Saving Seafood

Rubio’s Florida Fisheries Improvement Act Gets Widespread Support From Different Sectors

August 9, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Florida Senators Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson are receiving widespread support on the Florida Fisheries Improvement Act, which was introduced last week.

Rubio had initially introduced the bill in 2014 to “begin outlining Florida’s priorities for the eventual reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,” which was first passed in 1976. The Magnuson-Stevens Act was created to “prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, increase long-term economic and social benefits, and ensure a safe and sustainable supply of seafood.” The senator reintroduced the Florida Fisheries Improvement Act in 2015.

“Fishing remains an integral part of Florida’s history, economy and allure for residents and visitors alike,” Rubio said in a statement. “This bipartisan bill reflects the best ideas from Florida’s commercial, charter and recreational fishing communities, and would ensure federal laws reflect the realities of our unique Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic regions while continuing to promote research and conservation efforts. As Congress works towards a reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens, I remain committed to ensuring Florida’s fisheries are well represented.”

The latest version of the bill would amend the Magnuson-Stevens Act to “enhance, protect and sustain Florida’s fishery resources and the communities that rely on them.” Specifically, the legislation would force the U.S. secretary of commerce to make “fishery disaster designations within 90 days of receiving information from the state.” The bill would also “resolve inconsistencies between the Capital Construction Fund and Fisheries Finance Program,” among other things.

The bill is being supported by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the American Sportfishing Association, the Southeastern Fisheries Association, the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholder’s Alliance, the Florida Keys Commercial Fisherman’s Association, Wild Ocean Seafood Market and the Billfish Foundation.

“We must be sure to address a suite of issues in the next MSA reauthorization and the Florida Fisheries Improvement Act is a helpful first step,” said Southeastern Fisheries Association executive director Robert Jones. “We look forward to working with Senator Rubio and his staff to provide balanced management in mixed-use fisheries and to resist changes in the law that might reduce commercial fishing access which is an important part of the food supply to Floridians and citizens all across this great country.”

Eric Brazer Jr., deputy director of the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders’ Alliance, shared similar sentiments about the bill.

“The Florida Fisheries Improvement Act proposes a number of welcome improvements that will ensure a well balanced and more transparent Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, improvements to the stock assessment process, and more timely critical relief in response to fishery disasters,” said Brazer. “We look forward to working with the Senator to address some of the challenges we see that could trigger unintended consequences in our nation’s successful core system of annual catch limits and mandate perpetual and disruptive allocation debates in the region.”

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

Dr. Brian Rothschild: Congress Must Make Magnuson Recognize Existence, Content of National Standards in Fishery Plans

Dr. Brian Rothschild

August 9, 2017 — The following was written by Dr. Brian Rothschild, and was published in the June/July issue of Fishery News:

Four years and counting, the stalled reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) is impeding the progress of U.S. fishery management.

In December 2013, a reauthorization draft was distributed to the 113th Congress. Since that time various versions of the bill have been shuffled between the House and the Senate. The most recent version—”Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act”—was introduced to the 115th Congress on January 3, 2017 by Congressman Young as H.R. 200. On February 10, it was referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Power, and Oceans.

H.R. 200 is a step in the right direction. It builds flexibility into fisheries stock-rebuilding schedules by replacing the current law’s formulaic and impracticable rebuilding strictures. It recognizes, at least implicitly, that stocks that are at a historically low level of abundance should be designated as “depleted”, not as “overfished” and addresses, albeit weakly, improvements in research planning.

However, H.R. 200 only scratches the surface of needed reform. It falls short in failing to recognize the operational quartet that fundamentally shapes fisheries- policy implementation. This quartet consists of the interactions among 1) the “plain language of the law”, 2) the record of “legislative history”, 3) guidelines issued by the agency (NOAA), and 4) day-to-day implementation actions by NMFS.

