Through Improving Science, Increasing Flexibility, and Modernizing Fisheries Management Act”) in certain areas, while agreeing with others.

But a section requiring an assessment of conflict of interest of council members, triggered a lengthy comment on problems the NPFMC have faced and a solution they’ve offered to NMFS.

The current MSA conflict of interest language leaves a standard for recusal of a council member up for interpretation. The recusal provision in the current law requires full economic disclosure but also that an affected individual not be allowed to vote on council decisions that would have a significant and predictable effect on a member’s financial interest.

“The MSA language left the issues of significant and predictable effect open for interpretation, so NMFS developed a regulation that set a 10% threshold for a significant effect, which is the basis for determining whether a recusal is required,” explained Hull.

“The primary problem is the way in which NOAA calculates a member’s financial interests in determining whether the 10% thresholds are exceeded. The NOAA and NMFS policy is to attribute all fishing activities of a company — even partially owned by an associated company — in calculating an individual Council member’s interests. The North Pacific Council believes that this attribution policy is inconsistent with the intent of the conflict of interest statute and regulations.

“The following example helps to explain this issue: Joe Councilman works for Fishing Company A, which owns 50% of Fishing Company B, which in turn owns 3% of Fishing Company C. NOAA uses ALL harvesting and processing activity by ALL three of these companies in determining whether Joe Councilman exceeds any of the 10% thresholds,” Hull explained.

“The North Pacific Council believes that this is an unfair and illogical interpretation of the recusal regulations, and results in unintended recusals of Council members. The North Pacific Council believes that NOAA should use only the amount of harvesting or processing activity equivalent to the Council member’s percentage of ownership,” Hull continued.

“Using this proportional share approach, NOAA GC would use 100% of the harvesting and processing activity of Fishing Company A, 50% of the harvesting and processing activity of Fishing Company B, and 1.5% of the harvesting and processing activity of Fishing Company C to determine whether Joe Councilman exceeds any of the thresholds.

“At our request, NOAA and NMFS revisited the attribution policy, but to date, have declined to make changes,” Hull wrote.

Finally, on behalf of the NPFMC, Hull asked that any new legislation:

• Avoids across the board mandates which could negatively affect one region in order to address a problem in another region.

• Allows flexibility in achieving conservation objectives, but be specific enough to avoid lengthy, complex implementing regulations or ‘guidelines’.

• Is in the form of intended outcomes, rather than prescriptive management or scientific parameters.

• Avoids unrealistic/expensive analytical mandates relative to implementing fishery closures or other management actions.

• Avoids constraints that limit the flexibility of Councils and NMFS to respond to changing climates and shifting ecosystems.

• Avoids unfunded mandates.

• Prioritizes the reservation and enhancement of stock assessments and surveys among the highest when considering any changes to the Act.

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

 

‘Rule of Thumb’ Management Approach Is Wrong For Forage Fish, Dr. Ray Hilborn Tells U.S. Senate Subcommittee

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) – October 31, 2017 – At a hearing of the U.S. Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard last week, respected fisheries scientist Dr. Ray Hilborn testified that fisheries managers “can do better than a one-size-fits-all” approach to managing forage fish. He also said there was “no empirical evidence to support the idea that the abundance of forage fish affects their predators.”

Dr. Hilborn’s comments came in response to questioning from Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) about whether fisheries managers should manage forage fish according to a “rule of thumb” approach, where fisheries are managed according to a set of broad ecological and management principals, or a “case-by-case” approach, where management is guided by more species-specific information.

Dr. Hilborn, a professor at the University of Washington’s School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, was part of a team of top fisheries scientists that recently examined these issues, as well as what effects fishing for forage fish species had on predator species. Their research indicated that previous studies, like a 2012 report from the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force, may have overestimated the strength of the predator-prey relationship.

Before the hearing, Dr. Hilborn spoke with Saving Seafood about his research and his message for lawmakers.

“It’s very clear that there really are no applicable rules of thumb, that every system is independent [and] behaves differently, and we need to have the rules for each individual forage fish fishery determined by looking at the specifics of that case,” Dr. Hilborn told Saving Seafood.

He also discussed his team’s finding that forage fish abundance has little impact on their predators. They looked at nearly all U.S. forage fish fisheries, including the California Current system and Atlantic menhaden, and concluded that predator species generally pursue other food sources when the abundance of any one forage species is low.

“The predators seem to go up or down largely independent of the abundance of forage fish,” Dr. Hilborn said, adding, “For Atlantic menhaden, for their major predators, the fishery has reasonably little impact on the food that’s available to them.”

Another key message Dr. Hilborn had for the Subcommittee was that fisheries managers must determine what they want to accomplish so that scientists can advise them accordingly.

