NMFS Archives - Page 103 of 110

Rec Red Snapper Sector Using Congress to Bypass Gulf Stakeholders to Get State-Run Management

SEAFOODNEWS.COM by Michael Ramsingh – February 10, 2016 — Recreational red snapper users are going to Congress to bypass industry stakeholders to shift commercial and recreational management to the five Gulf States according to the commercial and charter sectors.

In January the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council tabled the Amendment 39 proposal. That included a move of recreational red snapper management to the five Gulf States. This would undermine the primacy of federal fisheries management in the Magnuson Stevens Act.

Both the Charter Fisherman’s Association (CFA) and Gulf Reef Shareholders Alliance (GRSA) say the Council’s decision to delay Amendment 39 is part of an effort to get state-run management passed at the federal level by Congress.

“The same five state directors who for years have said they could manage the red snapper fishery better than the NMFS voted unanimously that they couldn’t do so and led the charge to postpone work on Amendment 39 (regional management) indefinitely,” said Capt Mike Jennings, a member of the Shareholders Alliance. “These five individuals are now asking Congress to hand it to them via federal legislation. Then they can work out a deal behind closed doors, without public input, despite their inability to do so in a public process guaranteed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.”

Last summer, the Gulf States Red Snapper Management Authority Act or HR 3094, was introduced as a way to get state-run Gulf Red Snapper management. The bill is sponsored by Representative Garret Graves (R-LA).

The legislation differs from Amendment 39 since it shifts all red snapper management decisions—including commercial and charter sectors—to the Gulf States. The Congressional bill also circumvents input from industry stakeholders on how a state-run management system would function. Essentially, one director from each state would oversee Gulf red snapper management.

However, in November HR 3094 was blasted in hearings before a House Committee on Natural Resources’ Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans.

“Charter-for-hire captains throughout the Gulf, and many commercial fishermen, chefs, and others involved in the seafood industry, are deeply concerned that this legislation will lead to an eventual, exclusive recreational fishery for Gulf of Mexico red snapper,” said Gulf of Mexico, Captain Gary Jarvis, president of the Destin Charter Boat Association at the time.

Meanwhile, other opponents of HR 3094 note how the bill directly flaunts the success of the federal fishery management process under Magnuson.

“Unfortunately, some in Congress are supporting legislation that would undercut the MSA — drastically cutting consumers access to red snapper. U.S. Rep. Garret Graves’ H.R. 3094 would grant five Gulf states exclusive management authority over the entire red snapper fishery,” said Seafood Harvesters of America Executive Director Brett Veerhusen and Haley Bittermann, Corporate Executive Chef and Director of the Ralph Brennan Restaurant Group in an Op-Ed published this week in the The Times-Picayune. “We cannot support state takeover of the commercial fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. This bill threatens the availability of red snapper to local fishermen and restaurants across the country. This could prompt unsustainable overfishing by private anglers and set a dangerous precedent where states would have little incentive to be stricter than their neighbor.”

This story originally appeared on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It has been reprinted with permission.

Proposed Rule – 1st Phase of a U.S. Seafood Traceability Program to Combat IUU Fishing Products & Seafood Fraud

February 9, 2016 — The following was released by NOAA

Today, NOAA Fisheries is publishing the proposed rule to establish the first phase of a seafood traceability program through the collection or retention of data regarding the harvest, landing, and chain of custody of certain fish and fish products imported into the United States that have been identified as particularly vulnerable to IUU fishing and seafood fraud. It is important to note that there will be no new reporting requirements for domestic landings of wild-caught seafood. Similar information for domestically harvested seafood is already reported under numerous state and federal regulatory requirements.

Establishing a traceability program is a key tool for ensuring these illicit activities are prevented from entering U.S. Commerce and helping combat them in the complex system of international seafood trade.

This proposed rule is designed to build on existing resources and processes—maximizing effectiveness and efficiency, while minimizing impacts on the fishing and seafood trade community. To achieve these objectives, NOAA Fisheries is encouraging detailed comments from the fishing and seafood industry, conservation community, and other interested stakeholders engaged with sustainable seafood. Additionally, we have scheduled two webinar conference calls in February and an in-person public meeting on March 7, at the Seafood Expo N. America in Boston to provide opportunities for anyone to ask questions.

Feds fight fish fraud with new recordkeeping rules

February 8, 2016 — The National Marine Fisheries Service announced last week that it is implementing a new tracking program for seafood imports to help combat illegal fishing and seafood fraud.

