Saving Seafood

Advancing fishing rule aims to protect deep-sea coral in New England waters

May 31, 2017 — Fishing trawlers bring in an average of $6.4 million annually to Bay State ports from fish scooped off seabeds 600 meters or more below the surface of New England waters.

In an effort to save coral on the ocean floor, the New England Fisheries Management Council is advancing a proposed restriction on draggers and trawlers fishing at those depths.

The waters off New England do not get that deep until beyond George’s Bank and lobstermen that fish on the bank do not set traps at that depth, according to council staff. The proposed rule would exempt the relatively small red crab fishery.

The council’s Habitat Committee signed off Tuesday on the proposal, which affect fishing operations in a roughly 25,000 square mile area. If it is passed by the full council it would need to go through the National Marine Fisheries Service, also known as NOAA Fisheries, before it would go into effect.

Environmental groups Wild Oceans, Earthjustice, Pew Charitable Trusts and Conservation Law Foundation urged the council’s scientists to study an alternative proposal, which they said would protect more coral than the plan the council advanced. The council agreed to study the conservation groups’ proposal.

“There could be changes at any point in time. Ultimately when the full council votes on this June 22, we’ve got this preferred alternative going in. That hasn’t changed. But other things may be brought up,” said Habitat Committee Chairman John Quinn, a Dartmouth resident and former state rep.

Read the full story at the Boston Business Journal

JAPAN SET TO REACH ITS PACIFIC BLUEFIN TUNA FISHING QUOTA TWO MONTHS EARLY

April 26, 2017 — Japan is on track to meet its annual Pacific bluefin tuna quota two months early, frustrating activists trying to protect the species from overfishing.

Japan, where bluefin tuna is considered a delicacy, consumes significantly more of the fish than any other country. But its quota for the year ending in June 2017 is likely to be reached as early as this month.

Despite the country’s aggressive approach to fishing, bluefin tuna isn’t cheap. At Tokyo’s Tsukiji fish auction, a 467-pound bluefin tuna sold for 74.7m yen ($700,000) in January.

The seemingly insatiable appetite for the tuna is causing concern among conservationists. Amanda Nickson, director of global tuna conservation at Pew Charitable Trusts, said Japan is irresponsible in its approach to bluefin tuna fishing, The Guardian reported.

“Just a few years of overfishing will leave Pacific bluefin tuna vulnerable to devastating population reductions. That will threaten not just the fish but also the fishermen who depend on them,” Nickson told The Guardian on Monday.

Overfishing has already caused the Pacific bluefin population to fall by 97 percent.

In 2015, Japan and other members of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission agreed to reduce their catch of immature bluefin.

Read the full story at Newsweek

D.B. Pleschner: Study: No correlation between forage fish, predator populations

April 10, 2017 — On April 9-10, the Pacific Fishery Management Council is meeting in Sacramento to deliberate on anchovy management and decide on 2017 harvest limits for sardine, two prominent west coast forage fish.

Extreme environmental groups like Oceana and Pew have plastered social media with allegations that the anchovy population has crashed, sardines are being overfished and fisheries should be curtailed, despite ample evidence to the contrary.

Beyond multiple lines of recent evidence that both sardines and anchovy populations are increasing in the ocean, a new study published this week in the journal Fisheries Research finds that the abundance of these and other forage fish species is driven primarily by environmental cycles with little impact from fishing, and well-managed fisheries have a negligible impact on predators — such as larger fish, sea lions and seabirds.

This finding flies directly in the face of previous assumptions prominent in a 2012 study commissioned by the Lenfest Ocean Program, funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, heirs of Sun Oil Company. The Lenfest study concluded that forage fish are twice as valuable when left in the water to be eaten by predators and recommended slashing forage fishery catch rates by 50 to 80 percent.

However, in the new study, a team of seven internationally respected fisheries scientists, led by Prof. Ray Hilborn, Ph.D., of the University of Washington, discovered no correlation between predator populations and forage fish abundance. The new research also found multiple omissions in the methodology of the Lenfest study. For instance, it — and other previous studies — used ecosystem models that ignored the natural variability of forage fish, which often fluctuate greatly in abundance from year-to-year.

Read the full opinion piece at the Santa Cruz Sentinel

New Study Challenges Earlier Findings Regarding Link Between Predators, Forage Fish

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) – April 3, 2017 – A new study published today in Fisheries Research finds that fishing forage fish may have a smaller impact on their predators than previously thought. The study, authored by a team of marine scientists led by renowned University of Washington fisheries expert Dr. Ray Hilborn, calls into question previous forage fish research that may have overestimated the effect of fishing of forage fish on their predators.

