Magnuson-Stevens Act Archives - Page 44 of 45

Kelly Ayotte Supports NH Fishermen Challenging At-Sea Monitoring Program

Editor’s Note: Cause of Action Executive Director Dan Epstein addressed Senator Ayotte’s press release by stating that “Cause of Action, on behalf of the fishermen we are representing in this matter, applaud Senator Ayotte, and thank her for her support. We appreciate any help we can get on educating the public about this unlawful regulation that would devastate the fishing industry and would put good, hard-working people out of work.”

WASHINGTON — December 10, 2015 — The following was released by the office of U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.):

U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) today expressed support for New Hampshire fishermen who filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the legality of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) at-sea monitoring program:

“I support New Hampshire fishermen in their fight against NOAA’s at-sea monitoring fees. I continue to believe that NOAA should fully fund the at-sea monitoring program and Senator Shaheen and I have also called for a full investigation of the program. Going forward, I will continue to do everything in my power to ensure the survival of New Hampshire’s historic and iconic commercial fishing industry.”

In September, Ayotte introduced legislation to terminate NOAA’s independent third-party at-sea monitoring program for the Northeast Multispecies Fishery unless NOAA fully funds the program using funds within its existing budget. She also sent a letter, together with U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), to the Department of Commerce Acting Inspector General David Smith calling for a full investigation into NOAA’s at-sea monitoring program for the Northeast Multispecies Fishery, which includes New Hampshire’s coastal region.

Also in September, Ayotte hosted a roundtable discussion with NOAA officials, New Hampshire fishermen, and business leaders at the Pease Tradeport in Portsmouth. She invited NOAA officials to New Hampshire to hear directly from fishermen and business leaders about concerns with fishing regulations, federal catch-share limits, NOAA’s process for determining fish stocks, the imposition of fees for “at-sea monitors” on commercial fishing vessels, and NOAA’s implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Ayotte is a member of the Senate Commerce Committee and the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard.

Read the original release from the office of U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.)

GSSA Executive Director Presses House Committee on MSA Reform

December 10, 2015 — The following was released by the Garden State Seafood Association:

Garden State Seafood Association Executive Director Greg DiDomenico testified on Monday, December 7th in Riverhead, New York before a field hearing of the House Natural Resources Committee. In his testimony, Mr. DiDomenico outlined several major regulatory threats to the seafood industry, including: the strict interpretation of the 2006 Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) amendments, the unfair use of the Antiquities Act and other measures to curtail commercial fishing access, and the setting of arbitrary harvest levels for commercial fishing through allocation decisions.

Mr. DiDomenico testified that the implementation of the MSA has often led to overly-precautious management that leads to too-conservative, risk-averse allocations that annually cost the commercial fishing industry millions in lost revenue. Specifically, he noted that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s (MAFMC) risk policy has led to overly restrictive quotas. These precautionary measures “effectively prevent the U.S. fishing industry from achieving optimum yield,” a primary objective of the MSA.

Mr. DiDomenico praised the Committee for their hard work on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and pushed for reform of the MSA’s National Standard Guidelines. The GSSA supports changes to the MSA, including consideration of “relevant economic, social, or ecological factors” in management decisions, as well as additional flexibility in stock rebuilding.

Mr. DiDomenico also criticized the use of the Antiquities Act and other regulatory measures to create marine protected areas outside of the process established by MSA, stating that this top-down approach directly harms the fishing industry and denies them a voice in the process.

“The Antiquities Act provides no basis for learned discourse, no scientific, economic analysis…[its] use to create Marine National Monuments is a true top-down, dictatorial approach which is frequently championed by big-bucks environmental groups and in which the public – including the fishing community that is directly affected – has no voice,” he said.

Mr. DiDomenico advised a collaborative MSA-driven process to provide “clear, justifiable science-based conservation benefits” in the MSA framework, which provides a public process to evaluate and decide on protected areas. He recommended processes be based on the example of the Deep Sea Corals Amendment passed this year by the MAFMC, which has been widely praised as a landmark conservation measure and a model for habitat management. He urged the Committee to consider two bills which would prohibit the establishment of Marine National Monuments (H.R. 330 and H.R. 332) before certain steps are taken to obtain proper approval from affected states.