Importers will have to track where fish were caught, the type of gear used and where it was landed.

Director of the Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspections John Henderschedt said the federal government wants a better record of who is catching seafood and where it’s landed before it shows up in U.S. stores.

“We do not have laws that allow us to gather the data to ensure that we can carefully examine the legality of catch and the chain of custody of that product as it makes its way to the U.S.,” Henderschedt said.

The proposed program applies to about 13 different types of fish, including Pacific cod, red king crab, shrimp, sea cucumber and others. Eventually, Henderschedt said it could be expanded to more species.

Henderschedt said NMFS already has that information for domestic seafood, so fishermen and processors here won’t be asked to do anything differently. For now, consumers won’t have the new information about imported seafood.

Read the full story at Alaska Public Media

Herring vs. Haddock in Data Debate

February 3, 2016 — PORTLAND — Last October, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) drastically constrained the ability of midwater trawlers to fish for herring in offshore waters for a period of more than six months, because the herring fleet had bumped up against its quota for the incidental catch of Georges Bank haddock.

As a result, at its December meeting, the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) heard a request from herring fishery interests to reconsider the level of constraint for the upcoming fishing year of May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017, and for future years, since Georges Bank haddock appears to be plentiful and, they said, estimates of haddock catches by the herring fleet were inaccurate.

“A seven-month closure of a major fishery is very significant,” said NEFMC member Mary Beth Tooley, who is the government affairs representative for Rockland-based O’Hara Corp., which owns and operates two herring vessels. “We in the herring fishery don’t want to catch haddock. But that biomass is like locusts: They’re unbelievably abundant. It’s two-pronged: Let’s get groundfishermen catching haddock, and not close the herring fishery.”

Tooley said the herring industry agrees that there should be a limit on what the herring fishery takes from the haddock resource, and that accountability measures to enforce the limit are needed. But the methodology currently used to extrapolate estimates of how much haddock the herring fleet incidentally catches isn’t accurate, she said, and monitoring of harvesting operations, through observer or electronic programs, is inadequate for providing an accurate count of haddock catch.

“We need to have accountability,” Tooley said. “But with our current level of [observer] coverage…it’s become a real issue.”

In an action that became effective Oct. 22, 2015, herring midwater trawl vessels were prohibited from fishing for more than 2,000 pounds of herring per trip or day in the “Herring Georges Bank Haddock Accountability Measure Area,” a limit that will remain in place until the quota becomes available for the 2016 fishing year, on May 1.

The action effectively limited the midwater trawl fishery in Herring Management Area 3, because Area 3 falls within the Georges Bank Haddock Accountability Management Area.

Federally permitted herring vessels, all together, are allowed to catch 1 percent of the Georges Bank haddock resource. The overall allowable haddock catch on Georges Bank for 2015 was 53.7 million pounds (24.3 metric tons); 1 percent, which is further reduced a bit to account for management uncertainty, is 500,449 pounds (227 mt), according to NMFS.

According to data reported on Dec. 21, 2015, based on estimated haddock catches, the herring midwater fleet had reached 93.09 percent of its quota by September, and 104.49 percent by October.

The amount of haddock caught by the herring fleet is extrapolated from the amount of haddock caught on observer trips.

Read the full story at Fisherman’s Voice

When Ice Melts: Tipping the Scales in the Predator/Prey Arms Race in Antarctica

February 1, 2016 — A man is poised with a crossbow on an inflatable Zodiac in the Weddell Sea, impressively keeping his balance as the tiny boat pitches in the Antarctic swells. He’s aiming at a killer whale that’s surfaced to breathe. Unlike his predecessors from long ago, he’s not trying to kill the whale. Rather, his crossbow is equipped with a satellite tracking device that he is attempting to attach to the whale’s dorsal fin.

The man is Dr. John Durban, and along with his partners Dr. Holly Fearnbach and Bob Pitman with the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, he is conducting research to understand the role of killer whales as top predators in the changing Antarctic ecosystem. With a grant from the Lindblad Expeditions-National Geographic (LEX-NG) Fund, this team of scientists makes annual expeditions to Antarctica to carry out their research.

While Antarctica tends to get a bad rap as a frozen wasteland, it’s actually a dazzling wilderness of ice and stone. Offshore, the Southern Ocean is chock full of marine life. Despite the frigid water temperatures—somewhere in the vicinity of 30℉…brrr!—an abundance of marine creatures exist as part of a robust food web.