The study, “When does fishing forage species affect their predators?,” finds that changes in predator populations are largely unrelated to the abundance of forage fish. It also shows that the distribution of forage fish is more important to predators than their overall abundance, and that many predators prefer smaller forage fish that are largely unaffected by fishing. Based on these results, the authors recommend that forage fishing policies be created on a case-by-case basis.

The paper’s findings point to issues with previous forage fish research, most notably a five-year-old study funded by the Lenfest Ocean Program, managed by The Pew Charitable Trusts, which it says failed to consider important variables like the spatial distribution of forage fish. Arguably the largest oversight in past research was the high natural variability of forage fish populations, even in the absence of fishing, the authors write.

“There is little evidence for a strong connection between forage fish abundance and the rate of change in the abundance of predators,” the authors write. “The fact that few of the predator populations evaluated in this study have been decreasing under existing fishing policies suggests that current harvest strategies do not threaten the predators and there is no pressing need for more conservative management of forage fish.”

The authors suggest that the lack of a strong relationship between forage fish and their predators is the result of “diet flexibility” – the idea that predators can switch between prey species, helping them defend against the high natural variability of forage fish populations.

This finding contradicts the widely reported conclusions of the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force in 2012. The study, “Little Fish, Big Impact,” claimed that forage fish are twice as valuable to humans when they are left in the water, rather than fished, because of their great importance to predator species. Based on this conclusion, the Lenfest group recommended cutting forage fish catch rates across the board by 50 to 80 percent.

But Dr. Hilborn and his coauthors advocate for a more nuanced approach, writing that previous models “were frequently inadequate for estimating impact of fishing forage species on their predators” and that “a case by case analysis is needed.” The team explicitly calls into question the Lenfest study’s recommendations, which it says are “not appropriate for all species.”

“Relevant factors are missing from the analysis contained in [the Lenfest] work, and this warrants re-examination of the validity and generality of their conclusions,” the authors write. “We have illustrated how consideration of several factors which they did not consider would weaken the links between impacts of fishing forage fish on the predator populations.”

These missing elements include how fishing mortality compares with the natural variability of forage species, the spatial structure of forage fish populations, and the overlap between the sizes of forage fish eaten by predators and size taken by the fishery.

“It must be remembered that small pelagic fish stocks are a highly important part of the human food supply, providing not only calories and protein, but micronutrients, both through direct human consumption and the use of small pelagics as food in aquaculture,” the paper concludes. “Some of the largest potential increases in capture fisheries production would be possible by fishing low trophic levels much harder than currently.”

Read an infographic about the study here 

Watch a video about the study here 

Predators may be less affected by catch of small fish than previously thought, new study says

April 3, 2017 — WASHINGTON — The following was released by the National Coalition for Fishing Communities and IFFO: 

New research published today in the journal Fisheries Research finds that fishing of forage species likely has a lower impact on predators than previously thought, challenging previous studies that argued forage fish are more valuable left in the ocean.

A team of seven respected fisheries scientists, led by Prof. Ray Hilborn, Ph.D., of the University of Washington, found that predator populations are less dependent on specific forage fish species than assumed in previous studies, most prominently in a 2012 study commissioned by the Lenfest Ocean Program, which is managed by The Pew Charitable Trusts. The Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force argued that forage fish are twice as valuable when left in the water to be eaten by predators, and recommended slashing forage fish catch rates by 50 to 80 percent.

 For fisheries management, such a precautionary approach would have a large impact on the productivity of forage fisheries. As groups such as IFFO (The Marine Ingredients Organisation) have noted, these stocks contribute strongly to global food security, as well as local and regional social and economic sustainability.

 However, the new research found multiple omissions in the methodology of the Lenfest study. “When you review the actual models that were used [by Lenfest], there are a few key elements on the biology of these animals that were not represented,” said Dr. Ricardo Amoroso, one of the study’s co-authors. He added that one of the authors’ approaches was to “look for empirical evidence of what is actually happening in the field.” Previous studies relied on models which took for granted that there should be a strong link between predators and prey.

 Specifically, the Lenfest study and another study using ecosystem models ignored the natural variability of forage fish, which often fluctuate greatly in abundance from year to year. It also failed to account for the fact that predators tend to eat smaller forage fish that are largely untouched by fishermen. Because of these oversights, the new study concluded that the Lenfest recommendations were overly broad, and that fisheries managers should consider forage species on a case-by-case basis to ensure sound management.