“The time has come to refocus our fisheries policy on what we actually want to achieve because rebuilding is only a means to an end,” Dr. Hilborn told Saving Seafood. “Do we want to maximize the economic value of our fisheries? Do we want to maximize jobs? Do we want to maximize food production?”

In his testimony, Dr. Hilborn praised U.S. fisheries policy that has “led to rebuilding of fish stocks and some of the most successful fisheries in the world.” He attributed this success to a variety of factors, including funding of NOAA, regionalizing fisheries management decisions, and requiring managers to follow science advice. As a result, overfishing should no longer be the top priority for fisheries managers, he testified.

“The major threats to U.S. fish stock and marine ecosystem biodiversity are now ocean acidification, warming temperatures, degraded coastal habitats, exotic species, land based run off, and pollution,” Dr. Hilborn testified. “Overfishing remains a concern for a limited number of stocks but should not continue to be the most important concern for U.S. federal fisheries policy.”

The hearing was the latest in a series examining reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the nation’s supreme fisheries law. It was organized by subcommittee chairman Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK), and focused on fisheries science.

Watch the full hearing here

The next time you enjoy Mississippi seafood, celebrate the people who brought it to you

October 27, 2017 — October is National Seafood Month, and there’s no better place to celebrate seafood than right here in the Magnolia State.

What Mississippi may lack in coastline length, it more than makes up for in seafood heritage and pride. Popular delights like oysters, shrimp, flounder and blue crabs — just to name a few — are all pulled from the briny waters off our coast and shipped fresh to seafood lovers across the state and this great nation.

The Mississippi seafood industry had a profound impact on the Gulf Coast by establishing itself as a diverse immigrant community that led it to be called the “Seafood Capital of the World” as far back as 1869. In 1890 alone, local canneries reportedly processed 2 million pounds of oysters and 614,000 pounds of shrimp. Twelve years later, those numbers had skyrocketed as 12 canneries reported a combined catch of nearly 6 million pounds of oysters and 4.4 million pounds of shrimp.

Over the years, Slovenians, Cajuns, Eastern Europeans and Vietnamese are among those who came to Mississippi for its seafood bounty, its canning industry and its promise of opportunity for all.

Read the full story at the Sun Herald

 

Members of Congress Want Department of Justice to Penalize Carlos Rafael For Violations of MSA

October 27, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Commercial fishing mogul Carlos “The Codfather” Rafael pled guilty for violations of the Lacey Act, but now Congressman Raúl M. Grijalva and Congresswoman Chellie Pingree want the Department of Justice to penalize him for violations of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).

Grijalva and Pingree sent a letter on Thursday to Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross and Department of Justice Attorney General Jeff Sessions seeking for the forfeiture of assets and permits that are not “directly linked to a specific crime.”

“We are writing today to follow up on a letter sent September 21, 2017 regarding Carlos Rafael, the leader of a massive illegal fishing operation in New England, reads the letter. “While Rafael pled guilty to violations of the Lacey Act and was recently sentenced to 46 months in prison, the judge bizarrely rejected the government’s recommendation that Rafael forfeit all 13 vessels involved in the crimes, instead requiring the forfeiture of only four vessels and 34 permits and levying a much lower fine than the government had recommended. We want to thank the Justice Department for its recent motion asking the court to reconsider the ruling, including the level of the fines.”

The letter goes on to state that it’s “unacceptable” to allow Rafael to “maintain the ability to transfer or sell millions of dollars worth of assets.” Although Rafael can no longer participate in the fishery, he still has a reported 27 fishing vessels, as well as an assortment of permits.

“Congress gave the Secretaries clear authority to completely remove bad actors from the fishing industry,” Grijalva said in a press release. “If they don’t use the authority here, it will send a clear signal to Codfather wannabees that the Magnuson Act is a joke. This administration claims to be all about law and order – this is a chance to prove it.”

The letter comes just as William D. Weinreb, acting United States Attorney for the District of Massachussetts, filed a motion to reconsider the forfeiture of Rafael’s vessels.

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

 

U.S. Senate Focuses on Science behind America’s Fisheries

October 26, 2017 — WASHINGTON — Tuesday, the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, chaired by Senator Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), convened a hearing entitled “Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA): Fisheries Science.” This is the fourth MSA hearing held by the Subcommittee this year. A video of the hearing and witness testimony can be found here.

Witnesses:

  • Dr. Ray Hilborn, professor at University of Washington School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences
  • Dr. Larry McKinney, director of Texas A&M University Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies
  • Karl Haflinger, founder and president of Sea State, Inc.
  • Dr. Michael Jones, professor at Michigan State University Quantitative Fisheries Center

Dr. Hilborn reported to the committee that, “Overfishing remains a concern for a limited number of stocks but should not continue to be the most important concern for U.S. fisheries policy.” And while he pointed to some positive outcomes brought by implementing total allowable catch for “individually targeted, large scale industrial fisheries,” he argued it is “totally inappropriate for recreational” fisheries.

