Saving Seafood

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

Fishermen not on board with Hudson Canyon sanctuary

April 7, 2017 — The Hudson Canyon is in the spotlight.

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council will hear a proposal from New York Aquarium, which has nominated the canyon for a National Marine Sanctuary designation.

The sanctuary program is run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In the program’s 40 years of existence 13 national marine sanctuaries and two marine national monuments have been established.

The sanctuaries are to be tailored to the needs of its stakeholders. New Jersey fishermen however, are raising concerns that they will be shut out of a prolific fishing ground.

“We’re in complete opposition. We’re not going to be fooled by the notion that the aquarium doesn’t intend to severely restrict fishing over time,” said Greg DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State Seafood Association.

The seafood association represents the interest’s of the state’s commercial fishermen.

The Hudson Canyon, a depression in the ocean floor that starts 80 miles east of Manasquan Inlet, is the largest submarine canyon on the Atlantic coast. It’s supports a rich diversity of marine life. Fishermen harvest seafood including squid, tunas, and shellfish from the canyon.

Read the full story at the Asbury Park Press

Stonington fishermen, first selectman: Camera proposal violates Fourth Amendment rights

April 7, 2017 — STONINGTON, Conn. — A proposal from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration could potentially require fishermen to purchase a camera monitoring system to ensure that they are adhering to regulations — a requirement that local fishermen and First Selectman Rob Simmons see as a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.

Based on a study done by the NOAA Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, electronic monitoring would potentially cost the fishermen around $500 per day per boat and require them to pay $60,000 for startup costs and annual maintenance of the equipment. While it’s less costly on a daily basis than the $700 per day cost of having a person doing at-sea monitoring on board a vessel, critics say the startup costs alone have the potential to put local fishermen out of business.

Aside from the costs of the proposed mandate, many see it as a violation of privacy.

Simmons, who’s been in touch with New Hampshire attorney Jason Crance, who has written legal papers on concerns with at-sea monitoring, said he feels this proposed mandate could potentially infringe on the Fourth Amendment rights of fishermen.

“I’m trying to see if there’s any sound legal argument into the intrusion of someone’s workplace because I believe this is a means of spying on Stonington’s fishermen,” he said. “They want to make sure the fishermen are complying with catch limit regulations but it seems like the government is assuming they aren’t complying. It’s like the state police putting a mini camera in my car next to a speedometer that monitors and notifies police when they go past 65.”

Read the full story at The Westerly Sun

NOAA’s Biggest Ship Returns Home After Longest Voyage

April 5, 2017 — The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s largest oceanographic research vessel has returned to its homeport after the longest deployment of any ship in the agency’s history.

NOAA Ship Robert H. Brown spent almost 800 days at sea during the 3½-year deployment. NOAA says the ship traveled almost 130,000 miles conducting scientific research and servicing buoys that collect environmental data.

The agency says the ship’s tasks included a rapid response mission to observe the 2015-16 El Nino. It also took more than 1,600 measurements in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, ranging from Iceland and Alaska to Antarctica.

The Robert H. Brown also surveyed more than 350,000 square miles of seafloor and conducted ecological assessments of fisheries off Alaska’s Arctic coast.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at CapeCod.com

Molly Payne Wynne: Maine’s coastal communities depend on agencies Trump plans to gut

April 5, 2017 — Let me be open from the start — I’m a scientist, and I’m from away.

I spent my first summer in Maine navigating backroads along the coast, collecting fish, and water samples in ponds, rivers and estuaries for a study I was conducting. I’d get up with the sun and travel to various fishways for this work. I’d meet and talk with alewife harvesters, who would often treat me to a cooler full of alewife and blueback herring. I used these fish samples — and the harvesters’ anecdotes — in my research to shed light on where river herring live and grow, and how best to manage populations for the benefit of the fish and the people who depend on this valuable resource. Meeting these fishermen and studying the nearby fish habitats made the mutual dependence coastal communities have with the resources of Maine’s coastal rivers very clear.

As media reports continue to unveil the Trump administration’s proposals, it is also clear that our nation’s environment and natural resources programs are increasingly at risk. Coastal states such as Maine need to pay attention to proposed cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The White House is proposing to slice its budget by 17 percent. Cuts to programs such as the National Marine Fisheries Service and National Weather Service would have far-reaching consequences for programs created to ensure healthy coastal environments and economies. In Maine, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is a significant contributor in the effort to save endangered Atlantic salmon in the last remaining rivers in the country in which they still spawn.

Read the full story at the Bangor Daily News

NOAA Fisheries Announces an Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Advisory Panel Meeting May 9-11, 2017

April 5, 2017 — The following was released by NOAA:

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) intends to hold a meeting of the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Advisory Panel (AP) on May 9-11, 2017, at the Sheraton Silver Spring Hotel, 8777 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20910.  The AP meeting and webinar will be held from 10:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 9, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 10, and from 9:00 a.m. to 12 noon on Thursday, May 11.  A new member orientation session will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, May 9. 