Concluding his testimony, Mr. DiDomenico brought to light troubling resource allocation issues that undermine the MSA, most importantly the “Gulf States Red Snapper Management Authority Act” (H.R. 3094) stating that the bill as proposed will harm commercial and consumer access to fish species like red snapper. Mr. DiDomenico urged the Committee to utilize substantive, common-sense reauthorization efforts to strike a balance between sustainability and profitability for the commercial fishing industry, and encouraged immediate oversight as soon as feasible.

Read the full testimony here

View more photos of the hearing here

Overfishing is Getting Filleted by Markets

December 9, 2015 — Overfishing is a serious threat to the nearly 200 million people who depend on the world’s oceans for sustenance. After all, nearly one in five people around the world consume fish as their primary source of protein and overfishing has deleterious cascade effects on other marine ecosystems.

Illegal and excessive fishing are to a degree inevitable because oceans, rivers and many lakes are publicly administered. This gives fishermen an incentive to take from them as much as is legally possible. Yet, market-based resource management is offering a concrete solution to this “tragedy of the commons” and has already begun alleviating strains on U.S. fish stocks.

The U.S. economy is intertwined with the fate of the high seas. By conservative estimates, commercial and recreational fishing alone account for 1.3 million jobs and nearly $60 billion in economic activity. Overfishing has pernicious effects on Americans’ livelihoods: commercial anglers can lose out on up to 80 percent of potential revenue when local fish species see drastic population decline, as was the case in New England when cod, flounder, and halibut populations were unexpectedly low in 2009.

With market-based resource management, data from September 2015 show that the total number of wild stocks placed on the “overfishing” watch list has fallen to its all-time lowest level since 1997. Since the 2007 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, annual catch limits (ACLs) have allowed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to reduce the number of overfished U.S. stocks by nearly 75 percent since 2007 alone (from 41 in 2007 to only 10 in 2014). ACLs create total tonnage allotments based on a series of population growth factors specific to certain fish species.

Read the full story at Economics 21

Enviros Push for “National Monuments” Off Northeast Coast that Could Ban Recreational Fishing

November, 2015 — A coalition of environmental groups including the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Conservation Law Foundation, and the National Resources Defense Council, is pushing hard to create a half-dozen “marine national monuments” in the Atlantic Ocean that would prohibit commercial fishing and could ban recreational fishing as well.

The coalition is encouraging President Obama to use his authority to designate the monuments through the Antiquities Act of 1906, which was created to “protect the objects of historic and scientific interest” and is supposed to be limited to “the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected.” Through the Act, a president can unilaterally create these areas without any public or congressional oversight or input. A number of presidents have exercised this privilege in the past, yet most monuments have been designated on land or in the Western Pacific Ocean.

At the time of this writing the areas under consideration are not completely clear, but appear to include at least three canyons – Lydonia, Gilbert, and Oceanographer – along with four seamounts to the south, as well as Cashes Ledge some 50 miles offshore in the Gulf of Maine. Other canyons and seamounts are also reportedly under consideration.

It is clear to many of us, however, that the coalition’s intent in creating these monuments has little to do with historical or cultural preservation. As Maine’s Gov. Paul LePage put it, the monuments designations “would serve only one purpose – excluding commercial fishing from certain segments of the ocean.”

The recreational sector, however, needs to be very careful – and skeptical as well. At least one attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) has suggested that recreational fishing would likely be allowed in the monuments, in order to garner support from sport fishermen, and indicated that it would be a real “win” for the recreational sector if just the commercials were prohibited in these areas.

But the rec sector isn’t taking the bait. “Just because a couple of environmental groups claim they wouldn’t oppose recreational fishing in the monuments doesn’t mean that sport fishing would be allowed once the final regulations are drafted in D.C.,” explained Frank Blount, chairman of the New England Fishery Management Council’s (NEFMC) Groundfish Committee and a party boat fleet owner in RI. “There’s no way to predict what the language in any monument designation will entail. We need to oppose the whole idea, right from the get-go.”

One of the biggest problems with the Antiquities Act of 1906 is that it strips away the open, democratic processes that protect these areas yet can allow sustainable and appropriate fishing activity. The open federal Fishery Management Council system is the vehicle by which this is best accomplished, and in fact the NEFMC has already implemented strong protections for Cashes Ledge, where most commercial fishing is already now prohibited. And in June, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council voted to protect 38,000 square miles of marine habitat in order to protect deep-sea corals.