Read the full story at The Fishing Wire

Ray Hilborn tells US Senate overfishing shouldn’t be most important concern

October 25, 2017 — WASHINGTON — A U.S. Senate subcommittee considering the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act heard additional testimony Tuesday, with a University of Washington researcher telling lawmakers the U.S. is leaving money in the ocean.

Ray Hilborn, a professor at the university’s School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, noted that in many cases fisheries aren’t even bringing in half of the total allowable catch in some seasons. For example, in 2015, mixed bottom commercial fishermen caught USD 65 million (EUR 55.1 million) worth of fish available in the West Coast. The total allowable catch had an estimated value around USD 168 million (EUR 142.5 million).

Read the full story at Seafood Source 

 

Senate Subcommittee to Continue Hearing Series on Magnuson-Stevens Act

October 20, 2017 — WASHINGTON — The following was released by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation:

U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), chairman of the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, will convene the hearing titled “Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act: Fisheries Science,” at 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 24, 2017. The hearing is the fourth of the series and will focus on the state of our nation’s fisheries and the science that supports sustainable management.

Witnesses:

  –  Mr. Karl Haflinger, Founder and President, Sea State, Inc
–  Dr. Ray Hilborn, Professor, University of Washington School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences
–  Dr. Michael Jones, Professor, Michigan State University Quantitative Fisheries Center
–  Dr. Larry McKinney, Director, Texas A&M University Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies

Hearing Details:

Tuesday, October 24, 2017
2:30 p.m.
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard

This hearing will take place in Russell Senate Office Building, Room 253. Witness testimony, opening statements, and a live video of the hearing will be available on www.commerce.senate.gov.

Feds seek dismissal of lawsuit over extended red snapper season

October 19, 2017 — WASHINGTON — U.S. officials accused of allowing red snapper to be overfished in the Gulf of Mexico have called on a federal judge to enter a summary judgement in their case, saying the environmental organizations suing them have a moot point.

The rule challenged by Ocean Conservancy and the Environmental Defense Fund to extend the recreational fishing season has already expired, said Jeffrey Wood, the acting assistant attorney general for the Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Wood also claims the federal court has no jurisdiction over the case.

“Even if the court were to find it has jurisdiction, the only appropriate course at this juncture is to remand to the agency for further action consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,” Wood argued in a 13 October filing.

The two organizations filed suit against Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Marine Fisheries Service in July, a month after officials added 39 more days to the recreational fishing season.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Lawsuit alleges government colluded with sportfishing sector on red snapper

October 19, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Three additional documents have emerged as part of the lawsuit filed against the US Commerce Department that appear to show an intent to end-run normal channels of public comment and regulated processes for regional council activities, only to serve the needs of the sportfishing industry.

The lawsuit, filed by Ocean Conservancy and the Environmental Defense Fund last July, focused on mismanagement of the Gulf Red Snapper fishery, but documents released last week show the recreational industry expects a level of allowance that flies in the face of the legal requirements of the Magnuson Stevens Act, and the processes for managing fisheries that is contained within it.

The documents are part of a 70-page package submitted by the government in response to the plaintiff’s lawsuit. They show clear intent to receive special treatment when it comes to taking more of the annual catch, and broader influence on choosing who sits on the regional management councils, a process specified by the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) which is poised for reauthorization in 2018.

Moreover, in at least three instances, Department of Commerce employees, after briefing sports industry stakeholders on the requirements of MSA, go on to suggest various legislative — not regulatory — “fixes” for breaking the rules with the red snapper action.

Indeed, the documents point to a blurred state of authorities and influence wielding between the Commerce Department and the US Congress. Whether it is a beleaguered agency’s attempts to protect its standing among Gulf states or an intentional violation of the law remains unclear, but no one is disputing that the regulations within MSA are clear, and have, in the case of red snapper, been ignored.

A letter to commerce secretary Wilbur Ross from Ben Speciale, president of Yamaha Marine Group, was sent on April 3, less than a week after Ross met with Speciale, Mike Nussman, Scott Deal and Pat Murray to discuss the need for a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) fisheries administrator who had experience with the recreational sector. Chris Oliver was hired as head of NOAA Fisheries two and a half months later.

Nussman is the president of the American Sportfishing Association, Deal is from Maverick Boats and Murray is from the Coastal Conservation Association.

Ross posed questions to the group and asked them to respond later. One topic that may have been brought up — Ross certainly raised it frequently during his confirmation hearing and in separate interviews following his confirmation — was ways to reverse the seafood imbalance of trade.

It was a topic Speciale responded to in his April 3 letter to Ross.

