Saving Seafood

Troubled waters, heartfelt stories in ‘Sacred Cod’

April 13, 2017 — Of the two sacred emblems of Massachusetts — the bean and the cod — the cod gets all the glory but the bean is certainly more environmentally secure.

For centuries fishermen from Gloucester have relied on cod — and the world has relied on them to provide it — but recently scientists have determined that the fish stocks are being depleted at an unsustainable rate and soon there will be no more cod to fish. The fishermen protest that because of the regulations imposed on them, soon there will be no fishermen left to do the fishing.

Andy Laub, Endicott College’s Steve Liss, and Boston Globe reporter David Abel’s thoroughly researched, reasoned and surprisingly moving documentary “Sacred Cod,” premiering Thursday at 9 p.m. on Discovery, gives time to both sides. They offer warm, robust, and sympathetic portraits of these Gloucestermen with their powerful work ethic, fierce love of family, and faith in the American Dream. And they also thoughtfully and thoroughly present the point of view of the bureaucrats and scientists who are trying to do what’s best with the information they have. Emerging as heroes are those willing to consider both sides and seek new solutions.

On one level, the debate comes down to point of view. Based on their extensive research and analysis, the scientists of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the agency studying the problem and issuing regulations, say that the cod stock has declined to a fraction of what it must be to remain sustainable. The fishermen take a more empirical and anecdotal approach; they say that the figures are wrong, that from their experience plenty of cod are still out there. One fisherman takes John Bullard, NOAA’s regional administrator, on a fishing trip. The trawling net disgorges a mountain of fish. “There it is, the elusive cod!” the fisherman scoffs. He tells Bullard that he has just caught his entire annual quota in 45 minutes.

Read the full story at the Boston Globe

Tougher sea lion control law introduced in Congress

April 12, 2017 — The Endangered Salmon and Fisheries Predation Prevention Act, introduced April 8 by U.S. Reps. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA) and Kurt Schrader (D-OR), aims to “clear up inefficiencies and red tape to allow more effective management of alarming predation levels by California sea lions on Columbia River spring Chinook and other species.”

If approved by Congress and the president, the legislation will authorize states and tribes to remove a limited number of predatory sea lions. It allows active management of the growing Columbia River sea lion population and removes a requirement that individual sea lions be identified as preying on salmon before they can be removed.

According to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) five-year review, sea lion management actions are needed in the Lower Columbia. The service stated, “…predation by pinnipeds [sea lions and seals] on listed stocks of Columbia River Basin salmon and steelhead, as well as eulachon, has increased at an unprecedented rate. So while there are management efforts to reduce pinniped predation in the vicinity of Bonneville Dam, this management effort is insufficient to reduce the severity of the threat, especially pinniped predation in the Columbia River estuary (river miles 1 to 145) and at Willamette Falls.”

A limited removal program has been in effect since 2011 but the NMFS review concluded that the current program doesn’t do enough to protect endangered salmon. Last year, approximately 190 sea lions killed over 9,500 adult spring Chinook within sight of Bonneville Dam. This represents a 5.8 percent loss of the 2016 spring Chinook run a quarter mile of Bonneville Dam alone. NOAA Fisheries Service also estimates that up to 45 percent of the 2014 spring Chinook run was potentially lost to sea lions in the 145 river miles between the estuary and Bonneville Dam.

Read the full story at the Chinook Observer

Sardines off the menu again for West Coast fishers

April 11, 2017 — Fishing for Pacific sardines in California has been banned for the third year in a row.

The Pacific Fishery Management Council voted Monday afternoon in Sacramento to close the fishery through June 30, 2018 because the population limit of 150,000 metric tons wasn’t met.

Researchers estimate that only about 87,000 metric tons of the oil-rich fish are now swimming around off the coast.

The decision blocks commercial fishers in San Pedro, Long Beach and elsewhere across the West Coast from anything other than small numbers of incidental takes. While sardines don’t command the high price of California shellfish, their plentiful numbers and popularity make them one of the state’s most-caught finfish.

But fishery managers say there’s reason to believe sardines are much more plentiful than studies have found.

Flawed Count?

NOAA’s Southwest Fisheries Science Center deputy director Dale Sweetnam said the acoustic-trawl method that researchers use to estimate the number of sardines is in the process of being improved to take into account other areas closer to shore.

The count is done from a large NOAA ship that surveys the entire West Coast by sampling schools of fish, and then bounces sound waves off of them to create a diagram that estimates the size.

But the ship is too large to go into harbors or coastal areas where sardines like to congregate.

“There are questions about the acoustic detector being on the bottom of the ship — how much of the schools in the upper water columns are missed by the acoustics,” Sweetnam said. “Also, the large NOAA ship can’t go in shallow waters, but most of the sardine fishery is very close to shore.”

The fisheries service will soon employ a Department of Fish and Wildlife plane, along with drones, to survey coastal areas for sardines.

