Saving Seafood

NEW YORK: Thiele Acts for Fishermen ‘Under Siege’

April 7, 2017 — Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. has introduced a package of legislation intended to aid the commercial fishing industry. Two of the three bills were introduced in the 2015-16 legislative session. One would direct the state attorney general to bring legal action against the National Marine Fisheries Service, or any other federal agency, to challenge existing quotas that the bill calls inequitable and discriminatory against New York State commercial fishermen. The bill is now in the Assembly’s environmental conservation committee.

A second bill, also introduced in the 2015-16 legislative session, adds a new element in its current form. It would establish a commercial fishing advocate and, in its new version, create a commercial fishing jobs development program under State Department of Economic Development jurisdiction. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo vetoed the bill last year, Mr. Thiele said yesterday. “We’ve re-introduced it and made revisions that we hope will help encourage the governor to sign it,” he said.

Read the full story at The East Hampton Star

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

Restaurateur accused of operating illegal seafood network

April 6, 2017 — A well-known Houston restaurateur has been accused of operating an illegal seafood network that allegedly funneled nearly 28,000 pounds of unlawfully-caught finfish through his restaurants.

Texas game wardens allege that Bruce Molzan, 59, bought and then sold the illegal finfish off the menus at Ruggles Green and Ruggles Black. Molzan hasn’t been associated with Ruggles Green since 2016 but still owns Ruggles Black.

In addition, another restaurant illegally sold shrimp to Molzan for use in his restaurants in violation of commercial fish wholesale regulations, according to investigators.

The illegal catches were made by a web of about a dozen unlicensed commercial fishermen and sold to the restaurants, according to Texas Parks & Wildlife investigators. Their catches consisted primarily of highly-regulated red snapper, along with other protected game fish species, including tuna, amberjack, grouper and red drum.

The investigation expanded significantly last April after U.S. Coast Guard crews stopped an unlicensed commercial fishing boat in coastal waters near Freeport with 488 red snapper weighing approximately 1,900 pounds. Texas game wardens and the National Marine Fisheries Service seized the fish, which were illegally caught in the Gulf of Mexico off Freeport and Galveston, and investigators were able to link the subjects with the illegal seafood operation.

“This is a big deal and exemplifies the critically important work our Texas game wardens do to protect the state’s natural resources,” said Col. Craig Hunter, TPWD law enforcement director. “Not only did these unscrupulous actors violate recreational fishing regulations at an extreme level for personal profit, but they also circumvented restrictions and rules governing the possession, safe handling and sale of commercial aquatic products intended for human consumption.”

Read the full story at WTSP

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/.  

Sustainable Shark Alliance Applauds Recent Seizure of Illegal Shark Fins by Florida Wildlife Officials

April 4, 2017 – The Sustainable Shark Alliance (SSA), representing shark fishermen and dealers on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, calls for an investigation into the recent illegal shark finning incident reported last week near Key West.

The SSA vehemently opposes the reprehensible and illegal act of shark finning. U.S. domestic shark fishermen adhere to the legal and sustainable shark fishing quotas set by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The following was released by the SSA:

The Sustainable Shark Alliance, 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.

NOAA Fisheries Announces the Final Rule for Amendment 5b to the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan

April 3, 2017 — The following was released by NOAA: 

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the final rule to implement Amendment 5b to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP).  Amendment 5b implements a range of management measures to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished dusky sharks.  These measures are based on the 2016 dusky shark stock assessment update that determined dusky sharks are overfished and experiencing overfishing.  

Who is affected?

Amendment 5b could affect:

  • Any commercial fishermen with HMS permits.
  • Any recreational fishermen who catch sharks of any species.
  • Any dealers who buy or sell sharks or shark products.

What will it do?

The final rule, which will publish in the Federal Register on April 4, 2017, and related documents, including the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) may be found at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/.

The management measures implemented by this final rule (which were analyzed in the Amendment 5b FEIS) are listed in the table below.  Amendment 5b is designed to meet the objective of ending overfishing and rebuilding the dusky sharks, building on measures adopted in 2008 as a dusky shark rebuilding plan.  NMFS considered a full range of alternatives in the FEIS, which can be found in Chapter 2 of the FEIS.  After considering comments on the proposed rule and DEIS, NMFS is implementing final measures, as follows:  

  • NMFS has added and preferred Alternative A6d, which would require the use of non-offset, non-stainless steel circle hooks by all HMS permit holders with a shark endorsement when fishing for sharks recreationally south of 41° 43′ N latitude, except when fishing with flies or artificial lures. This alternative is preferred instead of Alternative 6a in the DEIS, which would have required the use of circle hooks by all HMS permit holders with a shark endorsement when fishing for sharks recreationally, defined as when deploying natural bait while using a wire or heavy (200 lb test or greater) monofilament or fluorocarbon leader;
  • Preferred Alternative B3 has been modified based on public comment to recognize safety concerns, specifying that fishermen with an Atlantic shark limited access permit with pelagic longline gear onboard must release all sharks not being retained using a dehooker or cutting the gangion less than three feet from the hook as safely as practicable.

