Saving Seafood

Fishing is a deadly business, but many fishermen won’t wear life preservers

December 27, 2017 — One rogue wave or false step, an ankle caught in a line, is all it takes to cast a fisherman overboard. But those risks have never been enough to convince Rick Beal that it’s worth wearing a life preserver.

Even though he has never learned how to swim.

Commercial fishing ranks among the most dangerous professions, but fishermen — fiercely independent and resistant to regulations — have long shunned life preservers, often dismissing the flotation devices as inconvenient and constraining.

Between 2000 and 2013, 665 US fishermen died at sea, nearly one-third of them after falling overboard. Not one of the latter group was wearing a life preserver, according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Unlike many mariners, commercial fishermen aren’t required to wear them, although the government requires their boats to carry life preservers.

When a clam boat sank off Nantucket earlier this month, two fishermen who were apparently not wearing flotation devices died, while a pair of crew members who managed to put on life-saving gear survived.

The fatal capsizing of the Misty Blue has renewed calls for requiring fishermen to wear life preservers, just as bikers must wear helmets and drivers use seat belts. Those safety measures also faced considerable resistance before gaining acceptance.

Read the full story at the Boston Globe

 

NOAA Seeks Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Commissioner

December 27, 2017 — The following was released by NOAA Fisheries: 

NOAA Fisheries is seeking a U.S. citizen to serve a four-year term as a Commissioner representing the commercial fishing industry to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO). NAFO is a regional fisheries management organization with 12 Contracting Parties that coordinates scientific study and cooperative management of the fisheries resources of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, excluding salmon, tunas/marlins, whales, and sedentary species (e.g., shellfish). NAFO was established in 1979 by the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. The United States joined NAFO in 1995.

The U.S. Commissioner to NAFO representing the commercial fishing industry must be knowledgeable and experienced in the conservation and management of fisheries in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean.  The role of the U.S. industry Commissioner is to provide advice and support to the Federal Commissioner during NAFO meetings and to participate in the domestic U.S. advisory process for NAFO. The U.S. industry Commissioner is expected to serve on U.S. delegations to NAFO, including attending the NAFO annual meeting each September and other relevant meetings held during the year. The non-government Commissioners may not serve more than two consecutive four-year terms.

Learn more about NOAA Fisheries Greater Atlantic Region here.

 

Foes, friends praise retiring NOAA official’s approach

December 26, 2017 — He’s been called a Neanderthal and the most reviled man in the region’s fishing community. At a public meeting broadcast on national TV, a fisherman once accused him to his face of lying for a living.

As the regional fisheries administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, John Bullard has drawn ire from all sides — fishermen, environmentalists, and politicians alike. His decisions have been routinely controversial, and he has rarely minced words in defending them.

Yet he has also earned widespread respect during his tenure as the region’s top fishing regulator, the rare public official willing to say what he thinks, no matter how unpopular. Earlier this year, he even publicly criticized his bosses, an offense that nearly got him fired.

As he prepares to retire from one of New England’s most influential — and thankless — government positions, Bullard, 70, has few regrets.

Read the full story at the Boston Globe

 

Letter: Fishermen need a fish bill

December 26, 2017 — My name is Sam Parisi from Gloucester, Massachusetts. I am retired and want to devote my time to help our fishing industry at no charge to anyone.

We have many problems, thanks in part to NOAA ‘s restrictions. We have tried to turn the tide. NOAA has grown so big, so rather than fight it, let us together find a solution that would be welcome to all.

I believe the solution is federal legislation. Farmers have a farm bill; fishermen need a fish bill. The drastic cuts in quota that our fishermen have incurred over the last two years are driving even the hardest fishermen out of business. Without fish, fishermen and fish houses cannot survive. We all know Economics 101 and the domino effect of lost revenue. Waterfront properties will become liabilities instead of assets and our tax base will evaporate.

Are we going to sit back and watch what we know will happen and then react? The crystal ball is right in front of us. NOAA has shown us our future. NO FISH MEANS NO MONEY. So what are we going to do about it? Are we going to be proactive and do something before the bleeding starts?

Read the full letter at the Gloucester Times

 

Fishing leaders: Has the Monterey Bay sanctuary kept its promise?

December 22, 2017 — The answer is no, not to fishermen; please let us explain.

Reflect back to 1992 when the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary was proposed. While fishermen and most others agreed that it could help prevent offshore oil development, we had concerns about how sanctuary authority might affect those of us who provide food from ocean resources.

There was also public discussion about how stakeholders would have a say in the new federal bureaucracy. Commercial fishermen and recreational anglers had killed two earlier sanctuary proposals over these concerns.

