Saving Seafood

GLOUCESTER TIMES: Obama should hold firm on Cashes Ledge decision

July 12, 2016 — The Obama administration must hold firm to its decision earlier this year to reject so-called monument status for the vast swath of ocean around Cashes Ledge despite last-minute arm twisting from powerful environmental lobbying groups.

Earlier this spring, the administration passed on a proposal that he decree a large portion of the Gulf of Maine, including Cashes Ledge, a permanent “maritime national monument.” The edict, made through the federal Antiquities Act, would have come with little or no input from the citizenry at large or groups whose livelihoods are tied to the ocean, like the Northeast fishing industry.

Cashes Ledge, about 80 miles off the coast of Cape Ann, serves as a habitat for sharks, dolphins and sea turtles as well as migrating right whales. The area — more than 520 square miles is already off limits to fishing. There are no efforts on the part of the industry to change that.

“We’re not all nut cases here,” said Robert Vanasse, executive director of the fishing advocacy group Saving Seafood. “It’s pretty much every non-environmentally subsidized fishery organization that is opposed to the use of the Antiquities Act to create marine monuments. The Magnuson-Stevens process works. It could be better, but it’s working.”

Read the full editorial at the Gloucester Times

AP: Conservationists keep pressing for Atlantic Ocean monuments

July 11, 2016 — The following is excerpted from a story published today by the Associated Press. In it, representatives of the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) call for President Obama to use executive authority under the Antiquities Act to designate multiple national marine monuments off the coast of New England.

Last month, eight members of the National Coalition for Fishing Communities (NCFC) and the valuable fishing port of New Bedford, Mass., united in opposition to proposed Atlantic monuments. The groups agreed that fishing areas and resources should continue to be managed in the open and transparent manner stipulated by the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA).

Previously, many of the environmental groups calling for Atlantic monuments expressed support for fisheries management under the MSA. In December, Pew called the MSA “the bedrock of one of the world’s best fishery management systems.” In April, the CLF wrote that the MSA is “the primary reason why the United States can say that it has the most sustainable fisheries in the world.” In February, the Environmental Defense Fund said that the MSA “has made the United States a global model for sustainable fisheries management.”

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Environmental conservationists aren’t giving up on trying to persuade the White House to designate an area in the Gulf of Maine as a national monument.

In the final months of President Barack Obama’s term, they’re hoping he’ll protect an underwater mountain and offshore ecosystem in the Gulf of Maine known as Cashes Ledge. They also want him to protect a chain of undersea formations about 150 miles off the coast of Massachusetts known as the New England Coral Canyons and Seamounts.

The White House Council on Environmental Quality said in March, and reiterated last week, that while the New England Coral Canyons and Seamounts area is under consideration, Cashes Ledge currently is not. There are no marine national monuments in the Atlantic Ocean.

Robert Vanasse, executive director of the fishing advocacy group Saving Seafood, said environmental groups seemed to be “in denial and shock” after the White House first said it wasn’t considering Cashes Ledge in March.

“I think they overplayed their hand. They arrogantly seemed to think that they could dictate to the White House,” he said on Wednesday.

Vanasse said fishing interests are now taking the White House at its word that Cashes Ledge is off the table. The industry is already struggling with quota cuts and climate change.

Commercial fishing groups oppose creating any marine monument in the Atlantic under the American Antiquities Act because the decision is left entirely to the president, Vanasse said. There are existing procedures to protect areas where the public participates in the process under the top law regulating fishing in U.S. oceans, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, he added.

“We’re not the fringe nutcases here,” Vanasse said. “It’s pretty much every non-environmentally subsidized fishery organization that is opposed to the use of the Antiquities Act to create marine monuments. The Magnuson-Stevens process works. It could be better, but it’s working.”

Read the full story from the Associated Press at the Boston Herald

West Coast groups unite to fight offshore monuments that prohibit commercial fishing

July 7, 2016 — The following was released by the National Coalition for Fishing Communities:

A collection of more than 40 West Coast commercial and recreational fishing groups, working in conjunction with the National Coalition for Fishing Communities, has written to the White House, the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior, and officials in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, opposing the proposed designation of marine monuments off the coast of California that prohibit commercial fishing.