A marine monuments designation, in contrast, would nullify these existing management actions, and deny the public any input into what new restrictions might, or should, be enacted. “Instead, it all becomes purely political,” says Jim Donofrio, the RFA’s Executive Director. “Whoever has the most influence on the administration and the president will get what they want in the way of restrictions in these areas. This is no way to manage our publicly-owned marine resources. We already have a transparent process via the Magnuson-Stevens Act. It’s certainly not perfect, to be sure, but it at least allows for public participation.”

Read the full story at Making Waves, the official publication of the Recreational Fishing Alliance

Saving Seafood Announces the National Coalition of Fishing Communities

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — November 16, 2015 — The National Coalition of Fishing Communities (NCFC) has been organized to meet the challenges of modern communication for the commercial fishing industry and related business and civic communities. NCFC is a unique partnership of seafood interests, dedicated to transmitting the voices of fishermen and their communities. NCFC will ensure that fisheries managers, scientists, academics and elected officials understand the positions of our members, and address their concerns. We will accomplish this through dialogue, education and outreach.

“This is a very exciting time for us,” says Sarah Garcia, former Harbor Planning Director of Gloucester, Massachusetts and the Director of Outreach and Membership for NCFC. “The strength and diversity of NCFC can make a big impact in the way fishing communities deliver their message in Washington.”

The Coalition will formally launch during the next U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting, to be held in Washington, DC on January 19, 2016, and is currently engaged in a membership drive. Already, over 60 members have signed up, drawn from America’s top commercial fishing ports, leading fishing businesses, and regional associations.

Saving Seafood will provide the communication and media relations in numerous forms and venues, creating the opportunity for our messages to be received. Too often, misleading information about the industry makes its way into print, and the media hear only one side of the story. The NCFC allows its members to make their positions clear, and deliver their messages to a wider audience of media, policymakers, and likeminded industry members.

“Five years ago, Saving Seafood began as a trade news and information organization, aimed at telling the truth about our industry,” said Greg DiDomenico, Executive Director of New Jersey’s Garden State Seafood Association. “They have proven to be capable of helping the industry, and can assist locally, nationally, and globally”

The Coalition is made up of different types of communities. In addition to municipalities with economic, social, and cultural ties to the fishing industry, NCFC includes associations who represent and are supported directly by working commercial fishing families; businesses who are involved in the harvesting, processing, distributing, marketing, and serving of seafood; and individuals in fishing communities across the country who see first-hand the necessity of local knowledge informing policy.

“America’s fishing communities and seafood industry have been maligned by special interest groups working in collusion, who have slandered hard-working Americans with outrageous claims and misrepresentations,” says Saving Seafood Executive Director Bob Vanasse. “We’re aiming to bring the entire supply chain of fishermen, shoreside businesses, processors, markets, and restaurants together to join this effort to move the national conversation in a positive direction.”

Members can join at the NCFC website, fisheriescoalition.org, and choose one of the three membership plans that best suits their needs, with plans for individuals, small business, and corporations starting at $10, $100, and $500 per month levels.

Members receive the NCFC’s newsletter, which contains the most up-to-date information on current events, and through the NCFC mailing list will be connected to a nation-wide effort to make sure their concerns are communicated to policymakers, media and the public, to bring a new perspective to important industry issues that have been overwhelmed by special interest campaigns.

“An umbrella group like NCFC makes it easier for fishing organizations around the country to be vocally involved in the management process,” said Rod Moore of West Coast Seafood Processors Association in Portland, Oregon and a NCFC member. “The Coalition is a platform through which we can speak out about issues that are important to our members.”

Like Saving Seafood, NCFC is committed to the proper implementation of U.S. fisheries management law, which requires that regulators take into account “the social and economic needs of the States.” [Magnuson-Stevens Act (2)(b)(5), Public Law 101-627]

NCFC is founded on the principles of integrating the needs of communities with the goals of conservation, utilizing the best available science, and connecting members of the national fishing community to each other. The Coalition will create a proper understanding of the struggles of our community, and articulate our message.

Join us now to be a part of the movement. Visit http://fisheriescoalition.org/join-us/ to support America’s fisheries and let your voice be heard.

Saving Seafood is a 501(c)(6) Washington, DC – based non-profit that conducts media and public outreach on behalf of fishing communities, and keeps the public informed on fisheries issues. Saving Seafood’s national reach and influence provides fishermen with a recognized voice in the nation’s capital to communicate their concerns and build public awareness of the industry’s priorities.