In response, fishermen heard that the new sanctuary would not threaten our livelihoods or create fishing regulations. It was a broad assurance, and repeated often by both elected and NOAA officials. Based on this, fishing leaders weren’t neutral, they supported it, even traveling to Washington, D.C.

This promise was never a free-pass from fishing regulations. Rather, it acknowledged that fishery laws, such as the Magnuson-Stevens Act, already provided science-based management. Under that law, overfishing has ended on the West Coast, and several thousands of square miles of quality habitat are protected. It also acknowledged that sanctuaries are not intended to manage fisheries.

The promise is written into the sanctuary’s designation document. If any problem arose, the sanctuary would work with us for a solution.

Read the full editorial at the Santa Cruz Sentinel

 

Magnuson Stevens fight to resume early in 2018

December 22, 2017 — There won’t likely be a long wait in 2018 for the battle to reignite over efforts to change the Magnuson Stevens Act (MSA), the key statute that oversees fishing regulations in the US.

Possibly as soon as January, just after Congress returns from its winter break, Alaska Republican senator Dan Sullivan will introduce his own version of an MSA reauthorization bill, sources tell Undercurrent News. Additionally, the MSA-related legislation just approved by the House of Representative’s Committee on Natural Resources could advance to the House floor.

“The House Floor schedule hasn’t been set for 2018 yet but we are optimistic that we will move forward with the bill early next year,” said Murphy McCullough, the press secretary for Alaska representative Don Young, about HR 200, the bill he introduced to change MSA. It’s one of Natural Resource Committee chairman Rob Bishop’s “top priorities”.

“As far as finding a Senate champion, we are working closely with senator Sullivan and his staff on this reauthorization,” she confirmed.

Young’s bill, formerly named the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act, dashed through a one-hour markup last week, during which 13 amendments were discussed, six of which were adopted, before it was passed by a 23-17 vote along party lines.

HR 200 closely resembles HR 1335, legislation sponsored by Young that sailed through the House in 2015 but stalled out, in part, because President Barack Obama threatened to veto it over concerns that it would reduce the influence scientists have over the preservation of fish species. It’s the same concern that has ocean conservation groups rallying against Young’s latest bill now.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

 

Jon Mitchell: Ban costing Port of New Bedford $500K a day

December 22, 2017 — NEW BEDFORD, Mass. — In a letter addressed to NOAA, Mayor Jon Mitchell said the Port of New Bedford could be losing nearly $500,000 a day because of the groundfishing ban.

Mitchell referenced analysis prepared by Professor Dan Georgiana of SMAST, which stated the 25-day-old ban caused as much as $12 million (to date) in damage to the port.

Mitchell filed his letter Wednesday, the final day in which comments regarding the ban could be submitted. Andrew Saunders, the attorney for Sector IX, the Carlos Rafael fishing division that’s prevented from groundfishing, also submitted a letter Wednesday.

“It’s no exaggeration to say that hundreds of lives in New Bedford have been disrupted by the NOAA decision,” Mitchell wrote.

NOAA said it is still processing the submitted comments and wouldn’t comment on any submissions.

Mitchell doubled down on his plea throughout the Rafael saga: That innocent third parties shouldn’t be harmed for Rafael’s actions. NOAA Regional Administrator John Bullard revoked Sector IX’s operational plan on Nov. 20, which banned Rafael’s fleet from groundfishing. Bullard, a former New Bedford mayor, backed his decision stating deficiencies lingered within the sector.

Mitchell, a former U.S. prosecutor, presented a legal argument that should have prevented the ban. He cited National Standard 8, which states any prevention of overfishing should take into account the extent of adverse economic effects.

“I believe National Standard No. 8 would require due consideration of the socioeconomic impact that the notice of withdrawal of approval has on the member of Sector IX as well as the effected stakeholders in the Port of New Bedford,” Mitchell wrote.

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard Times

 

Opinion: Conservation and training vital to keep Alaska fisheries strong

December 20, 2017 — I wasn’t ready to have kids until my husband and I started hand trolling together. Watching the other families on deck running gear or anchored in the evening and playing on a beach broke something loose inside of me. This is what I wanted. I wanted a boat, kids, a life out on the water. So that winter we bought a fixer-upper steel boat and a power troll permit. We jumped.

We jumped knowing the basics of trolling and seamanship. There was so much to learn, especially as someone who didn’t grow up fishing — supervising crew, keeping up with technological updates, and running the business end of things. Putting hooks in the water was the easy part.