“We support imposing assessments on imported seafood based on the country of origin’s management program,” wrote Speciale. “We believe this will help level the playing field and allow our domestic commercial fishermen to increase revenue without increasing their landings. We also support efforts to promote aquaculture….and we must not forget that all recreational landed fish are consumed in the US,” Speciale pointed out.

“Promoting recreational fishing is a conservation-minded way of increasing the consumption of US-caught fish,” he wrote.

Speciale did not elaborate on the ramifications of increased per capita consumption coming from sports landings and the impact on sustainably managed populations of fish.

Speciale’s first request was about more red snapper for Gulf of Mexico anglers.

“…we must return to a recreational red snapper season of no less [than] the 60 days for the 2017 and 2018 seasons,” he wrote.

“I understand that the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and the regional administrator for NOAA Fisheries in the southeast region will present obstacles to this initiative, but they must be overcome so that we may restore a sense of fairness for recreational anglers.”

Speciale continued: “Excessive precaution and fear of frivolous litigation from the environmental industry has created a massive bureaucrat roadblock that has been unfair to anglers and stifled our industry.

“We ask that you overcome these obstacles at the regional fishery management councils and Regional Administrators’ Offices.”

Speciale’s second request was to appoint a person within the Office of Policy and Strategic Planning (currently headed up by Earl Comstock) to have direct oversight on all regional fishery management council appointments. Further, that every appointment should be made only after coordinated consulting with the recreational industry.

Finally, Speciale asked for NOAA Fisheries to adopt a long-term strategy to increase public access to state and federal waters and “eliminate any management effort or technique that attempts to privatize federal fisheries, which are and should remain a public resource.”

Almost two months later, as the red snapper season caught its quota in a matter of days, Shannon Cass-Calay, Chief of the Gulf and Caribbean Branch of the Sustainable Fisheries Division at NOAA Fisheries’ Southeast Fisheries Science Center ran the numbers on what the impact a 45-day extension would have on the red snapper stock in the gulf.

She sent a summary of the research to five of her colleagues, asking them to consider it, emphasizing the uncertainties in the data, and warning that an extended season “…will very likely cause catches to exceed OFL (Over Fishing Limit) and delay recovery by 4-6 years. Each additional overage will degrade the condition of the stock further.”

The final dissemination of that memo is not known, but it must have reached Earl Comstock, because he referenced it in one of two memos to Secretary Ross in early June.

After consulting with all five gulf state fisheries managers, Comstock asked Ross if he could move ahead on crafting an extension to the red snapper season. At the bottom of his first memo to Ross, dated June 1, Comstock hand wrote “Secretary said go with two days plus holidays. OK to proceed.”

On June 7, Comstock sent a memo to Ross preparing him for a hearing on appropriations where Senator Shelby (R-AL) may ask Ross about the gulf snapper issue. He also presented two options for the extension and asked Ross to pick one.

“As discussed, under either option the increased angler catch will result in the overall catch limit for this year being exceeded by 30% and 50%,” Comstock explained to Ross. “Either option would mean that, absent Congressional action to modify the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements for the gulf, the recreational season next year would be significantly reduced.  All the state fishery managers know this, but agree the coordinated action has the greater long-term benefit,” Comstock wrote.

He acknowledged that either option will be opposed by commercial fishermen and charter operators, and “it will almost certainly draw a lawsuit.”

Comstock noted that any plaintiffs in a suit “cannot get a temporary restraining order because the Magnuson-Stevens Act prohibits them. However, they might be able to get an injunction based on the argument we are violating a recent court order that stopped a 2% reallocation from commercial to recreational that the Gulf Council had adopted,” he wrote.

A third new document appears to depict a National Marine Fisheries Service administrator suggesting work arounds for an action that would be in direct violation of MSA. It’s a memo from Harry Blanchet, Biologist Administrator of the Fisheries Division, Louisiana Department of Wildlife, to John Searle, the Congressional staffer to Louisiana Representative Steve Scalise. Searle had been in discussions with the state fisheries department regarding the red snapper situation.

Blanchet, who also sits on the Gulf Council’s Science and Statistical panel, warned Scalise that “recreational red snapper harvest for 2017 may well overrun the recreational allocation by a substantial amount, and as a result, overall harvest may overrun the total allowable catch.”

Blanchet, like those before him, warned Searle that, “historically, and required by Magnuson, those over-runs would have to be paid back in following years, resulting in even lower recreational quota and thus federal seasons,” he told Seale.

Blanchet’s solution was a waiver.

“My thought was that a simple waiver of those Magnuson requirements in another bill in the current Congress could help a lot in terms of allowing there to be a federal waters recreational red snapper season in 2018. I understand that you may want to do a lot more, but just want to be sure that those payback provisions to not come back to bite next year,” he wrote.

This story originally appeared on Seafood News, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.