Given this framework, it is crucial to realize that even the slightest ambiguity or equivocation in the reauthorized law will propagate uncertainty and substantial costs to the over-all economic and social performance of our fisheries.

Let’s look at an example. To begin, it is necessary to recognize that the MSFMCA is based upon 10 National Standards. So, it is only logical that reauthorization language should use the National Standards as a point of departure.

But, in H.R. 200 the National Standards are virtually ignored. This is problematic because reference to, and possible revision of, the National Standards is necessary to improve fishery policy. Not doing so creates substantial opportunity for ambiguity and equivocation.

To further exemplify, two key concepts in National Standard 1 involve: (1) overfishing and (2) optimum yield.

(1) There are many different types and shades of overfishing, so what kind and how much overfishing are we preventing?

Arriving at a determination of overfishing depends on the choice of model (there are several). The magnitude of a overfishing “value” generally differs among “models”. For example, overfishing can be defined in the context of production models, age-structured production models, or yield-per-recruit models, each of which gives a different view of stock status. It is also often the case, amidst this profusion/confusion, that all of these definitions are just simply ignored and replaced by arbitrary “proxies” that rely upon highly uncertain age-structured production models.

Consider also that two different forms of overfishing are well-known: “stock overfishing” and “recruitment overfishing”. Each is determined on the basis of different information requirements. Each has different conservation content.

Stock overfishing can be determined on the basis of data at hand e.g. landings and fishing effort, and has— despite its wide use in managing fish stocks—very little conservation importance. Alternately, determining whether recruitment overfishing exists requires several years of data—and despite its conservation importance— it is seldom done.

So, when we change “overfished” to “depleted”, how do we interpret the status of all the fish stocks previously designated as overfished or at risk to overfishing, definitions that would no longer be relevant? How do we manage stocks that are at a low level of abundance because they are truly depleted by fishing, in contrast to stocks that are depleted by environmental change? Also, there does not appear to be a universally acceptable way to distinguish fishing-depleted from environment- depleted.

(2) Optimum has a specific technical meaning. It refers to something that we want to maximize. The question arises as to what we are maximizing and over what time frame. On one hand, the extant version of the law gives some clues, but following these clues only leads to deeper uncertainty and ambiguity. First, it is clear that the intent of the extant law is to somehow maximize “a quantity of fish”. But it could be “a quantity of fish” that provides the “greatest overall benefit to the nation”, or it could be “maximum sustainable yield as reduced by economic, social, or ecological factors”, or it could be “rebuilding the fishery to an MSY level”.

And, in any event, a little thought might indicate that maximizing a quantity of fish may not be a good idea in general. For example, there are many other measures of performance that are better measures than a quantity of fish and yet optimizing these other measures seems to be virtually ignored.

A relevant example is that optimization, as it is practiced under the current law, is taken to mean that biological productivity is maximized, subject to economic and social constraints. Yet, perhaps a better and different approach would be to maximize economic and social productivity, subject to biological constraints!

So, the reauthorization of the MSFCMA gathers dust. During four decades since its original authorization in 1976, fisheries management has had its bright spots and dark patches. Future dark patches can be considerably reduced by making sure that the elements underpinning the operational quartet in the reauthorization are, at the very least, well-defined and feasible to attain. The consonance among the plain language of the law, the intent of Congress, the regulations and the actual implementation of the Act needs careful scrutiny. “If winter comes, can spring be far behind?” The time is right for fishery policy to come out of hibernation.

About Dr. Brian Rothschild: Dr. Rothschild is the Montgomery Charter Professor of Marine Science and former Dean of the School for Marine Science and Technology at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. Prior to joining the University of Massachusetts, Professor Rothschild held professorships at the University of Maryland and the University of Washington. He has had faculty or visiting scientist affiliations with the University of Hawaii; Scripps Institution of Oceanography; Rosensteil School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami; Institut fur Meereskunde, University of Kiel; Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; and Harvard University.