Read the full story at the Long Beach Press-Telegram

WEST COAST SALMON SEASON DATES SET

April 11, 2017 — The following was released by the Pacific Fishery Management Council:

The Pacific Fishery Management Council today adopted ocean salmon season recommendations that provide recreational and commercial opportunities for most of the Pacific coast. However, due to low forecasts, several areas are closed this year, and the open areas are significantly constrained. The adopted salmon fisheries off the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington do achieve conservation goals for the numerous individual salmon stocks on the West Coast..

The recommendation will be forwarded to the National Marine Fisheries Service for approval by May 1, 2017. “It has been another challenging year for the Council, its advisors, fishery stakeholders and the public as we strive to balance fishing opportunities on harvestable stocks of Chinook and coho with the severe conservation needs we are facing on salmon stocks, both north and south of Cape Falcon,” said Council Executive Director Chuck Tracy. “The Council has recommended commercial and recreational ocean salmon seasons in Washington, Oregon, and California this year that provide important protections for stocks of concern including Klamath River fall Chinook, Washington coastal coho, and Puget Sound Chinook.”

Read the full release here

MASSACHUSETTS: New Bedford Worries About What Happens To ‘The Codfather’s’ Fishing Permits

April 11, 2017 — Down on the docks of the Whaling City, everyone knows him as “Carlos.”

“I’ve been working for Carlos for 12 years now,” says Richard Mauzerolle of Weston. “Sometimes he should watch out who he’s talking to,” he adds with a laugh, referencing the IRS sting that landed Carlos Rafael guilty on 28 counts in late March. “But he’s a good guy.”

The fall of New Bedford fishing boss Carlos Rafael could be a big blow for the city’s port. And if his fishing permits are forfeited and end up in another state, it could hurt Massachusetts as a whole.

What happens to Rafael’s boats — and the permits attached to them — will be decided by a federal judge. And people in New Bedford want them to stay in the city.

‘He’s One Of My Main Livelihoods’

Mauzerolle is in the spray foam business — he insulates holds on fishing boats owned by Rafael. He’s one of hundreds of people who work with the man known as “the Codfather,” who gives Mauzerolle about a third of his business.

“He’s one of my main livelihoods right down in the area, so it’d be a shame to have him lose anything,” says Mauzerolle, standing in front of his box truck with a massive Donald Trump sign stuck to the side. Rafael, he says, has “brought this fishing industry back to where it’s supposed to be down here.”

In 2004, Rafael spoke to an archivist at the Working Waterfront Festival in New Bedford about how he amassed so many boats, highlighting the importance of diversifying between scallops and groundfish.

Read the full story and listen to the radio report at WBUR

Fishing for Derelict Gear in Cape Cod Bay

April 11, 2017 — The Center for Coastal Studies (CCS) has begun its “Fishing for Derelict Gear in Cape Cod Bay,”  a project funded by the NOAA Marine Debris Program to identity, remove, document, and properly dispose of lost, abandoned or derelict fishing gear.

Side-scan sonar surveys have been conducted off of Provincetown, Truro, Sesuit and Sandwich, with additional surveys planned for the Chatham area. The surveys identify areas where lost gear exists and assists with documentation and recovery.

Commercial fishing vessels from each area will be enlisted to deliver divers to certain locations so they can document the lost gear as it rests on the ocean floor, and to recover the gear by towing a small grappling hook in targeted locations.  Once returned to shore, the derelict gear will be sorted for recycling, disposal, or return to rightful owners. The first recovery work will take place in Provincetown on April 8th at MacMillan Pier.

Read the full story at Cape Cod Today

New Jersey asks feds to drop limits on a prize catch at the Shore — summer flounder

April 10, 2017 — With their rows of sharp buck teeth, their downturned mouths, and both eyes on one side of their curiously flat bodies, summer flounder might seem beautiful only to one another.

But this delicately flavored flatfish is the pinup girl, the heart’s desire, of thousands of New Jersey’s recreational fishermen — and has long been the source of many millions of dollars in tourism revenue each summer. For that reason the state has petitioned a federal commission to reverse its new restrictions on catching summer flounder in state waters in 2017.

“If you talk to any recreational angler they’ll tell you how important flounder is in New Jersey,” explained Larry Hajna, a spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Protection.  He said summer flounder, also called fluke, is one of the top draws to the state’s $1.5 billion recreational fishing industry.

Flounder’s popularity is no secret, however, to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission based in Arlington, Va. Its website describes the species as “highly prized in the recreational  fishery” because they are easily caught with hook and line from beaches, piers, and boats.

But this federal body, which monitors and protects commercial fish populations from Maine to Florida, has determined that the species has been drastically overfished in recent years and needs a chance to repopulate.  Recreational landings that were 38 million pounds in 1980 fell to 3 million in 1989, according to the website, and were 7.4 million pounds in 2014.

The commission, a subsidiary of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration composed of three representatives from each state on the Atlantic coast, in February ordered a 34 percent reduction in catches for 2017, even after a 27 percent reduction in 2016.