At the bottom (of the web, not the ocean), is krill. This mini crustacean smaller than your pinky finger is the foundation of the Antarctic food chain. Species from minke whales to small fish, squid, and penguins dine on this shrimp-like creature. Bigger fish and seals eat the fish, squid, and penguins that eat the krill. And at the top of the web is the killer whale: a cunning and efficient predator.

Read the full story at National Geographic

An hour with: The Woods Hole Science Aquarium

February 1, 2016 — WOODS HOLE, Mass. — The cart of food wouldn’t look totally out of place at an upscale sushi restaurant: capelin and herring, both whole and neatly chopped, mysis shrimp and cubes of gelatin packed with ground fish, broccoli, carrots and spinach.

But these restaurant-grade meals aren’t for fine dining; they’re for the fish and other marine animals that call the Woods Hole Science Aquarium home.

The free aquarium is operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service and is open five days a week. But fish need to eat even on weekends or federal holidays. So every morning, usually before the doors open at 11 a.m., one of the three staff members or five regular volunteers comes to dole out a specific mix of edibles to the critters in each tank, clean the tanks or perform other behind-the-scenes maintenance at the nation’s oldest public aquarium at 166 Water St.

Alison Brodet, a marine biologist who volunteers at the aquarium once a week, briefly conferred with senior biologist Kristy Owen about the morning’s feeding. Some usually ravenous fish were being slower to the food today, but Owen wasn’t worried. The bigger fish will eat more than once a day, but the smaller fish may eat only once a day or less, depending on their temperament.

Read the full story at Cape Cod Times

Feds approve exemption of US longline vessels in American Samoa Large Vessel Prohibited Area

February 1, 2016 — The following was released by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council:

Federally permitted longline vessels in American Samoa that are over 50 feet in length can fish for pelagic species in certain areas of the American Samoa Large Vessel Prohibited Area or LVPA. The National Marine Fisheries Service announced the final rule, which will publish in the Federal Register on February 3, 2016.

The LVPA, which extends out to 30 to 50 nautical miles from shore around the islands of American Samoa, prohibits vessels greater than 50 feet from fishing within the area. In 2015, the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council undertook decision-making to amend the applicable federal LVPA regulations to provide an exemption to large vessels in the American Samoa longline fishery to allow them to fish seaward of 12 nautical miles from shore around the islands of Tutuila, Swains Island and the Manu’a Islands. Fishing around Rose Atoll Marine National Monument remains unchanged

The LVPA was developed by the council and approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service in 2002 to prevent potential gear conflicts between large and small fishing vessels. At that time, approximately 40 alia longline vessels were operating in offshore waters around American Samoa. Originally used to target bottomfish, the alia vessels range from 25 to 40 feet in length and have a catamaran hull.

Since 2002, the alia longline fleet in American Samoa declined to the point where only one alia longline vessel was operating in recent years. In 2014, the council proposed opening the LVPA as a means to assist the larger U.S. longline vessels based in American Samoa. The U.S. fleet was experiencing financial difficulties attributed in part to market competition resulting from an influx of Chinese longline vessels in South Pacific albacore fishery. In making its decision, the council noted that the National Standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require the achievement of optimum yield and the fair and equitable allocation of privileges. The council took final action on the measure in March 2015. The exemption will be reviewed annually by the council to take into consideration any new small vessel fisheries development initiatives, small vessel participation and catch rates.

Council Chair Edwin Ebisui Jr. noted that the measure is important to maintain the supply of U.S. caught albacore from the local longline fleet to the Pago Pago-based canneries in American Samoa. The exemption will improve the viability of the American Samoa longline fishery and achieve optimum yield from the fishery while preventing overfishing.

The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council was established by Congress in 1976. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Council has authority over the fisheries in the Pacific Ocean seaward of the state/territory waters of Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Pacific Remote Island Areas.

Read the release online here

DON CUDDY: Fishermen fight back against government overreach

January 28, 2016 — The commercial fishermen suing the federal government over the cost of at-sea monitors had their day in federal court in Concord, New Hampshire, last Thursday. At issue is the notice to fishermen that they will henceforth be required by the National Marine Fisheries Service to pay out of pocket for the at-sea monitors that accompany them on fishing trips, an expense previously absorbed within the annual budget of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That agency contends that it no longer has the money to fund the program, although these monitors act as agents for the government, and it insists that the boats must now assume payment. Fishermen believe that the high cost of monitors, as much as $710 daily, is excessive, will force many to tie up their boats and result in “irreparable harm.” They also believe that, irrespective of the cost, having at-sea monitors on their boats is a government mandate and consequently should be funded by the government.