 

Review renews debate over first Atlantic marine national monument

August 7, 2017 — BOSTON — During his eight years in office, former President Obama protected more than 550 million acres of public land and water as national monuments under the 1906 Antiquities Act. Unlike creating a national park, which requires an act of Congress, a president can declare a national monument to protect “objects of historic or scientific interest” with a proclamation.

Critics of the monument say President Obama overstepped the powers set forth by the Antiquities Act and did not provide enough opportunity for public comment. In April, President Donald Trump signed an executive order asking his Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke, to conduct a review of 27 monuments created since 1996. The purpose of the review is to determine if these monument areas qualify under the terms of the act and to address concerns from the community.

Two days later, Trump signed another executive order outlining his “America-First Offshore Energy Strategy.” The plan demonstrates Trump’s vision for the exploration and production of energy on federal lands and waters to decrease America’s dependence on foreign energy.

Fishing industry’s concerns

Captain Fred Penney, a lobsterman out of Boston Harbor, believes that the monument will hurt the future of fishing in New England because the new restrictions were implemented without much input from the fishermen themselves.

“To have no regulations and have it be a free-for-all, that’s completely unacceptable, I understand that,” he said. “I wouldn’t want to see that. But what they’re doing now doesn’t seem to be it.”

Many in the industry felt fishing in the area should have been regulated under the Magnuson- Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, which created eight regional fishery management councils to maintain sustainable fisheries and habitats in the U.S.

The councils are divided up by region, including the New England, Mid-Atlantic and South- Atlantic councils on the East Coast. Each council sets regulations for certain fisheries such as limiting catch size, issuing permits and monitoring fishing equipment.

Fishermen argue the council’s lengthy public process is more transparent than a proclamation from the president and allows for more input from the community.

Jon Williams of the Atlantic Red Crab Company said the fishermen were not given much notice about meetings and the scope of the monument. He argued the area was thriving under the council’s management before the monument designation.

“We’d been in there for 40 years and if it’s… pristine now, after our presence for 40 years, why is there an emergency for the president to use an act to protect this thing?” Williams said. “Why not give it to the council and let the council do its job?”

Before the Obama administration announced the monument, the New England Fishery Management Council was working on a coral amendment that would protect deep sea corals, one of the goals of the monument. The South and Mid Atlantic Councils passed similar regulations years earlier.

 

Read the full story at The Groundtruth Project

First MSA Reauthorization Hearing Acknowledged Successes, Identified Needed Changes

August 2, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — At the first of a series of hearings on the Magnuson-Stevens Act held yesterday at the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, senators from both sides of the aisle voiced support for the regional management council system, NOAA Fisheries, and the science that supports fisheries management, despite the deep cuts proposed in the President’s budget.

“With regard to the budget, I think some of these cuts may not survive the [reauthorization] process,” said Chairman Dan Sullivan (R-AK). “I think we’re going to be adding a lot back to the projects that we think are vital.”

Sullivan was responding in part to a series of questions from Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) to Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries, about the current administration’s proposed budget for the agency.

“My question concerns the budget submitted by the president of the United States. The budget slashes funding for programs like Sea Grant and the Milford Lab at the University of Connecticut [Northeast Fisheries Science Center],” Blumenthal said.

“These federal research efforts to help grow and expand certain aspects of aquaculture are very promising. As a representative of this administration, how can you justify these cuts to the agency that you are responsible for administering? Are you going to commit to me that you’re going to [find funding] for Sea Grant and the Milford Lab?”

Oliver responded, “Senator, I don’t know that I’m in a position to comment very extensively on the President’s budget. I do know that they’ve placed a revised emphasis on the Department of Defense and national security.”

Blumenthal: “I’m on the Armed Services Committee sir, and I very much support that emphasis … but this kind of slashing and trashing of programs that are essential to the kinds of programs you administer, that are vital to our economic future in aquaculture I consider a mockery of the mission of your agency. And if you’re not in a position to justify it, who would be?”