View a PDF of the release here

House Committee Holds Hearing on Gulf Red Snapper Legislation

November 2, 2015 — While former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s eleven-hour testimony before the 17-month-old House Select Committee on Benghazi took center spotlight on Capitol Hill, the House Committee on Natural Resources’ Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans met to a packed room filled with Gulf commercial and charter-for-hire fishermen to hear public testimony on H.R. 3094, the “Gulf States Red Snapper Management Authority Act” which gives Gulf States control of the red snapper fishery.

Sponsored by Louisiana Republican Representative Garret Graves, and endorsed by all five Gulf state fisheries managers, the new legislation would remove Gulf red snapper from federal management authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and place it under state management.

In his opening remarks, the bill’s author said he was convinced the Gulf states themselves could do a better job at managing red snapper than the federal government. Rep. Graves said he had repeatedly reached out to get input on the legislation from the commercial industry, but received none. However, he did thank Stan Harris, CEO of the Louisiana Restaurant Association and Board Member of the Gulf Seafood Institute, for his input.

During his opening remarks, Ranking Member Jared Huffman of California stated that the red snapper issue is as contentious as California water issues in terms of items being considered by the House Resources Committee.

The Subcommittee, chaired by Louisiana Representative John Fleming, heard testimony from seven witness including Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Secretary Robert Barham, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s Executive Director Nick Wiley and David Cresson, Executive Director of the Coastal Conservation Association (CCA), who spoke in favor of the legislation.

Read the full story at Gulf Seafood Institute

NILS STOLPE: So how’s that “catch shares” revolution working out for groundfish?

FishNet USA/October 22, 2015 — NILS E. STOLPE — Most of you probably remember when newly appointed NOAA head Jane Lubchenco went to New England and announced that she was going to save our nation’s oldest fishery. But if it didn’t make a lasting impact on you, quoting from the Environmental Defense blog, EDFish by Tesia Love on April 8, 2009, “Sally McGee, Emilie Litsinger and I got to witness something pretty wonderful today. Jane Lubchenco came to the New England Fishery Management Council meeting to announce the immediate release of $16 million to the groundfish fishery to help move the fishery to ‘sector” catch share management by providing funding for cooperative research to help fishermen get through a tough fishing year with very strict limits on fishing effort.” She went on to quote Dr. Lubchenco “we need a rapid transition to sectors and catch shares. Catch shares are a powerful tool to getting to sustainable fisheries and profitability. I challenge you to deliver on this in Amendment 16, to include measures to end overfishing. I will commit the resources to my staff to do their part to ensure Amendment 16 is passed in June. We are shining a light on your efforts and we will track your progress. There is too much at stake to allow delay and self-interest to prevent sectors and ultimately catch shares from being implemented.”

I’m sure that you were there with the rest of us, heaving a huge sigh of relief with visions of Dr. Lubchenco on her shiny white steed, first riding to the rescue of the New England fishery, and then on to all of the rest of our struggling fisheries. “Hyo Silver! Away!”

So how did she do? A couple of years back NOAA/NMFS released the 2012 Final Report on the Performance of the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery (May 2012 – April 2013). It’s available at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd1401/. The report included a table – available at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd1401/tables.pdf – included a table titled Summary of major trends (May through April, includes all vessels with a valid limited access multispecies permit) for the fishing years 2009 to 2012. The table only takes up a single page, is pretty easily understood and is well worth your consideration in its entirety but I’ll take the liberty of synopsizing what I think are the major points it illustrates. In each of the four years the groundfish revenues, landed weight, number of active vessels that took a groundfish trip, the total number of groundfish trips, and the total crew days on groundfish trips decreased. The non-groundfish revenues and landed weight increased. The days absent on a non-groundfish trip increased slightly then decreased.

And then we come to 2013 (it seems that according to NOAA/NMFS, 2014 hasn’t gotten here yet). Had the myriad benefits of Dr. Lubchenco’s and her ENGO/foundation cronies’ Catch Share Revolution finally arrived? Apparently, not quite yet. According to the 2013 Final Report on the Performance of the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery (May 2013 – April 2014), just about everything that was falling in FY 2009 to 2012 continued to fall in FY 2014. I won’t go over any of the details, but the corresponding Table 1 for that year is available at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/read/socialsci/pdf/groundfish_report_fy2013.pdf.

Oh well, I guess she deserves a few points for trying – and we shouldn’t forget that before she could really focus on fixing groundfish she was distracted by having to dump a couple of millions of gallons of Corexit into the Gulf of Mexico.

