WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) – August 14, 2015 — On August 9, 2015, Bob Jones, Executive Director of the Southeastern Fisheries Association, wrote to the National Marine Fisheries Service urging the agency to reexamine its updated Asset Forfeiture Fund (AFF) policy. The letter questioned the transparency and the effectiveness of the new policy, which outlines how the AFF may be used to fund NOAA Office of Law Enforcement activities.

The policy, which went into effect July 15, 2015, is intended to “establish a stringent policy for effective oversight of the AFF that will ensure no conflict of interest – real or perceived.” However, in his letter Mr. Jones calls into question whether NOAA will be able to effectively implement this new policy.

According to the letter, one of the main issues with the policy is that expected revenue from the AFF is included in NOAA’s annual budget. The letter notes “OLE must raise its own AFF money from the fishermen for all the approved activities listed in your memo,” a situation it likens to small town “speed traps” that invite abuse. It recommends that, as a transparency measure, AFF revenue collection – along with information such as transactions, violations, vessel names, and who paid for fines – should be posted on NOAA’s website.

The letter concludes by recommending that the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement refrain from implementing the new AFF policy until it has been further advertised and discussed with members of the fishing industry, and their concerns are addressed.

The full letter is reproduced below:

Dear Mr. Doremus:

We have studied your Memorandum for the Office of Law Enforcement, NMFS-Enforcement Section; Office of General Council dated July 15, 2015, (attached).  Our industry would like to know how NOAA is going to keep the Asset Forfeiture Fund (AFF) totally transparent and not become the same quagmire we lived under a few short years ago.

From our experience, the only way this revenue collection scheme can work, is for every transaction to be posted to a NOAA website, so everyone can review; what was the fishery violation, what was the vessel name and home port, how much was the fine, who paid the fine, a copy of every check written to and from the AFF fund and an annual audit posted to the NOAA website. Please hear us out on this vital issue before rejecting it at NOAA headquarters.

Your memo is strongly worded. It says NOAA’s goal is “to establish a stringent policy for effective oversight of the AFF that will assure no conflict of interest – real or perceived – associated with the use” of the money. We believe NOAA’s memorandum forces its law enforcement officers to fund the AFF activities through fines primarily placed on the commercial fishermen. What is NOAA’s stringent oversight policy and how will we know you are doing what you said you would do?

The memorandum says that “NOAA has identified and accounted for the AFF in its annual budget”. Please tell us how much money has been budgeted from fines on fishermen during the upcoming fiscal years? If the budget calculates a specific amount of fine income, anyone can logically surmise that NOAA law enforcement officers have to get in the field and hustle-up that amount of money or there will be a shortfall. This greatly concerns us. The OLE must raise its own AFF money from the fishermen for all the approved activities listed in your memo. This is similar to small towns depending on driving fines to fund their city needs. It reminds us of “speed traps”. Such a system to fund a government entity usually turns out bad in the long run.

We have discussed with state and federal law enforcement officials our observation that commercial fishing vessels are stopped, boarded and fined – sometimes very heavily – while thousands of angler violations are ignored. Illegal fishing by anglers occurs in every coastal county.  That is a well-known fact. Backdoor sales of illegally harvested fish occur daily throughout the Gulf of Mexico. This is no secret. Whenever adequate law enforcement is assigned to this black-market sale of fish, arrests are made and poachers are identified. Unfortunately, in many cases where illegal harvesting happened in federal waters, the anglers were handed over to state officers to be cited and fined under state regulations which are much more lenient.

We are aware federal prosecutors have full dockets. They don’t seem to have time to enforce the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) fishery regulations on anglers the same way they are enforced on professional fishermen. We understand the reluctance to pursue a fish violation by a sport fisherman because he/she might only have a dozen red snapper and that causes too much trouble for the federal dockets. But our knowing how full the federal dockets are doesn’t change our observation and concern that the MSA is enforced differently on anglers than commercial fishermen. The law enforcement system currently in place is more lenient for anglers.  Such a dual system of enforcement does not comply with the rule of law in our opinion.

We have met with state and federal law enforcement officers practically begging them to at least issue and enforce Summary Settlements. Do not just watch an angler’s boat come in from offshore with big red snappers that everyone knows were caught in deeper federal waters.

We respectfully request NOAA – OLE not implement the AFF program described in your memorandum until it has been further advertised and discussed. We further request an informal meeting with you or your designee at the St. Petersburg Regional Office to discuss the AFF program? We would be honored if Mr. Jim Landon could be with you. I have heard nothing but good things about him. Semper fi.

Respectfully,

Bob Jones, Executive Director

Southeastern Fisheries Association

Read NOAA’s Asset Forfeiture Fund Policy here