The letter is in direct response to a recent proposal calling on President Obama to declare virtually all Pacific seamounts, ridges, and banks (SRB’s) off the California coast as National Monuments using his executive authority under the Antiquities Act. If enacted by executive order, the new monuments would permanently close virtually all of California’s offshore SRB’s to commercial fishing.

“[This proposal] was drafted and advanced behind closed doors with no public peer-reviewed scientific analysis, no [National Environmental Policy Act] analysis, and virtually no public engagement,” the letter to the White House states. “The initial justification for this proposed action is filled with sensational, inaccurate statements and omissions. The economic analysis for the proposed closures grossly understates the importance and value of the identified [SRB’s] to fisheries and fishing communities.”

“Fisheries provide healthy food for people, and our fisheries are a well-managed renewable resource,” the letter continues, noting that California already has the most strictly managed fisheries in the world.

Among the areas proposed for monument status are Tanner and Cortes Banks in southern California, which are critically important for many fisheries including tuna, swordfish, rockfish, spiny lobster, sea urchin, white seabass, mackerel, bonito, and market squid.

The proposal also called for the closures of Gorda and Mendocino Ridges in northern California, which are important grounds for the albacore tuna fishery.

As the letter states, closure of these important areas to commercial fishing would cause disastrous economic impacts to fishermen, seafood processors and allied businesses, fishing communities and the West Coast fishing economy.  Even more important than the value of the fisheries is the opportunity cost of losing these productive fishing grounds forever.

Unilateral action under the Antiquities Act would also contradict the fully public and transparent process that currently exists under the federal Magnuson-Stevens Act. Such a designation would also conflict with the President’s own National Ocean Policy Plan, which promises “robust stakeholder engagement and public participation” in decision-making on ocean policy.

“We ask you stop the creation of these California offshore monuments under the Antiquities Act because monument status is irreversible, and the Antiquities Act process involves no science, no public involvement nor outreach to the parties who will be most affected by this unilateral action – no transparency,” the letter concludes.

Read the full letter here

About the NCFC 
The National Coalition for Fishing Communities provides a national voice and a consistent, reliable presence for fisheries in the nation’s capital and in national media. Comprised of fishing organizations, associations, and businesses from around the country, the NCFC helps ensure sound fisheries policies by integrating community needs with conservation values, leading with the best science, and connecting coalition members to issues and events of importance.

U.S. Commerce Department announces 2016 regional fishery council appointments

June 28, 2016 — The following was released by NOAA:

The U.S. Commerce Department today announced the appointment of 19 new and returning members to the eight regional fishery management councils that partner with NOAA Fisheries to manage ocean fish stocks. One at-large seat on the Mid-Atlantic Council will be announced by the Secretary at a later date. The new and reappointed council members begin their three-year terms on August 11.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act established the councils to prepare fishery management plans for their regions. NOAA Fisheries works closely with the councils through this process and then reviews, approves and implements the plans. Council members represent diverse groups, including commercial and recreational fishing industries, environmental organizations and academia. They are vital to fulfilling the act’s requirements to end overfishing, rebuild fish stocks and manage them sustainably.

“U.S. fisheries are among the most sustainable in the world, and NOAA Fisheries is grateful for the efforts these individuals devote to our nation’s fisheries management and to the resiliency of our oceans. We look forward to working with both new and returning council members,” said Eileen Sobeck, assistant NOAA administrator for fisheries. “Each council faces unique challenges, and their partnership with NOAA Fisheries is integral to the sustainability of the fisheries in their respective regions, as well as to the communities that rely on those fisheries.”

Each year, the Secretary of Commerce appoints approximately one-third of the total 72 appointed members to the eight regional councils. The Secretary selects members from nominations submitted by the governors of fishing states, territories and tribal governments.

Read the full release and list of council appointments

Rep. Rob Bishop: Antiquities Act abuse heads East

June 27, 2016 — The following is excerpted from an opinion piece by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT), chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, published Saturday by the Boston Herald. Rep. Bishop visited New Bedford, Mass., earlier this month, where he met with Mayor Jon Mitchell, Rep. Bill Keating (D-MA), and representatives of the local commercial fishing industry. He also toured a local scallop vessel, the New Bedford harbor, the Fairhaven Shipyard, and a scallop processing company.