 “It is vital that we manage our fisheries to balance the needs of the ecosystem, human nutrition and coastal communities,” said Andrew Mallison, IFFO Director General. “These findings give fishery managers guidance based on science, and update some of the inaccurate conclusions of previous reports.”

 The Lenfest findings were largely based on a model called EcoSim, developed by Dr. Carl J. Walters, one of the co-authors of the new paper. Dr. Walters found that the EcoSim models used in earlier studies had omitted important factors, including natural variability, recruitment limitations and efficient foraging of predators.

Dr. Walters noted that there were “very specific” issues with previous uses of the EcoSim model. “It was predicting much higher sensitivity of creatures at the top of the food webs to fishing down at the bottom than we could see in historical data,” he said.

This is not the first time ecosystem models used in earlier studies have been questioned. One year after the Lenfest study was completed, two of its authors, Dr. Tim Essington and Dr. Éva Plagányi, published a paper in the ICES Journal of Marine Science where they said, “We find that the depth and breadth with which predator species are represented are commonly insufficient for evaluating sensitivities of predator populations to forage fish depletion.” The new study reaffirmed this finding, noting “several reasons to concur with the conclusion that the models used in previous analysis were insufficient.”

In addition to its critiques of previous research, the researchers found further evidence of the lack of fishing impact on forage fish. Their research indicated that environmental factors are often much more important drivers of forage fish abundance. They also found that the distribution of forage fish has a greater impact on predators than simply the raw abundance of forage fish. 

The authors concluded by noting the importance of forage fish as a part of human food supply chains, praising their high nutritional value, both through direct human consumption and as food in aquaculture, as well as the low environmental impact of forage fishing. Cutting forage fishing, as recommended by the Lenfest group, would force people to look elsewhere for the healthy protein and micronutrients provided by forage fish – likely at much greater environmental cost, the authors wrote.

“Forage fish provide some of the lowest environmental cost food in the world – low carbon footprint, no water use,” Dr. Hilborn said. “[There are] lots of reasons that forage fish are a really environmentally friendly form of food.”

It is also well-established that forage fisheries provide substantial health benefits to human populations through the supply of long chain omega-3 fatty acids, both directly through consumption in the form of fish oil capsules, and indirectly through animal feed for farmed fish and land animals. 

The paper was authored by Dr. Ray Hilborn, Dr. Ricardo O. Amoroso, and Dr. Eugenia Bogazzi from the University of Washington; Dr. Olaf P. Jensen from Rutgers University; Dr. Ana M. Parma from Center for the Study of Marine Systems -CONICET, Argentina; Dr. Cody Szuwalski from the University of California Santa Barbara; and Dr. Carl J. Walters from the University of British Columbia.

Read the full study here

Watch a video about the study here

Read an infographic about the study here

About the NCFC

The National Coalition for Fishing Communities provides a national voice and a consistent, reliable presence for fisheries in the nation’s capital and in national media. Comprised of fishing organizations, associations, and businesses from around the country, the NCFC helps ensure sound fisheries policies by integrating community needs with conservation values, leading with the best science, and connecting coalition members to issues and events of importance. For more, visit www.fisheriescoalition.org.

About IFFO

IFFO represents the marine ingredients industry worldwide. IFFO’s members reside in more than 50 countries, account for over 50% of world production and 75% of the fishmeal and fish oil traded worldwide. Approximately 5 million tonnes of fishmeal are produced each year globally, together with 1 million tonnes of fish oil. IFFO’s headquarters are located in London in the United Kingdom and it also has offices in Lima, Peru, and in Beijing, China. IFFO is an accredited Observer to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). To find out more, visit www.iffo.net.

PRESS CONTACT

Robert Vanasse

National Coalition for Fishing Communities

Washington

+1 (202) 333-2628

bob@savingseafood.org

Georgie Harris

IFFO, The Marine Ingredients Organisation

London

+44 (0) 2030 539 195

gharris@iffo.net

WPRFMC: Papahanaumokuakea expansion is ‘arbitrary,’ ignores latest science

September 2, 2016 — Using the power given to presidents under the 1906 National Antiquities Act, [President] Obama has now set aside more than twice as much land and water as any president before him. His latest national monument is in the middle of the Pacific Ocean in waters near the Hawaiian islands.

The president is quadrupling an area first protected by President George W. Bush 10 years ago. It’s called the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument.