Fishing has always required knowledge that’s tough to get as a newcomer, but getting started now is a lot more complicated than it was even a few decades ago. Fishing permits are tens of thousands of dollars at the least, and enough fishing quota to get started now costs more than a college education. Fishing regulations are increasingly complicated, and keeping up with policy decisions can be daunting.

But help is on the way. This fall, Alaska’s congressional delegation introduced the Young Fishermen’s Development Act to the House and the Senate. This act would establish a Young Fishermen’s Development Fund to support education and training opportunities for young fishermen throughout the country. The program is modeled after the Department of Agriculture’s successful Beginning Farmer and Rancher program, which has helped hundreds of young people start their own businesses. Currently no comparable program exists for young fishermen. If passed, funding will come from NOAA’s asset forfeiture fund: Fines paid for breaking fishing regulations will assist new operations with getting started on the right foot. I applaud our delegation for providing this essential support to our young fishermen’s future.

Of course, the most important ingredient to a healthy fishing business is access to productive fish stocks. We depend on those managing our fisheries to commit to conservation first. The Magnuson-Stevens Act, which is the primary law governing fisheries around the country, is currently undergoing reauthorization by Congress. Unfortunately, a very vocal segment of the recreational fishing sector is pushing for exemptions to conservation requirements.

Read the full editorial at the Anchorage Daily News

 

Trump team may have broken law to score red snapper win

December 19, 2017 — The Trump administration scored last week when a House panel voted to give Gulf of Mexico states more power in managing the popular red snapper, but court records suggest it may be a tainted victory.

Internal memos show that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and a top adviser may have knowingly violated federal fisheries law in June when they extended the Gulf red snapper season, hoping the move would pressure Congress to act.

In a June 1 memo, Earl Comstock, the Commerce Department’s director of policy and strategic planning, told Ross that a longer season “would result in overfishing” of the stock by as much as 40 percent and possibly prompt a lawsuit.

But Comstock urged Ross to extend the season anyway, saying it could lead to “a significant achievement” by forcing Congress to liberalize the federal law and transfer more authority to Gulf states.

“It would allow a reset in the acrimonious relationship and set the stage for Congress to adopt a long-term fix,” Comstock told Ross.

Comstock followed up with a second memo on June 7, reminding his boss that both the White House and a dozen congressmen from Gulf states had asked Ross to explore the possibility of a longer fishing season.

The next week, Ross decided to extend the season from three to 42 days, much to the joy of recreational anglers in Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama (Greenwire, Sept. 20).

Critics say the memos offer proof that Commerce and NOAA Fisheries plotted to bypass the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, a 1976 law that sets quotas as a way to rebuild overfished stocks, including the red snapper.

“I appreciate it when people are transparent about their intentions,” said Janis Searles Jones, the CEO of Ocean Conservancy, a nonprofit environmental group.

Commerce made the memos public as part of its response to a lawsuit filed in July in U.S. District Court in Washington by Ocean Conservancy and the Environmental Defense Fund. The complaint accuses Ross, NOAA and NOAA Fisheries of mismanagement by allowing overfishing.

Read the full story at E&E News

 

MAFMC Discontinues Development of Squid Buffer Framework

December 19, 2017 — The following was released by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council:

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council voted last week to discontinue development of a framework action that would have considered establishing a squid fishery buffer zone in waters south of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket. This decision will allow the effects of the recently-approved Squid Amendment to be realized prior to any additional action.

The Council included the Squid Buffer Framework in its list of possible actions for 2017 in response to public concern regarding longfin squid fishing effort during Trimester 2 (May-August) in an area south of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket. Commenters raised concerns about a lack of juvenile squid in some areas, high amounts of bycatch of squid eggs and other species, and reported poor recreational finfish catches.

The Squid Amendment includes a 250-pound trip limit for all permits once the Trimester 2 quota has been reached — a 90% reduction from the current post-closure trip limit of 2,500 pounds. Once the amendment is implemented by NOAA Fisheries, fishing effort will be constrained after a closure during the summer months. This may address some of the concerns raised regarding squid fishing near Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket. Allowing time for that action to be fully implemented will enable the Council to evaluate the need for buffers or other management measures more effectively in the future.

Prior to last week’s meeting in Annapolis, Maryland, the Council received a substantial number of public comments both in support of and opposed to the framework. Comments immediately prior to the meeting were mostly against proceeding with the buffer action. Also, the directors of the state fisheries agencies for Rhode Island and Massachusetts, the two states most directly impacted, recommended not moving forward with the action at this time.

After extensive discussion and consideration of public comments, the Council voted to discontinue development of the framework. In December 2018 the Council will consider if a 2019 workshop including the various interested parties could serve to further inform possible future actions.

Learn more about the MAFMC by visiting their site here.