Some say cultural trends start on the West Coast and make their way East, but one trend moving eastward is bad news for New Englanders.

In my home state of Utah, the federal government owns 65 percent of the land. That is a problem. In the waning days of his administration, President Clinton compounded the problem by mandating the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument. With virtually no local support, he locked up 1.7 million acres of Utah, an area larger than some states.

This monument designation was an abuse of the Antiquities Act. Passed in 1906, the Antiquities Act was originally intended for presidents to quickly prevent looting of archaeological sites. The executive power exercised under the Antiquities Act has grown far beyond the original purpose.

Now [President Obama] has his sights set on New England fisheries off the coast of Cape Cod.

Earlier this month I traveled to New Bedford, the highest-grossing commercial fishing port in our country. I spoke with local seafood workers about a potential marine monument designation off the coast. Such a designation would override the current public process of established fisheries management and could be catastrophic to the 1.8 million-plus jobs that fishing creates.

Fishing leaders expressed concern over restricted access, potential job loss, and the damage to the local fishing industry that would obviously follow a marine monument designation. Instead, they want a better public process created under the House-passed Magnuson-Stevens Act, still pending renewal in the Senate.

Read the full opinion piece at the Boston Herald

House panel approves bill to shift red-snapper management to states

June 19, 2016 — The House Natural Resources Committee has passed a bipartisan bill that would move the management of red snapper in Gulf states from federal oversight to the states.

The Gulf States Red Snapper Management Authority Act (H.R. 3094) also requires approval from the full House and Senate and President Obama’s signature.

“Once it becomes law, the mechanism in the bill for the transfer of management authority is very simple: Once the states agree on their management plan, then the responsibility moves to the states,” Jeff Angers, president of the Center for Coastal Conservation, told Trade Only Today.

The CCC is one of several groups that have worked to change the way red snapper is regulated for recreational anglers. This year’s red snapper fishing season was nine days.

Angers said he hopes the current administration will pass the bill.

“The House has stepped up on challenging fisheries issues already this Congress. They passed the bill to fix [the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act] last year, so the leadership is surely up to the challenge,” Angers said.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act regulates saltwater fish stocks. The law has long lumped commercial fishing in with recreational fishing. Recreational fishing and boating stakeholders have been trying to change that in recent years.

“The current federal model is clearly not working, and it’s time for a more balanced approach to the management of this fishery,” Jeff Crane, president of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, said in a statement.

Read the full story at Soundings Trade Only Today

40 years of change: For fishing industry, the spring of 1976 was the start of a new era

June 20, 2016 — The following is excerpted from a story published Saturday by the New Bedford Standard-Times:

NEW BEDFORD, Mass. — When you talk about fishing here in New Bedford, you have to start with the whaling era — and the lessons learned.

For decades, the pursuit of whaling chugged along without any dramatic changes. The ships, the equipment, the culture remained essentially the same for years, feeding countless families, lining countless pockets … until the bonanza ran out and the industry collapsed in the early part of the 20th century, never to be revived.

The fishing industry, both local and national, might have fallen into that same trap, but 40 years ago the U.S. government changed the game, adopting the most sweeping changes in the laws governing fisheries that reverberates to this day.

On April 13, 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act was passed and immediately accomplished two major goals.

One, it set into motion a new and unique scheme of regulation to rebuild dwindling fish stocks, a system dramatically different than anything else the government had tried until 1976.

Two, it expelled foreign fishing vessels from fishing inside a 200-mile limit from America’s shoreline.

It isn’t talked about much today, but until 1976 the capacity of the foreign fleet exceeded the Americans, sending huge factory ships into fertile places like Georges Bank to virtually vacuum the fish into the hold and freeze it on the spot, allowing the ships to stay for weeks at a time. “There were West Germans, Poles, Russians, East Germans,” recalled former fisherman James Kendall, now a seafood consultant.

In 1975, the National Marine Fisheries Service reported there were 133 foreign fishing vessels fishing on Georges Bank. The Magnuson-Stevens Act ended that decisively.