Oliver: “All I can say sir is we’re going to do our best to operate within the budget that we have, and I know that a lot of the programs that were slated to be cut involve cooperative agreements or past grants of funding through the Sea Grant program, for example, and grants to the coastal states. We’re going to do our best to make that up internally…”

Blumenthal: “Are you going to commit to me that you can make up those cuts to the Sea Grant program and the Milford Lab and the University of Connecticut that are essential to those programs?”

Oliver: “I can’t commit that we’re specifically going to be able to make those up from our baseline budget. I think that we’re facing some tough decisions too. I’ve said on many occasions that I feel that this agency may be in a position to refocus on some of its very core mission – science mission…”

Blumenthal: “You’d agree with me that those are valid and important programs?”

Oliver: “Of course sir, I really do.”

Blumenthal: “If you agree these programs are valid, then your agency has a responsibility to fight for them and to make sure they are fully funded.”

The exchange was toward the end of an otherwise non-confrontational hearing on the “long overdue” reauthorization of the MSA with Oliver and Dr. John Quinn, Chair of the New England Fisheries Management Council. Both men lauded the successes brought about by the original 1976 law and the amendments to it, most recently in 2007.

“As a group, we are strong believers in the Magnuson-Stevens Act – and not just because it established the Councils,” said Quinn, who spoke on behalf of the Council Coordination Committee (CCC), which is made up of the chairs, vice chairs, and executive directors of the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils.

“The outcome of our management success is clear: commercial, recreational, and subsistence fisheries are key contributors to our coastal communities and the nation’s economy. In large measure, this is because the Act structured a very successful approach to sustainable fisheries management. Central to the Act are the 10 National Standards that guide our management process.”

“Under the standards set in the Magnuson-Stevens Act the nation has made great strides in maintaining more stocks at biologically sustainable levels, ending overfishing, rebuilding overfished stocks, building a sustainable future for our fishing-dependent communities, and providing more domestic options for U.S. seafood consumers in a market dominated by imports,” echoed Oliver.

Both agreed, however, that changes should be made. Oliver noted in particular ways in which overall production could be increased, particularly in areas where catch limits have not been updated to changes in stock sizes.

“For example, while our West Coast groundfish fisheries have rebuilt several important stocks, in recent years fishermen are leaving a substantial amount of the available harvest of some groundfish species in the water, due to regulatory or bycatch species constraints. We must find ways to maximize allowable harvests that are still protective of non-target species in all of our fisheries,” explained Oliver.

Stakeholders in the West Coast groundfish fishery were enthusiastic about Oliver’s references to the plight of those working in the non-whiting trawl catch shares program. The program has realized far less than full utilization of the resource, with less than one-third of the available fish being harvested annually.

“We applaud Chris Oliver’s recent testimony to the Senate on the state of the West Coast IFQ non-whiting trawl fishery,” Pacific Seafood’s Mike Okoniewski said.

“Members of industry have been testifying for years that while the conservation benefits of the program have passed all expectations, but the economics are performing at abysmal levels,” Okoniewski said.

Oliver’s testimony drilled to the heart of the matter: if you cannot get the fish out of the water you cannot realize the economic benefits outlined in the program’s goals and objectives. Targets such as increasing economic benefits, providing full utilization of the trawl sector allocation, increasing operational flexibility and providing measurable economic and employment benefits throughout the processing and distribution chain have not been met for the non-whiting sector.

“Chris Oliver’s testimony is a huge step forward to reverse the present trajectory we are on. Again we thank him and look forward his leadership of NMFS. His focus on balance and economic output, as well as conservation and sustainability, is long overdue,” Okoniewski said.

“Much like Pacific groundfish (to quote AA Oliver), New England groundfish fishermen ‘are leaving a substantial amount of the available harvest of some groundfish species in the water, due to regulatory or bycatch species constraints’”, noted Maggie Raymond, Executive Director of Associated Fisheries of Maine.