Thirteen species are included in the New England Fishery Management Council’s multi-species fishery management plan, the “groundfish” FMP. Four of those species support no or minimal directed fisheries. The landings of those that support a significant commercial fishery are in the table below (from the NOAA/NMFS commercial landings database). Looking at these data, it’s impossible to suggest that after years of intensive management this management regime is anything that could be considered a success – unless your idea of success is putting a whole bunch of people out of work. In fact only the most charitable among us could term it anything other than disaster – and it’s a disaster that has been in the making since long before Dr. Lubchenco so fatuously announced that she was going to fix it.

(I’ll add here that catch share management is not a cure-all for all that’s wrong with fishery management nor is it the reason for management failures – though at the time Dr. Lubchenco and her “team” apparently believed it was. It is nothing more than an option for dividing the catch among users. As such it can have profound socioeconomic impacts on participants in the fishery and on fishing communities that depend on it, but not on the fishery resources themselves.)

Species	Year	Metric Tons	Value	Species	Year	Metric Tons	Value

Atlantic	2009	8946	$25,223,364	Haddock	2009	5,818	$13,655,842
Cod	2010	8039	$28,142,681		2010	9,811	$21,715,488
	2011	7981	$32,596,942		2011	5,709	$16,316,219
	2012	4766	$22,200,043		2012	1,959	$7,833,001
	2013	2261	$10,455,352		2013	1,869	$6,002,480
Plaice	2009	1395	$3,886,809	White	2009	1,696	$3,556,719
	2010	1413	$4,498,591	Hake	2010	1,807	$4,116,221
	2011	1387	$4,274,757		2011	2,907	$5,849,790
	2012	1480	$5,048,688		2012	2,772	$6,933,743
	2013	1318	$4,688,995		2013	2,238	$6,484,444
Winter	2009	2209	$8,094,381	Pollock	2009	7,492	$10,010,039
Flounder	2010	1587	$6,959,547		2010	5,158	$9,529,022
	2011	2124	$8,002,376		2011	7,193	$12,292,573
	2012	2395	$10,331,500		2012	6,743	$13,185,509
	2013	2746	$9,899,924		2013	5,058	$11,395,943
Yellowtail	2009	1605	$4,759,536	Acadian	2009	1,440	$1,572,292
Flounder	2010	1318	$4,193,981	Redfish	2010	1,646	$1,959,681
	2011	1827	$4,762,969		2011	2,014	$2,754,692
	2012	1808	$5,396,502		2012	4,035	$5,891,429
	2013	1278	$4,199,927		2013	3,577	$4,337,163
Witch	2009	949	$4,036,115
Flounder	2010	759	$3,773,526
	2011	870	$3,955,053
	2012	1037	$4,247,528
	2013	686	$3,735,330

How might it be fixed? In the original FishNet article I quoted a couple of paragraphs from a National Academy of Sciences study Evaluating the Effectiveness of Fish Stock Rebuilding Plans in the United States (available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18488/evaluating-the-effectiveness-of-fish-stock-rebuilding-plans-in-the-united-states). I can’t think of anything more valuable than repeating those words here. On page 178 of the report the authors concluded “the tradeoff between flexibility and prescriptiveness within the current legal framework and MFSCMA (Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act) guidelines for rebuilding underlies many of the issues discussed in this chapter. The present approach may not be flexible or adaptive enough in the face of complex ecosystem and fishery dynamics when data and knowledge are limiting. The high degree of prescriptiveness (and concomitant low flexibility) may create incompatibilities between single species rebuilding plans and EBFM (Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management). Fixed rules for rebuilding times can result in inefficiencies and discontinuities of harvest-control rules, put unrealistic demands on models and data for stock assessment and forecasting, cause reduction in yield, especially in mixed-stock situations, and de-emphasize socio-economic factors in the formulation of rebuilding plans. The current approach specifies success of individual rebuilding plans in biological terms. It does not address evaluation of the success in socio-economic terms and at broader regional and national scales, and also does not ensure effective flow of information (communication) across regions.”

In other words, the fishery managers need more informed flexibility to adequately manage our fisheries. It has been the goal of the fishing industry’s friends in Congress to provide this necessary flexibility (with adequate safeguards, of course). Conversely it has been the goal of a handful of foundations and the ENGOs they support and a smaller handful of so-called fishermen’s organizations to prevent this, and it seems that they have been willing to resort to just about any tactics to do it. As they have been successful in their efforts the fishing industry has continued to lose infrastructure that will never be replaced and markets that will be next to impossible to recover – and the percentage of imported seafood that we consume will continue to increase in spite of the fact that our fisheries are among the richest in the world.