Since 1976, much has changed. The unions, which once represented the fishermen and the workers in the fish houses, virtually disappeared from the waterfront. The venerable fish auction at the Wharfinger Building on City Pier 3 is now a museum piece, since the brokers years ago put down their chalkboards and picked up computer screens. Today it has evolved into a computerized display auction elsewhere on the waterfront, with complete transparency and documentation, and bidders located across the nation.

What else has changed?

For lack of a better term, everything.

Where, oh where has our groundfish fleet gone?

At the BASE New Bedford Seafood Display Auction, co-owner Richard Canastra called up data of groundfish sales in recent years that demonstrate a dropoff of more than 30 percent in the last few years alone.

Today there are some days that don’t warrant conducting the auction at all. “Sometimes it’s like a candy store,” he said. “Five pounds of this and three pounds of that.”

Much of the blame for the shrinking of the groundfish fleet, particularly in New Bedford and Gloucester, is laid at the feet of the catch shares and sector management introduced in 2010 by NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco. It dispensed with most of the old days-at-sea  system, which had reduced the annual days at sea to 50, down from around 225, that the boats once had available to them.

The term “sectors” was unfamiliar to the industry when NOAA announced their arrival in 2010. Essentially they are cooperatives, in which individual boats are grouped together along with their catch allocations, and the sector manager manages them as efficiently as he or she can.

This was predicted to cause a consolidation of the industry into the bigger players as the smaller ones weren’t getting enough quota to make it profitable to fish.

For some boat owners, the problem was that the catch shares were determined by the history of the boats but the practice of shack left no paper trail, no formal record, so catch shares were reduced in many cases.

Dr. Brian Rothschild, dean emeritus of the UMass Dartmouth School for Marine Science and Technology and a critic of NOAA, noted that many boat owners found that they can “own it and lease it out and obtain money in windfall profits” without even going fishing.

Oh, those pesky environmentalists!

It was “not right from the beginning that NOAA has enforced this,” Rothschild said. “On top of that, NOAA enforcement didn’t come from a desire to make good public policy but because it came under the influence of organizations like the Environmental Defense Fund,” he said.

Catch shares and sector management have, however, withstood legal challenges in federal court, because of a legal doctrine named Chevron, in which government institutions are allowed to interpret laws such as Magnuson any way they wish unless the departures from congressional intent are egregious.

Rothschild is among those who believe that sector management under Magnuson has been ignoring key provisions of the act, notably the socio-economic impact evaluation and the instruction to use the best available science. That has largely excluded scientists outside of NOAA itself.

Outside scientists have occasionally run rings around NOAA. For example, SMAST’s Dr. Kevin  Stokesbury’s invention of a camera apparatus to quite literally count the scallops on the seabed individually has revolutionized scallop management, opened the door to a treasure trove of healthy scallops, and made New Bedford the No. 1 fishing port in the nation.

But NOAA now employs its own camera apparatus. It conducts regular surveys of fish populations and that has been a very sore point at times in recent years.

This is a departure from the days before Magnuson, when fishermen were issued permits for various species and were left largely on their own to discover how many fish were in the ocean, which were already dwindling at the time.

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times

Controversial Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery bill advances

June 17, 2016 — The U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Natural Resources advanced a bill on Wednesday, 15 June regarding red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico that would extend Southern states’ control over federal waters and establish a new management authority to replace the oversight of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA).

The action moves the legislation on to face a potential vote by the full body of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The bill, H.R. 3094, or the Gulf States Red Snapper Management Authority Act, was authored by U.S. Rep. Garret Graves (R-Louisiana). The proposed legislation would remove the red snapper fishery from federal management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and give management authority of the species to an agency overseen by fishery managers representing five Southern states with borders on the Gulf of Mexico.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Southeastern Fisheries Association: Keep Federal Management of Red Snapper

June 14, 2016 — The following opinion piece was released by Southeastern Fisheries Association Executive Director Bob Jones, concerning H.R. 3094, the Gulf States Red Snapper Management Authority Act. The bill “amend[s] the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to transfer to States the authority to manage red snapper fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico.” The bill will be subject to full committee markup by the House Natural Resources Committee tomorrow, June 15:

HR 3094 will scuttle, by action and precedence, the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). We believe the MSA has done much to make US fishery resources sustainable.