The meeting on Tuesday, May 9, Wednesday, May 10, and Thursday, May 11, 2017, will also be accessible via conference call and webinar.

Participants are strongly encouraged to log/dial in 15 minutes prior to the meeting.  NMFS will show the presentations via webinar and allow public comment during identified times on the agenda.  

The intent of this meeting is to consider alternatives for the conservation and management of all Atlantic tunas, swordfish, billfish, and shark fisheries.  We anticipate discussing Amendment 5b on dusky sharks; Draft Amendment 10 on Essential Fish Habitat; implementation of Final Amendment 7 on bluefin tuna management, including the upcoming three-year review; and progress updates on various other rulemakings, including individual bluefin quota transfer criteria effective dates, requests for regulatory changes received to date; domestic implementation of recommendations from the 2016 meeting of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas and issues for 2017; progress updates regarding the exempted fishing permit request to conduct research in pelagic longline closed areas and white shark research; and updates on shark stock assessments.  We also anticipate discussing recreational and commercial fishing topics in specific breakout group sessions, including a detailed discuss of permitting, reporting, and compliance with recreational and commercial vessel requirements in response to several requests.  Finally, we intend to invite other NMFS offices and the United States Coast Guard to provide updates on their activities relevant to HMS fisheries.

Additional information on the meeting and a copy of the draft agenda will be posted prior to the meeting at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/advisory_panels/hms_ap/meetings/ap_meetings.html.

This email notice is a courtesy to Atlantic HMS fisheries interests to keep you informed about the fisheries.  Official notice of Federal fishery actions is made through filing such notice with the Office of the Federal Register.  For further information related to Atlantic HMS Management, please call (301) 427-8503 or see the HMS web page at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/.  

Butchered shark fins seized from shrimp boat off Key West

April 4, 2017 — Florida wildlife officers made a grisly discovery aboard a Key West shrimp boat this week: dozens of pairs of dismembered shark fins.

The boat was discovered about 20 miles north of the island Wednesday night, an indication that illegal finning still occurs in Florida waters despite being banned more than 16 years ago. Buying and selling fins also remains legal in most states, fueling a practice that targets some of the world’s biggest and longest-lived sharks that are also among the planet’s oldest species.

“When we import them we have no idea if they came from sustainable shark fisheries or fisheries where they’re still finning,” said Mariah Pfleger, a scientist for Oceana, which is pushing a bill to ban the trade.

The boat was stopped by Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission officers who alerted the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service. FWC referred questions to NOAA and NOAA declined to release details, saying it was too soon in the investigation.

However, Oceana reported that officers found between 30 and 40 pairs of fins. NOAA Fisheries is continuing to investigate and no charges have been filed, spokeswoman Kim Amendola said in an email.

Read the full story at the Bradenton Herald

The following was released by the Sustainable Shark Alliance in response to this event:

The Sustainable Shark Alliance (SSA), a coalition of shark fishermen and dealers along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, applauds Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission efforts to combat unlawful shark finning in a reported enforcement action involving a Key West shrimp boat. Such alleged unlawful activities, where a shark’s fins are removed and its carcass is discarded, harm the legal and federally permitted shark trade by U.S. fishermen laboring under conservative catch quotas and strict anti-finning laws.

Shark finning has long been illegal, and shark finning in the United States is extremely rare. Given the frequency of at-sea and dockside enforcement inspections, this violation is clearly an outlier.

The SSA strongly urges state and federal law enforcement agencies to remain vigilant in their efforts to eliminate illegal activities, including identifying the would-be buyers and ultimate customers for the fins. The legal shark fishery is closely monitored: harvesters must report catches of individual sharks and total amounts landed, and buyers must have federal permits and report all sharks purchased to the federal government. Exports are also reported, though the SSA supports enhancing the system for tracking shark fins after they leave the dock.

“This reprehensible activity harms law-abiding U.S. fishermen,” said Shaun Gehan, attorney for the SSA. “While some groups will use this unfortunate incident to push an agenda of banning fin sales, the fact is such laws will not dissuade criminals as would meaningful penalties such as those now before the Florida Legislature.” Nearly all fins harvested in the United States are exported to China.

The ability to sell fins is essential to the economic survival of SSA members. On average, fins account for fifty percent of the value of the landed catch. Given restrictive harvest limits and the costs associated with operating fishing vessels, loss of fin income would make it unprofitable for the fishery to continue. This would harm U.S. fishermen and their communities, while boosting profits for foreign fishermen not subject to the same strict conservation laws and oversight.

Sharks are managed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under a very restrictive quota system that has been in place since the mid-1990s. As a result, populations of large and small sharks have been sharply increasing. In its last survey, NMFS found the most sharks in the survey’s 29-year history, 65 percent more than the one prior. Given the success of domestic shark management, efforts to ban fin sales have been opposed by fishery managers and leading scientists specializing in sharks.