Matt Rand, who directs the Global Ocean Legacy Project with the Pew Charitable Trusts, says expanding Papahanaumokuakea keeps [environmental] momentum going in a big way.

“Before President Obama expanded it, it [Papahanaumokuakea] had fallen to the 10th largest marine reserve, which is actually great news,” Rand said. “That means 10 other countries, and 10 other marine reserves, went and one-upped the original Papahanaumokuakea.”

Once again, it’s the largest marine sanctuary in the world.

“Our hope is that President Obama’s bold action now starts another race to protect the ocean,” Rand said.

But that’s sure to be met with stiff resistance from the fishing industry. Paul Dalzell, a senior scientist with the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council in Hawaii, said they’ve set up their own protections to maintain healthy fish populations with things like catch limits. He said the new marine sanctuary is arbitrary and ignores the latest science.

“These environmentalists are going to try to protect something whether that protection is warranted or not,” Dalzell said. “They’re professional advocates, and it’s their job to find something to protect.”

Environmentalists argue that marine sanctuaries can actually help the fishing industry. Setting up marine protections strengthens ecosystems. This, in turn, promotes more productive fisheries outside of protected areas.

Dalzell sees things another way. He said limiting the areas where they traditionally fish will allow foreign fishermen to take away some of their market share.

“How would you like to be told, ‘We’re going to take away 10 percent of your income, but you’re free to go find other work that will make that up?” said Dalzell.

Read the full story at KBIA

NILS STOLPE: Pew/Oceana’s latest exercise in crepe hanging

August 17, 2016 — Hard as it is to imagine, Pew/Oceana’s latest “the sky is falling” attempt at mobilizing the forces of righteousness to avoid the end of the world’s oceans via rampant overfishing took some startling liberties in crafting their latest call to arms (i.e. make a donation to Oceana). In their attempt to convince potential donors that oceanic doom and gloom had already arrived, the people at Pew/Oceana tried to conflate “overfished” and “fully fished” fish stocks, illogically putting them in the same category, allowing their use of the alarmingly seeming (to the average unsophisticated reader) 89.5% figure.  Get out the checkbooks, folks!) But, with a nod to Paul Harvey, how about the rest of the story?

From the FAO report (http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5555e.pdf) on Pg. 5, “fully fished stocks accounted for 58.1 percent (of the world’s capture fisheries)and underfished stocks 10.5 percent.” In other words, just under 70% of the world’s fish stocks aren’t overfished and just over 30% are. But that’s nowhere nearly as dismal-sounding as Pew/Oceana’s almost 90% either being overfished or not underfished – though it’s certainly the way that any group that isn’t crisis-oriented would present the data.

Consider the FAO figures in a different context. Obviously there are three classes of drivers; drivers who drive below the speed limit, drivers who drive at the speed limit and drivers who drive over the speed limit. Let’s assume that 10.5% of drivers are in the first group, 58.1% are in the second and 31.4% are in the third. And then let’s assume that you wanted to make it appear as if speeding was as much of a problem as possible. Would you write that just under 70% of drivers drove at or below the speed limit or that almost 90% of drivers drove at or above the speed limit? Both are correct, but in the first case the focus is on drivers who are operating their vehicles lawfully and in the second the focus has been shifted to drivers who are speeding.

Is there any difference between the machinations that the people at Pew/Oceana are using to argue that the world’s fisheries are in really bad shape due to fishing/overfishing and having some other group writing that 89.5% of automobile accidents involve drivers having collisions with other vehicles or drivers talking on cell phones.

Read the full story from FishNet USA

Science on Menhaden Continues to Support Increased Quota

August 3, 2016 — The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

Peter Baker, the Director of U.S. Oceans, Northeast for the Pew Charitable Trusts, argues in a recent article that fisheries managers should not raise the coastwide Atlantic menhaden harvest level (“10 Reasons to Maintain the Atlantic Menhaden Catch Limit in 2017”). But this recommendation goes against the last two years of menhaden science, which found in 2015 that the stock is healthy and sustainably managed, and this year finds that the quota can be significantly and sustainably raised.

Mr. Baker writes that “the [Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission] created the first coastwide catch limit in 2013 and set the allowable catch lower than the amount taken in preceding years in order to help menhaden rebuild.” In fact, the cuts were made to address overfishing that turned out never to have existed. The quota cut was instituted following a flawed stock assessment in 2010 that underestimated the health of the menhaden population, leading to an unnecessarily strict quota. Contrary to that assessment, menhaden was, and remains, a healthy and vibrant stock.