Before there was a federal fishery management zone, commercial fishermen brought their issues before the state legislatures. They were assured fair hearings by legislative committees. Then some state fish commissions, in Florida for example, assumed the management without legislative oversight. The Florida Marine Fisheries Commission did come under the Governor and SIX elected Cabinet Officers for a few years where fishery issues were fully discussed. Then an autonomous Florida Fish & Wildlife Commission was established so the commercial fishermen came under a SEVEN person group. In Florida we started out under a 160 member legislature, then down to a SEVEN member commission and now HR 3094 places us and a billion dollar seafood industry under the whims of THREE people with no federal oversight for managing federal resources. Is any other food producing industry subject to THREE unelected people in control of their livelihood?

When the MSA was enacted it established management of Gulf red snapper under a SEVENTEEN person fisheries council composed of all state members except one. The council operates under a mandated set of National Standards. For the most part it operates under the rule of law.

HR 3094 changes the rule of law to the rule of man by creating a FIVE member authority with no elected official oversight. On a FIVE member authority THREE votes is a majority.

“(502 (a) (1) of HR 3094 (says:) Gulf States Red Snapper Management Authority that consists of the principal fisheries manager of each of the Gulf coastal States.“

“{c) (i) of HR 3094 (says:) any recommendation by the GSRSMA to reduce quota apportioned to the commercial sector by more than 10 percent shall be reviewed and approved by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council.”

This means the ‘Gulf States authority’ will reallocate 9.99% of the red snapper each year from the commercial harvesting sector to the anglers. This Texas/Louisiana CCA inspired ‘authority’ will allocate all the red snapper for themselves in about a decade. That is the true goal of this bill. 

HR 3094 was already killed when it was proposed as an amendment to the MSA legislation. It has “risen from the ashes” to once more attempt to reward the only fishing sector without accountability. 

HR 3094 needs to be killed just as it was at full committee earlier in the Congress.

View a PDF version here

The Future of Seafood Security: The Fight Against Illegal Fishing and Seafood Fraud

June 8, 2016 — In December 2006, the U.S. Congress passed a comprehensive reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which governs America’s fisheries. In the decade since, this law has been lauded around the globe as a model for both ending overfishing and allowing science to drive management of the world’s last major commercial hunting industry. As a result, regulators are required to set catch limits at the most sustainable levels possible. It has been so effective that the European Union used it as a model for revising its comparable law, the Common Fisheries Policy, in 2014. The upshot of the 2006 Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization is that overfishing has effectively been ended in U.S. waters. And yet, despite this fact, Americans are still consuming millions of tons of unsustainably caught seafood every year.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, more than 90 percent of the seafood consumed in the United States is imported. This means it is harvested, farmed, or processed in nations that, in almost all cases, lack the high standards that the United States has mandated for domestic producers. Making matters more difficult, it is exceedingly hard for buyers who seek sustainable seafood to identify its provenance with any degree of confidence; mislabeling—either accidental or purposeful—is rampant. So the combination in many countries of low enforcement capacity on the water and in processing facilities and substantial short-term economic incentives for unscrupulous fishermen and dealers means that those who would seek to exploit or circumvent national and international standards and regulations have all but unlimited capacity to do so.

Therefore, while American fisheries approach the 10th anniversary of the enactment of some of the world’s strongest seafood sustainability standards, much work remains in the fight to maintain global fish populations, the industry that relies on them, and, ultimately, the primary source of protein for more than one billion people worldwide. President Barack Obama’s administration, with assistance from leaders in Congress, has begun to take significant steps toward addressing the two-track problems of combating illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing activity—also known as IUU fishing—and enhancing the traceability of seafood in order to combat trade in fraudulent fish. NOAA recently ended the public comment period on a new proposed rule that would boost efforts on both fronts, and last fall, the U.S. Senate acted to ratify a treaty requiring countries where fishermen land their products—known as port states—to take additional measures to block vessels engaged in illegal fishing activity from entering their harbors.

Read the full story at the Center for American Progress