I attended the hearing with John Haran of Dartmouth, manager of Northeast Fisheries Sector XIII which includes 32 fishermen. Sector XIII is a plaintiff in the case along with New Hampshire commercial fisherman Dave Goethel.

The all-day hearing concluded without a ruling. Federal District Judge Joseph Laplante will issue a decision in his own time after deliberating on a legal case with potential ramifications not only for the fishing industry but with respect to any government agency’s attempt to increase its own power.

Steve Schwartz, an attorney with Cause of Action, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., that focuses on government overreach, represents the fishermen. He told the court that the scope of an agency’s power is determined exclusively by Congress and that NOAA lacks the statutory authority to require fishermen to pay for monitors. If NOAA can force fishermen to start writing checks, “it would open the door to a whole panoply of ways that agencies can expand their powers,” he said.

Read the full opinion piece at New Bedford Standard Times

Nils E. Stolpe: After 39 years of NOAA/NMFS fisheries management, how are they doing?

January 27, 2016 — (FishNet USA – www.fishnet-usa.com/) — Back in June of 2012 I wrote After 35 years of NOAA/NMFS fisheries management, how are they doing? How are we doing because of their efforts? (http://www.fishnet-usa.com/) in which I looked at U.S. commercial landings on a regional basis. While there were some bright spots, overall the picture was somewhat dismal, with total landings minus Alaska’s swinging up slightly after a trending downward over the previous 5 years and being only 60% of what they were in 1979, the year that inflation corrected landings were at their highest value. Regionally, landings (minus scallops and lobster) in New England, in the Mid-Atlantic (minus scallops), in the Southeast and in the Gulf of Mexico were trending downwards with only Pacific landings heading up.

The latest available data from the NOAA/NMFS Commercial Landings website, for the years 2011 to 2014 (http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html) tell a different, and much more optimistic, story (But please bear in mind that any indicated “trends” since 2010 are for four years at most and at this point aren’t necessarily anything that people should hang their hats on).

(Note that in all of the following charts 2010, the last year in the original FishNet article for which data was available, is indicated by a red bar. The most current data are for 2014. Also note that all values reported were corrected for inflation, using federal government conversion tables and 2010 as the base year.)

Value of Total U.S. landings

Total U.S. landings reached a maximum of $6.8 billion in 1979. From a recent low of $3.9 billion in 2009 they increased to $5.2 billion in 2011 and are currently (as of 2014) at $5.0 billion.

The value of total U.S. landings has been increasing fairly steadily since 2002.

____________________

A number of people had commented on the original article that it would have been interesting to see a listing of all of the commercial species and their individual contributions to the total value of domestic landings. With landings of 485 species reported in 2014, that would take up a prohibitive amount of space here, but following is a chart listing the top 50 fisheries in terms of value. At the bottom of the list were frigate mackerel ($39), shortbelly rockfish ($22), Chubs ($12), redstripe rockfish ($10) and spider crab (42 lbs landed, no value listed). The values are in 2014 dollars. For reference I’ve also included a chart of the top 50 species in 2005 (the values here are listed in 2004 dollars).

It shouldn’t surprise anyone at all familiar with our commercial fisheries that American lobster, sea scallops and walleye pollock are the three most valuable U.S. fisheries.

But that seven of the ten most valuable species being shellfish might be.

At this point NOAA/NMFS doesn’t differentiate between capture fisheries and aquaculture production in the commercial landings database. Tracking the growth – or not – of aquculture through actual production would be an effective way of determining how realistic the pronouncements of the “future of aquaculture” which have been periodically resurfacing for almost 50 years actually are and it would be most useful.

Other facts that you might find interesting – or that in emergencies can serve as conversation starters:

• Of the top fifty species, twenty-three were shellfish.

• In spite of all of the associated hand-wringing, Atlantic cod were #69 ($9.4 million).

• Ditto for American eels at #66 ($9.8 million).

• Ditto for swordfish at #51 ($18 million).

• Bloodworms were #86 ($6.0 million).

• Florida stone crab claws – the fishermen keep one, the crabs keep one and are then released – were #35 ($28 million).