Sardine fishing could be banned for 3rd year in a row

March 27, 2017 — The once-thriving sardine population — made famous in John Steinbeck’s novel “Cannery Row” — has taken a nosedive along the West Coast, where regulators are considering a ban on reeling in the tiny bait fish for a third year in a row.

Sardine numbers have plummeted 95 percent since 2006, according to estimates released Friday by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The perilously low numbers give regulators little choice but to again close fishing starting July 1 from Mexico to the Canadian border.

“If the initial estimate for this year remains in place, the fishery will be closed for the third straight year,” said Kerry Griffin, the staff officer for the Pacific Fishery Management Council, which makes policy along the coasts of California, Oregon and Washington. “We all want a healthy ecosystem, sustainable fisheries and healthy coastal communities that depend on fishing opportunities.”

Fishery biologists blamed the collapse on natural fluctuations — which recent sediment studies show have been common throughout history — and changing ocean conditions. Conservationists, however, believe overfishing made a bad situation worse.

“There would have been a decline anyway, but we made the decline worse by continuing to fish,” said Geoffrey Shester, senior scientist for Oceana, an international advocacy group that has been fighting to lower the annual sardine take and implement stricter regulations. “Scientists in the agency warned about a collapse, but the managers of the fishery didn’t pay attention to that and, in fact, took a much higher percentage of the existing stock.”

Read the full story at the San Francisco Chronicle

Federal agency must revisit listing for blueback herring

March 27, 2017 — WASHINGTON — A federal judge has ordered the National Marine Fisheries Service to revisit a decision not to list the blueback herring as a threatened species.

In a ruling Saturday, a District of Columbia judge said officials failed to offer a rational connection between the facts and two essential conclusions, and also failed to consider other aspects of the issue.

Blueback herring live along the Atlantic coast. They are born in inland rivers, spend most of their adult lives at sea, then return to rivers each spring to spawn.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at Maine Public Radio

After a record run of squid, local fishermen warily eye competition, regulatory challenges

March 24, 2017 — It was the best single run of longfin squid anyone on the East Coast had ever seen – and it happened fast and was over fast. In two months last summer, June and July, the East Coast-based squid fleet landed approximately 14 million pounds, with Rhode Island landing more than 50 percent of that quota, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration landing reports.

“I’ve never seen anything like it. The squid just kept coming,” said Point Judith fisherman Jeff Wise of Narragansett. “I’ve never seen volume and catch rates that high before.”

For those two summer months, the fishing port of Point Judith, or Galilee, was the squid capital of the world, the hub of squid commerce. Shore-side activity went nonstop as processors and others tried to keep pace with the volume of squid the fishing vessels carried in from the sea. Approximately 118 vessels, according to state landing reports, from as far south as Wanchese, N.C., used Rhode Island ports to offload their catch.

Although June and July are traditionally peak squid months, with average summer landings (May through August) fluctuating between 3 million and 19 million pounds, it was the high catch rates for those two months that was unprecedented last summer, which for the season saw 18.7 million pounds of landings.

“Though we’ve been seeing an upward trend in [longfin] squid since 2010, [last year was] one of the strongest we’ve seen since the 1990s,” said Jason Didden, squid-management-plan coordinator for the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the agency, along with the National Marine Fisheries Service, responsible for squid policy.

Local fishermen, many of whom depend heavily on squid, enjoyed the bounty but are warily focused on regulatory issues they fear could bring the good times to a premature end.

Landings the past 30 years have shown peaks and valleys, as levels of squid abundance have changed – but there has been no need for quota cuts.

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council often works with advisory panels to identify problems within fisheries and to come up with solutions to those problems. It’s a long road, complex and full of red tape, to go from an identified fishery problem to an actual change in the policy. These advisory panels are composed of industry members, recreational anglers, environmentalists and academics.

Three policy issues surfaced in recent months that could affect Rhode Island squid vessels and processors. One concerns managing the number of squid permits allowed, an issue perennially raised by the commercial fishing industry. The other two concern the possible loss of fishing ground – one by proposed wind farms off Long Island, and the other from lobbying pressure for a buffer zone in a key squid area south of Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard.

The buffer-zone issue was raised by a group of recreational fishermen from Nantucket.

“It’s hard to be optimistic right now,” said Wise. “It never seems to stop – we are constantly worried about losing fishing ground [due to] buffer zones, marine sanctuaries and wind farms.”

Read the full story at the Providence Business News