Both Quinn and Oliver referenced a need for “flexibility”, Raymond observed.

“Quinn’s testimony is specific to a need for flexibility in rebuilding timelines.  But flexibility in rebuilding timelines is not necessarily the fix, at least not for New England,” she added.

“As long as an otherwise healthy mixed stock fishery remains constrained by a weak stock in the complex, the problem of leaving available harvest in the water cannot be addressed.  We look forward to working with AA Oliver to ‘find ways to maximize allowable harvests that are still protective of non-target species.’

“Let’s start with windowpane flounder. A species with no economic value that puts a significant burden on the NE groundfish and scallop fisheries,” said Raymond.

Oliver acknowledged his testimony from last year on no need for further flexibility on MSA. But, he said, “I’m in a new role now and as I look at the issue more broadly, I’d heard from constituents across the country, listened to the dialog about issues with the Act, and I’ve come to believe that there is a possibility that additional flexibilities should be considered, accountability measures that are used to enforced annual catch limits (ACLs), particularly in fisheries where we don’t have the robust and accurate accounting.

“Many of our recreational fisheries are of a nature that don’t lend themselves well to those monitoring methods.

“The administration has not taken positions on these specific issues,” Oliver said. “But in my personal view, in fisheries that don’t have robust systems of accountability, in particular the recreational fisheries that have different goals, there’s room for flexibility.”

Quinn agreed. “We’re here to reauthorize [the MSA], not repeal it. Data availability and stock assessment, particularly in the recreational side, I think we’ve got a lot of work to do. Data needs are really important. ACLs and AMs work for the commercial, not necessarily for the recreational fisheries.”

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) called the nation’s bycatch quantity “unacceptable” and asked Quinn for an assessment on catch shares.

“In some parts of the country, catch shares have worked,” Quinn responded. “In my part of the country, it hasn’t worked as well. But the CCC’s position is to keep catch shares as a part of our management tool box.”

Sullivan brought up the issue of electronic monitoring as a less expensive alternative to onboard observers and asked, “What can we do to help the councils use EM more efficiently?”

“Like catch shares, the authority for EM is in the Act now,” said Quinn, “but individual regions may have specific fisheries that may or may not use EM. There are a lot of pilot programs using EM now. Decisions should be made region by region.”

“I want to compliment you both on your emphasis on data and science,” Sullivan said in closing comments. “We’re going to back you up on that.”

The next hearing will be August 23, 2017 in Kenai, Alaska.

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

John Quinn Calls for More Flexibility for Councils Under Magnuson-Stevens Act

August 2, 2017 — WASHINGTON — The chairman of the New England Fishery Management Council is appealing to the U.S. Senate to allow for more flexibility under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

The act serves as the governing standard for fisheries across the country.

Dr. John Quinn says annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) like at-sea monitors, while maintaining the integrity of fish stocks, can be of great harm to small fishing companies. “Councils need to be able to consider a wide variety of management tools without burdensome requirements,” said Quinn. “ACLs and AMs may not be the best tools for managing all fisheries.”

Quinn says he’d like to see regional fisheries granted to power to authorize alternative control mechanism or utilize ecosystem-based fishery managament tactics.

Read the full storm at WBSM

Senate Subcommittee Holds First Hearing to Guide Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization

August 2, 2017 — The Magnuson-Stevens Act, the primary law regulating fisheries in federal waters, is in need of reauthorization, and Senate Commerce’s Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard on Tuesday held the first in a series of hearings to guide that process. And, unsurprisingly, the issue of climate change made waves.

Chris Oliver, assistant administrator of NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service, and John Quinn, chairman of the New England Fishery Management Council, pushed for a variety of changes, ranging from management of mixed stocks to more flexibility in how the Council Coordination Committee can monitor and collect data. But it was Sen. Richard Blumenthal who made the strongest case for change by criticizing the current system for failing New England’s fishing fleet and leaving the region’s fishermen “angry and frustrated beyond words.”