The numbers are not better now because cuts allowed the stock to rebuild, but rather because the earlier numbers were inaccurately low and have been corrected in the most recent assessment. The more recent, accurate ASMFC assessment, released in 2015, conclusively found that menhaden was “neither overfished nor experiencing overfishing” – in other words, the stock is sustainable and successfully managed.

Scientists with the ASMFC Menhaden Technical Committee recently gave regulators further evidence in favor of a quota increase. In a series of simulations – 9,000 to be precise – the Technical Committee analyzed what would happen if the menhaden quota was raised by various increments, up to a 40 percent increase. Their conclusion: there is a zero percent chance of overfishing occurring should the quota be increased.

Mr. Baker also questions the ecological effect a quota increase would have. Menhaden play a role in the food chain, with juvenile menhaden—menhaden from ages 0-1—serving as food for larger predators. Commercial fishermen do not fish for juvenile menhaden, a fact supported by the available data.

Additionally, Mr. Baker alleges that striped bass and weakfish populations are diminished because they have a lack of menhaden to consume. But striped bass and weakfish are susceptible to a wide variety of environmental factors, which regularly cause fluctuations in the population.

Lastly, Mr. Baker argues that the public supports the existing quota limitations based upon the results of online petitions with leading questions, funded and promoted by his organization.  The accuracy of Pew’s campaigns notwithstanding, commercial fisheries are not managed by popularity contests.

Over the past three years, commercial fisheries and related industries have suffered lost revenue and workers have lost jobs.  We now know that the unnecessarily low quotas were based on flawed data.

It is time to set quotas based on solid data and scientific review, not by demands made in well-funded media campaigns from the Pew Charitable Trusts and other special interest groups.

About the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition
The Menhaden Fisheries Coalition is a collective of menhaden fishermen, related businesses, and supporting industries. Comprised of over 30 businesses along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition conducts media and public outreach on behalf of the menhaden industry to ensure that members of the public, media, and government are informed of important issues, events, and facts about the fishery.

AP: Conservationists keep pressing for Atlantic Ocean monuments

July 11, 2016 — The following is excerpted from a story published today by the Associated Press. In it, representatives of the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) call for President Obama to use executive authority under the Antiquities Act to designate multiple national marine monuments off the coast of New England.

Last month, eight members of the National Coalition for Fishing Communities (NCFC) and the valuable fishing port of New Bedford, Mass., united in opposition to proposed Atlantic monuments. The groups agreed that fishing areas and resources should continue to be managed in the open and transparent manner stipulated by the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA).

Previously, many of the environmental groups calling for Atlantic monuments expressed support for fisheries management under the MSA. In December, Pew called the MSA “the bedrock of one of the world’s best fishery management systems.” In April, the CLF wrote that the MSA is “the primary reason why the United States can say that it has the most sustainable fisheries in the world.” In February, the Environmental Defense Fund said that the MSA “has made the United States a global model for sustainable fisheries management.”

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Environmental conservationists aren’t giving up on trying to persuade the White House to designate an area in the Gulf of Maine as a national monument.

In the final months of President Barack Obama’s term, they’re hoping he’ll protect an underwater mountain and offshore ecosystem in the Gulf of Maine known as Cashes Ledge. They also want him to protect a chain of undersea formations about 150 miles off the coast of Massachusetts known as the New England Coral Canyons and Seamounts.

The White House Council on Environmental Quality said in March, and reiterated last week, that while the New England Coral Canyons and Seamounts area is under consideration, Cashes Ledge currently is not. There are no marine national monuments in the Atlantic Ocean.

Robert Vanasse, executive director of the fishing advocacy group Saving Seafood, said environmental groups seemed to be “in denial and shock” after the White House first said it wasn’t considering Cashes Ledge in March.

“I think they overplayed their hand. They arrogantly seemed to think that they could dictate to the White House,” he said on Wednesday.

Vanasse said fishing interests are now taking the White House at its word that Cashes Ledge is off the table. The industry is already struggling with quota cuts and climate change.

Commercial fishing groups oppose creating any marine monument in the Atlantic under the American Antiquities Act because the decision is left entirely to the president, Vanasse said. There are existing procedures to protect areas where the public participates in the process under the top law regulating fishing in U.S. oceans, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, he added.

“We’re not the fringe nutcases here,” Vanasse said. “It’s pretty much every non-environmentally subsidized fishery organization that is opposed to the use of the Antiquities Act to create marine monuments. The Magnuson-Stevens process works. It could be better, but it’s working.”