The fifty highest value fisheries in the U.S. in 2005 (in 2005 dollars) and 2014 (in 2014 dollars)

Forty-five fisheries that were in the fifty most valuable in 2005 were still in the top fifty in 2014. When adjusted for inflation, in 2010 dollars, landings in the top 50 fisheries were valued at $3.9 billion in 2005 and at $4.5 billion in 2014.

(For anyone who is interested in exploring the reported landings of any species in any regions or states on a year-by-year basis, the above linked NOAA/NMFS database provides a wealth of information. With a basic knowledge of spreadsheets you can get an accurate picture of any commercial species (with limited exceptions) for the last 75 years, or for as long as that species supported a fishery. I’ve made one of my worksheets for this FishNet available at http://www.fishnet-usa.com/HowWeDoing_Update.xlsx to give you an idea of what’s possible. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me by replying to this email.)

____________________

Ignoring Alaska, the value of U.S. landings appear to be increasing after a decline that began in 1979.

Correcting for inflation, total U.S. landings in 2014 were 74% of what they were at their highest point (1979). Minus Alaska, total U.S. landings were 71% of what they were in 1979.

The story region by region – New England first

Starting out in New England, home of our oldest and not so long ago some of our most valuable “traditional” fisheries, at first glance things appear to be rosy. Reaching a post-Magnuson plateau of just over $1 billion in 1987, the value of total landings declined from then until 2001, from there increasing until almost $1 billion in 2005 and then falling again. But in 2011 they topped $1 billion again, and have remained there ever since.

Unfortunately, the reality in many New England fisheries is not what is indicated by the total landings. Since 1950 about half of the value of New England landings (converted to 2010 dollars) has been in the lobster and sea scallop fisheries. In 2010 these two fisheries accounted for 41% of the value of New England’s total landings (in the previous FishNet I had erroneously reported “over 69%”). In 2014, driven by a large increase in lobster landings which wasn’t offset by smaller decrease in scallop landings, that increased to 47%.

Subtracting the value of sea scallop and lobster landings from the total New England landings, there ws a decline in value extending from the early 90s to 2009. This was offset by an increase beginning in 2010 that increased the value to levels last seen in 1995.

In 2010 dollars, the New England lobster fishery has increased in value from $73 million in 1950 to $518 million in 2014. That’s an increase of 700%. The sea scallop fishery has increased from $57 million to $273 million, an increase of 480% (“record” scallop landings were $370 million in 2012).

In 2014 the next three most valuable fisheries were oysters, soft clams and Atlantic herring. Together with sea scallops and lobsters, landings in these 5 most valuable fisheries were $941 million. This represented 85% of the total New England landings in 2014. In 2000, 2005 and 2010 the 5 most valuable New England fisheries represented respectively 57%, 68% and 77% of the total value of New England landings.

The Mid-Atlantic

With the exception of 2013-14 the total value of Mid-Atlantic landings appear to have been fluctuating pretty widely but staying mostly between $200,000 and $250,000 since the early 1980s. However, the dramatic increase in the value of sea scallop landings have been compensating for a pronounced and prolonged decrease in the value total of landings of the other fisheries.

The South Atlantic

The value of South Atlantic landings declined almost steadily from a peak at in 1979 to 2005 or so and has been fairly constant since then.

Commercial landings in the South Atlantic in 2014 were 38% of what they were at their highest point (1979).

The Gulf of Mexico

The value of commercial landings in the Gulf of Mexico declined until 2010, when it reached the level that it hadn’t been at since 1960. Since then the total value has increased significantly, in 2014 being at 67% of what it was in 1979, when they were at their highest value.

As in the South Atlantic, the value of shrimp landings has varied much as the value of the other species has.

West Coast

The value of total West Coast landings appears to be continuing a 10+ year upward trend which had been interrupted by a drop in 2009/10. The total value of West Coast landings in 2014 was 69% of the highest value, which was in 1988.

The value of Hawaii landings in 2012 almost equaled the highest level reported, which was in 1992 (Hawaii landings were only reported in the NMFS/NOAA commercial landings database beginning in 1981). The value of landings has dropped in the subsequent two years.

The total value of Alaska’s landings appears to have resumed the upward trend that had begun in 1985.

What’s it all mean?

Looking at the biggest picture – and accepting the NOAA/NMFS figures – the domestic commercial fishing industry is doing quite well, having been just under $4 billion in 2009 and in 2014 having topped $5 billion. Adjusted for inflation, landings of the most valuable 50 fisheries were worth $3.9 billion on 2005. The value of the top 50 species had increased to $4.5 billion in 2014.