Read the full story at The Philadelphia Inquirer 

SEAN HORGAN: Bullard pushes case for electronic monitoring

April 10, 2017 — The FishOn gang was kicking around the subject of at-sea monitoring at our decennial staff meeting the other day and we came to a conclusion that absolutely no one can reasonably refute:

That singing in the rails means electronic monitoring is coming at some point to the Northeast groundfish industry and there ain’t no stopping that train.

Beyond that, nothing is certain.

How much will it cost fishermen to buy and install the system? Will the feds subsidize those purchases and associated costs? Will the systems be used on every trip and will they be active for every minute? What are the legal and privacy implications? Will the footage actually be viewed by computers and not humans? On and on it goes.

In the end, this could be a fight that makes the quota contretemps seem like high tea.

NOAA Regional Director John K. Bullard, making his first start of the year, came out last week throwing a mixture of heat and fluffy stuff in an open message to the fishery concerning EM.

He spent much of the top of the piece with off-speed stuff just off the outside corner in explaining why it is actually unfair “and a bit premature” to want to compare the costs of EM and traditional at-sea monitoring.

Read the full opinion piece at the Gloucester Times

Looking Forward to Looking Back: Electronic Monitoring in New England Groundfish

April 7, 2017 — The following has been released by John Bullard, Regional Administrator for NOAA Fisheries Greater Atlantic Region:

Electronic monitoring (EM) is being used for catch monitoring and reporting compliance in fisheries worldwide, but use in the Northeast has been somewhat limited. There are always challenges with ensuring the accuracy of self-reported fisheries catch data, but EM represents a new suite of tools to improve reporting accuracy and increase catch monitoring. If we want to provide scientists with the best information possible and manage our fisheries sustainably, then we need to consider all of the tools in the toolbox.

Here in the Greater Atlantic Region’s groundfish fishery, fishermen are considering EM to replace human at-sea monitors. Naturally, people want to compare costs. This is understandable; the cost of at-sea monitors is significant and has been the subject of much discussion, particularly because a portion of the costs are now borne by the industry. However, comparing only the costs of EM and at-sea monitors, as the programs exist today, without any context to what the programs offer, is unfair, difficult, and a bit premature.

Comparing the costs of the two programs is unfair because EM and at-sea monitors offer such different results. Right now, the at-sea monitoring program covers 14 percent of all trips. With a large portion of the fishery going unobserved and recognizing that fishing behavior may be different on unobserved trips, we may be missing out on a lot of critical information. EM could gather data from all trips, which is a quantum leap in the amount of information available to scientists. This could result in better science and potentially lower uncertainty when setting quotas. So while at-sea monitoring is a cost, EM could be an investment.

Comparing the costs is difficult because this is a classic case of apples and oranges; certain components of EM, like purchasing hardware and video review, don’t exist in an at-sea monitoring program. The EM cost estimates in our 2015 report were very conservative at every step, and when totaled, were quite high. That was a government exercise in assessing costs, but industry may be able to do better. When the government shifted the costs of at-sea monitoring to the fishing industry, the private sector negotiated lower costs for the same services. Is anyone surprised by that? And just like any electronic technology, EM is getting smaller, faster, and cheaper in a hurry. It is very difficult to project a cost for technology that will likely go into widespread use in a couple of years.

That brings me to my final point. Cost comparisons are premature. We don’t know what EM models we might use in the future. We don’t know if we can get financial support for startup costs, such as hardware acquisition. We don’t know how much of the video will need to be reviewed; review may even be done by computers. We don’t know what the required at-sea monitoring coverage will be when EM is fully developed. There are too many critical unknowns right now in EM to compare costs in a meaningful way.

Read the full release here

Former fish auction owners renew battle with NOAA

April 7, 2017 — The long and torturous legal battle with NOAA that sent the former Gloucester Fish Exchange into bankruptcy and to its ultimate sale may not be over just yet.

The owners of GFX — the forerunner to the Cape Ann Seafood Exchange on Harbor Loop — are suing NOAA in federal court to recoup about $464,000 in legal fees the company paid during its battle and ultimate settlement with the federal fisheries regulator.

The action names current Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, the Commerce Department and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as defendants.

The suit, prompted by NOAA’s final decision on March 6 denying GFX any reimbursement for legal fees, rekindles the battle that began as far back as 2005. The long-running affair resulted in two NOAA enforcement actions against the former auction — and a subsequent apology by then Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco for the excesses of the agency’s law enforcement unit.

The former owners of GFX seek to void the settlement GFX agreed to for the enforcement actions, saying the deal should be set aside because it was the product of “economic duress” created by NOAA, and that NOAA “breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.”

“The amount of attorneys’ fees and costs that GFX has had to bear, as well as the permit sanctions imposed and modified numerous times throughout the mosaic of agency actions …  which in fact caused GFX to enter bankruptcy, are arbitrary and/or excessive,” the suit claims.

Read the full story at the Gloucester Times