View a PDF of the opinion piece

Snapper bill could kill fishing jobs

October 23, 2015 — The following opinion piece appeared on The Hill and was written by Shane Cantrell, Buddy Guindon, Glen Brooks and Brett Veerhusen:

The commercial and charter fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico and throughout the United States, are unified in opposition to H.R. 3094 (Gulf States Red Snapper Management Authority Act).

Every year tens of millions of Americans enjoy fresh caught seafood from their favorite restaurants and grocery stores, and millions of tourists travel to the coasts for a day of fishing on charter boats. Fish and shellfish are public resources, and our four fishing industry organizations work hard to provide the American public with sustainable access to the bounty of the Gulf of Mexico and other coastal regions of our nation.

Together, our organizations and the thousands of fishermen we represent have embraced science and management tools that promote conservation and sustainable fishing practices, reduce wasteful by-catch, operate safer and more stable small businesses, and protect fishing and shore-side jobs. We strive for sustainability, accountability, and access to some of the world’s best seafood; and we do so through active and progressive campaigns that bring fishermen, stakeholders, and regulators together to solve problems.
H.R. 3094 poses a clear and imminent threat to our jobs, our fishing communities, and the red snapper resource that we have helped rebuild to some of the highest levels on record.

H.R. 3094 creates loopholes that will erode the commercial red snapper fishery and access to red snapper by millions of American consumers. Commercial management of red snapper in the Gulf is a success story – overfishing was stopped, wasteful discarding was all-but-eliminated, and fishing businesses and jobs are profitable and stable. This is all due to the core conservation and management protections that are afforded to us under federal law (the Magnuson-Stevens Conservation and Management Act). H.R. 3094 allows the Gulf States to take away nearly 10% of the commercial quota every year without conferring with the Congressionally-approved and stakeholder-comprised Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council). To add insult to injury, H.R. 3094 deceives the public by claiming it will not change the IFQ shares in this fishery. However, those who developed this language fail to point out that the “shares” are a percentage of the whole commercial allocation, and that any reduction in commercial allocation will reduce the quota associated with the shares. Commercial fishermen don’t keep what they catch – it goes to American consumers who purchase red snapper from restaurants and grocery stores.

Read the full opinion piece at The Hill

Commercial and Charter Fishermen Send Opposition Letter to Congress on Eve of Red Snapper Hearing

October 22, 2015 — Later today, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans will hold a hearing on the Gulf States Red Snapper Management Authority Act (GSRSMA) – H.R. 3094. The bill, sponsored by Representative Garret Graves (R-LA) and originally introduced this summer, transfers management authority from the public and transparent federal process to the five Gulf states. This sets a dangerous precedent to unravel the success of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, a landmark piece of legislation.

Read the full story at The Outdoor Wire

View a PDF of the Official Statement of the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders’ Alliance

View a PDF of the testimony of Robert F. Zales from the National Association Charterboat Operators

Proceeds from NMI’s fishing quota will go to conservation

October 16, 2015 — The $525,000 that the CNMI earns from selling half of its big eye tuna quota will go to marine conservation programs and development of fishery management, Variety learned.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service or NMFS gave the CNMI a 2,000 metric ton catch limit for big eye tuna for the year 2015, and allowed the commonwealth to sell half of it to a group of long-line fishermen in Hawaii.

NMFS allowed the CNMI to allocate a 1,000-metric ton catch limit to Hawaii long-liners in a specified fishing agreement.

In his email to CNMI Department of Lands and Natural Resources Secretary Richard B. Seman, NMFS Regional Administrator Michael D. Tosatto said: “As an accountability measure, NMFS will monitor, attribute, and restrict (if necessary) catches of longline-caught bigeye tuna, including catches made under a specified fishing agreement. These catch limits and accountability measures support the long-term sustainability of fishery resources of the U.S. Pacific Islands.”

In his Oct. 9 letter to Gov. Eloy S. Inos. Tosatto said he has reviewed the agreement between the CNMI government and Quota Management Inc. and determined that it is consistent with the requirements of the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries and the Western Pacific, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and other applicable laws.

Read the full story from Marianas Variety