However, as is almost always the case, the devil is in the details, and some of those details clearly demonstrate that all is not well in every pilot house of every boat fishing in our EEZ.

One of the clearest examples of that is seen in the traditional fisheries of the Mid-Atlantic. While the value of total landings were valued at $195 million in the Mid-Atlantic, 44% was from one fishery (sea scallops). When the value of total landings minus the sea scallops shows that a decline that started in 1997 in the Mid-Atlantic is still continuing.

New England is slightly more complicated. In 2014 the value of landings if two fisheries (lobster and sea scallops) made up 73% of the value of New England’s total landings. In 2000 they accounted for 53% of the total. While the value of landings minus lobster and scallops has increased over $100 million since 2010, the four species – herring, soft shelled clams, oysters and American eels – that have accounted for most of the increase are either caught by very large vessels, are mostly from a limited and highly regulated river fishery for elvers, or are harvested from either inshore fisheries or aquaculture operations.

The bright spot on the East coast is the South Atlantic region, if you consider having stable landings a bright spot.

The value of total U.S. landings in the Gulf of Mexico has increased dramatically since a post-Magnuson low point, not coincidentally the year when BP released 5 million barrels or so of oil and almost 2 million gallons of corexit (an oil dispersant) into the Gulf.

After a gradual increase from the early 90s, the value of West Coast landings (minus Hawaii and Alaska) has been fairly steady since 2010 with an upswing in 2014. The value of Alaska landings increased significantly post 2010 but in 2014 had fell back to the same level it was at then. The value of Hawaiian landings increased steadily from 2009 to 2012, when it reached a level it hadn’t been at since 1993, but it has decreased since then.

Obviously it’s impossible to generalize at the national level much more than that significantly more dollar’s worth of fish and shellfish crossed U.S. docks in 2014 than did in 2010, and that’s definitely a good thing. However, the benefits haven’t been spread out evenly. There are disparities from region to region, from state to state, from port to port, from fishery to fishery and from dock to dock. The situation on the New England groundfish fishery is an example of that (and I’ll note here that decreased landings of a particular species isn’t necessarily related to reduced numbers of that species). But what can’t b\e overemphasized is that in far too many instances fishing revenues are being increasingly concentrated in a decreasing number of fisheries. In the long term this could prove disastrous, not just to the participants in fisheries in which the landings are declining, but to the participants in the other fisheries as well. This is because it takes a certain minimum level of presence to maintain necessary infrastructure (docks, gear suppliers, ice houses, marine railways, etc.), and once that minimum level is reached those businesses that support the fishing industry will have no choices other than shutting down or relocating.

View a PDF of the opinion piece here

Kingpins of the Gulf make millions off red snapper harvest without ever going fishing

January 25, 2016 — A little-known federal program has turned dozens of Gulf of Mexico fishermen into the lords of the sea — able to earn millions annually without even going fishing — and transformed dozens more into modern-day serfs who must pay the lords for the right to harvest red snapper.

The hold is full of market-sized red snapper, which range from 1 to 3 pounds. Captain Simms had to shell out $3,000 for the right to catch 1,000 pounds of snapper on this trip. His profit will only be about $1,500 of these fish, while a broker will earn more than twice as much.

A four-month probe by AL.com has found that roughly $60 million has been earned since 2007 by this small number of fishermen whose boats never left port. That money was collected from the labor of fishermen who have no choice but to hand over more than half of the price that their catch brings at the dock.

As it stands today, the right to catch 77 percent of the annual red snapper harvest is controlled by just 55 people, according to an AL.com analysis of hundreds of pages of federal documents, reports and websites.

The lion’s share of the commercial harvest was concentrated in the hands of a very few in 2007 when a federal program known as the Individual Fishing Quota system, or IFQ, was established. The National Marine Fisheries Service divided up the Gulf’s snapper harvest like a pie, with the largest pieces going to the fishermen who landed the most fish in the preceding years. A handful of snapper fishermen got shares as large as 5 or 6 percent of the Gulf’s total harvest, while others received shares as small as a ten thousandth of a percent, which granted the right to catch about a dozen fish a year.

“I sold my first snapper when I was 16 or 17,” said Ricky Wilson, a welder who lives in a small cottage on Mobile Bay. Commercial snapper fishing provided part of his income for 20 years.

When the IFQ portions were handed out, his share amounted to about 430 pounds, which would have taken him one or two days to catch and brought less than $1,000 at the dock.

Read the full story at the New Orleans Times-Picayune