Because of climate change, Blumenthal said, fish that New England fishermen have traditionally sought were pushed north and fish from southern waters moved into New England. But catch limits for certain fish haven’t been adjusted to meet the reality facing New England fishermen, forcing them to return quota-exceeding fish to the ocean. Billions of dollars in profits are being lost, Blumenthal said, while fishermen from southern states come to New England waters to catch their migrating fish. “There is something profoundly unfair and intolerable about the situation,” he added. “In my view, it violates the present law.”

Quinn responded by pointing out that parts of the New England fishing industry are booming but agreed that groundfish fishermen are struggling. While the CCC’s process is to collect as much data as needed to produce accurate stock assessments, Quinn said they didn’t have “a simple solution for rising water temperatures or the ocean acidification,” which are the roots of the shifting fish populations.

Read the full story at Politico

NEFMC Chairman Testifies Tuesday in D.C.

August 1, 2017 — NEW BEDFORD, Mass. — John Quinn will appear in front of the U.S. Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard as a representative of the nation’s fisheries on Tuesday at 10 a.m. in Washington D.C.

The Director of Public Interest Law Program at UMass Law School in Dartmouth is also the chairman of the New England Fishery Management Council and the national chair of the Council Coordinating Committee.

The hearing is the first in a series to examine the nation’s fishery laws and the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which is discussed about every decade. The second is scheduled for Aug. 23 in Alaska.

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times

U.S. Senate Takes Up Fisheries Reform

Rep. Frank Pallone and Sen. Bob Menendez make the rounds in Atlantic Highlands talking with recreational fishermen, while back in DC their fellow congressmen are tackling fisheries reform.

July 31, 2017 — U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan (R-AK), chairman of the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, will convene a hearing on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) starting at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, August 1.

This hearing is the first in a series of Senate hearings to examine the state of our nation’s fishery laws and guide the reauthorization of our federal fisheries law. Witnesses slated to testify include Dr. John Quinn, chairman of the New England Fishery Management Council Chairman, and Christopher Oliver, newly appointed Assistant Administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

In early July, the recreational fishing and boating community praised the Senate introduction of the Modern Fish Act by Senators Roger Wicker (R-MS), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Brian Schatz (D-HI), John Kennedy (R-LA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV). Supported by the American Sportfishing Association, National Marine Manufacturers Association, Recreational Fishing Alliance, Coastal Conservation Association, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, International Game Fish Association and other groups, the new bill in the U.S. Senate (S.1520) would improve public access to America’s federal waters, promote conservation of our natural marine resources and spur economic growth within the recreational fishing community.

Read the full story at The Fisherman

MSA Reauthorization Fault Lines on Recreation and Stock Target Flexibility Exposed in House Hearing

July 25, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — In last week’s hearing on HR200, the latest version of amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the flash points between recreational and commercial fisheries management — one of the most visible in the suite of proposed changes to the MSA — were made clear.

The last time Magnuson-Stevens was amended, stock conservation efforts were strengthened and the standards to which the regional council system was held, were tightened. This go-around, “flexibility” in allowing conservation methods and goals to be more responsive to needs in the recreational sector is getting some traction in Congress.

HR 200, authored by Alaska’s Representative Don Young, eases requirements for a 10-year rebuilding plan, extends state’s jurisdiction to 9 miles in certain regions, and shifts authority to MSA when other laws, such as the Endangered Species Act or the Antiquities Act (to create marine monuments), are involved.

At last week’s hearing, four industry representatives before the House Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans provided balanced comments from both the commercial and recreational sectors. The four — Nick Wiley, Executive Director of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission; Jeff Kaelin from Lunds Fisheries; Charles Witek, New York angler and fisheries writer; and Sean Martin, president of the Hawaii Longliners Association — were invited to comment on “Exploring the Successes and Challenges of the Magnuson-Stevens Act” and the viability of HR 200.