Read the full story from the Associated Press at the Boston Herald

Herring Industry Scores a Victory in Long-Running Battle

June 17, 2016 — The following piece was authored by Shaun Gehan, counsel for the Sustainable Fisheries Coaltion:

The Atlantic herring fishery has been under constant litigation since 2011. Each major management action since Amendment 4 to the herring fishery management plan was adopted has been challenged by EarthJustice, a Pew Foundation-funded law firm, representing environmental and sportfishing interests. These suits are part of Pew’s multi-year, multi-million dollar “forage fish” campaign.

In what the herring industry hopes augurs an end to this cycle of litigation, Senior Judge Gladys Kessler of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia handed EarthJustice a sound defeat in its latest case. At issue, in essence, were plaintiffs’ contentions that quota was set too high and that NMFS failed to give due consideration to alternative quota-setting methods, including one developed by a Pew-funded group known as the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force.

Judge Kessler called the approach NMFS took in setting catch targets to be “clearly permissible.”  She also noted that herring’s role as forage was explicitly taken into account by fisheries scientists when assessing the stock’s status. Currently, the Atlantic herring population is roughly twice the long-term average size generally sought to be obtained through traditional fisheries management.

EarthJustice claimed that the Pew-funded research constituted the “best available science for managing forage fish.” Use of the “best scientific information available” in managing fisheries is legally required. As the court noted, however, not only did NMFS consider the reports advocated by plaintiffs in setting quotas, but that as the expert agency, determining what constitutes the best science is squarely in its discretion. The plaintiffs, Judge Kessler noted, “fail to explain why” the studies they prefer “are clearly the ‘best available science.’”

This lawsuit represents the latest skirmish in a long running conflict between Pew/EarthJustice and the fishing industry over herring management. The Sustainable Fisheries Coalition, a group comprised of herring fishermen from New Jersey to Maine, processors and bait dealers, intervened in this lawsuit. While pleased with this result, industry members recognized that significant threats to their livelihood still exist.

For instance, there remains pending a challenge to herring Amendment 5 dealing with issues of monitoring and bycatch. That case was stayed as the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Councils – federally-created bodies charged with developing fishery rules – consider measures to address these concerns.

The herring fishery has one of the lowest rates of bycatch – incidental harvest of non-target species – in the nation, as SFC has repeatedly noted. To improve on this record, herring fishermen have established a “bycatch avoidance network” in conjunction with partners from academic institutions and support of some states. Through this network, vessels communicate areas of high incidental catch so that others may avoid them.

Nonetheless, the Pew-funded Herring Alliance, also represented by EarthJustice, is seeking to impose a requirement that 100 percent of all herring trips be monitored by government observers at industry expense. Such a measure was included as part of Amendment 5, but was rejected by NMFS on the basis that it lacked the funds to fulfill the mandate. It was this decision, among others, that are the subject of EarthJustice’s pending case.

Various federal laws forbid a governmental agency from incurring unfunded obligations or shifting money appropriated for other uses. At the time it rejected these provisions, NMFS noted that even with industry cost sharing, additional at-sea monitors and data collection would impose financial obligations on the government it could not cover. Notably, like all federal fisheries, the herring fleet is required to carry observers in order to collect statistically rigorous data. The issue is thus about monitoring above levels necessary to gather precise and accurate information.

The new measure currently under development would establish a framework under which fishermen could be required to pay additional monitoring costs. Such monitoring could be done by observers on vessels, via electronic means such as cameras, through dockside inspections, or a combination of methods. Additional industry-funded data collection, however, could only occur when NMFS has funds to cover its share of the costs.

Nonetheless, in a letter to both Councils the Herring Alliance this week advocated for mandatory coverage on all trips made by the largest herring vessels. The practical effect of this proposal would be to cause these vessels to cease fishing, save for a handful of routinely observed trips. SFC participants believe this option is unlawful as it would result in an inability to harvest most of the allowable herring catch each year. There is support among fishermen, however, for increased monitoring so long as the costs are reasonable. Herring fishing is capital-intensive and profit margins are small.

The parties to the Amendment 5 lawsuit are set to report to Judge Kessler in early July on how they want to proceed with the case. It is likely EarthJustice will ask the judge to continue the stay while the Industry-Funded Monitoring amendment works its way through the process. In the meantime, the herring industry is savoring a small, but important victory. Counsel for the SFC notes that this decision makes it more likely that the next herring action – quota specifications for the next three years – will be the first herring measure in half a decade not to wind up in court.