The questions posed after testimonies, most focused on summer flounder, red snapper, and recreational involvement in these fisheries, shed light on what House members are thinking.

Chairman Doug Lamborn, from Colorado, noted that the “best available science” may be improved upon “dramatically, by using fisheries-based platforms.” He added that “if we work with commercial and recreational fishermen to improve the science, we’ll get more buy in.”

“Scientific uncertainty is killing us — it really is,” noted Kaelin. He explained that when uncertainty is high, managers use precautionary methods to set catch limits, season times, size limits, etc. “The error bars are like this,” Kaelin said, stretching his hands apart. “And all the decisions are being made at the lower end of the error bars.”

Lamborn said, “That indicates that we must pass this legislation.”

He also noted that “restrictive ACLs (annual catch limits) that were applied across all recreational programs may not work. It works well for the commercial sector, but not recreational.

“HR 200 would help in this matter,” Lamborn said.

Witek pushed back on some assertions that MSA was failing in management of red snapper, summer flounder, and other contentious fisheries stocks.

“The [summer founder] decision has done very serious harm to the interjurisdictional cooperative management on the east coast,” Witek said, referring the Secretary Ross’s recent overturning of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission decision that New Jersey was in violation of summer flounder catch limits, the penalty of which would be a moratorium on that fishery.

“The Secretary’s decision has taken the stick away,” Witek said. “The stick was the moratorium. The carrot was a compromise. Other states are now looking for a pass from the Secretary, for instance with striped bass in the Chesapeake.”

Witek said the red snapper decision to extend the red snapper recreational fishery by more than a month in the Gulf “could very well be the death knell to red snapper in the Gulf coast.

“It’s a death spiral that I see no way out of. Except the Gulf council may have a way out of it because they’re talking about changing the definition of overfished stock. By shifting the goals posts they solve the problem,” Witek said.

While Lamborn said the current MSA needs improved science, better transparency and more flexibility, subcommittee member Jared Huffman (California) said MSA is working well, noting that over 40 stocks have now been rebuilt under the MSA guidance and that the precursor to HR200, HR 1335 would not be acceptable by the U.S. Senate.

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

NEFMC Chair Dr. John Quinn to Testify on MSA Reauthorization

July 26, 2017 — The following was released by the New England Fishery Management Council:

New England Fishery Management Council Chairman Dr. John Quinn is scheduled to testify before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard on Tuesday, Aug. 1 at a 10 a.m. hearing on reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The subcommittee is under the wing of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation. Dr. Quinn, who is Director of Public interest Law Programs at the University of Massachusetts School of Law, will be speaking on behalf of the Council Coordination Committee (CCC). The CCC is comprised of the leadership teams of all eight of the nation’s regional fishery management councils.

“I’m honored to be testifying before the Senate subcommittee on behalf of my fellow Council chairmen, vice chairs, and executive directors,” said Dr. Quinn. “We discussed Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization extensively at our mid-May CCC meeting in Gloucester, Massachusetts, and I look forward to presenting our position during the hearing.”

The MSA is the primary law governing marine fisheries management in U.S. federal waters. It was first passed in 1976 as the Fishery Conservation and Management Act, extending U.S. jurisdiction out to 200 nautical miles and establishing the regional fishery management council system. The act underwent two major reauthorizations – the first in 1996 through the Sustainable Fisheries Act and the second in 2007, resulting in the current Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) chairs the 17-member subcommittee that scheduled this Aug. 1 hearing. Chris Oliver, the newly appointed assistant administrator for NOAA Fisheries, also will be testifying. Live video with opening statements, witness testimony, and questioning will be available at the Senate link below. The hearing will focus on “NOAA and Council Perspectives” related to MSA reauthorization issues.

The subcommittee has scheduled a second hearing for Aug. 23 in Soldotna, AK. This hearing will focus on the MSA’s “fisheries management successes and challenges.”