Red snapper Archives - Page 34 of 42

National Fisheries Institute Sues NOAA Over New Seafood Fraud Import Rules Claiming Regulatory Overreach

January 10, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — The National Fisheries Institute, six major seafood companies, and two West Coast Associations sued the Obama Administration over the final US Rule regarding seafood import regulations in federal district court on Friday, Jan 6th.

The six company plaintiffs are Alfa International, Fortune Fish & Gourmet, Handy Seafood, Pacific Seafood Group, Trident Seafoods, and Libby Hill Seafood Restaurants. Also the Pacific Seafood Processors Association and the West Coast Seafood Processors Association joined the lawsuit.

The Final rule was announced on December 9, 2016, and was the culmination of the regulations that were developed at the urging of the Presidential Task Force on Seafood Fraud.

The suit is unusual in that NFI was the leading advocate for action against seafood fraud over the past decade. However, NFI claims that the new rule is not based on a risk assessment with data about seafood fraud, but without evidence will impose enormous and unjustified costs on the American public and the seafood industry.

In a statement, John Connelly, President of NFI, said “The National Fisheries Institute (NFI) and our members have led industry efforts to combat both Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) fishing and seafood fraud for the last decade. NFI has supported most U.S. government efforts to eliminate illegal fishing and urged the government to do more to ensure accurate labeling.”

NFI began publicizing and working against seafood fraud more than a decade ago, focusing on the lack of any enforcement over seafood labeling regarding net weights and product integrity. At the time, US buyers were being flooded with offers for seafood with glaze (protective ice coatings) of 20% to 40% of the total weight of the product, leading to a hugely misleading price per lb.

Also NFI worked with the FDA and NOAA on better enforcement of seafood labeling, including attacking mislabeling of species in commerce. As a result of this pressure a number of states increased their enforcement of state labeling requirements on seafood.

Finally, NFI aggressively supported NOAA action against IUU fishing, including traceability requirements on species like toothfish, the signing of the UN Port State Measures Agreement, and the authority of NOAA to blacklist products from IUU vessels from entering the United States.

So why, after a decade of work, would NFI feel compelled to sue over the implementation of the Presidential Task Force rule, through NOAA, to combat seafood fraud.

The simple answer is that the Task Force refused to recognize the major ways in which fraud was already reduced, and would not accept a data driven approach to defining risk.

Instead, the Task force defined 13 species ‘at risk’ that were the target of enforcement under the act, without any verifiable documentation that seafood fraud was a significant problem with these species.

Connelly says in the rush to publish the rule, NOAA and the Obama administration refused to disclose the data used to craft it, and grossly miscalculated compliance costs. The Office of Management and Budget made a back of the envelope calculation under the Paperwork Reduction Act that the cost to the industry would be $6.475 million, based on about 30 minutes additional work on each container.

The industry thinks costs could exceed $100 million per year, with a total economic impact on the seafood sector of as much as $1 billion.

The reason is that there is a total mismatch between the requirements in the rule and the way in which seafood is actually harvested, collected, processed and imported.

Connelly says NOAA “grossly underestimates the cost and impact of the regulation on those companies doing the right thing, and will not solve the problem. NOAA’s fundamental shift from targeted investigation of the suspected guilty to arbitrary and massive data collection from the innocent creates an enormous economic burden on American companies.”

One of the most glaring examples of the overreach is that in the Task Force, there was wide praise for the EU rule on traceability that requires exporters to the EU to certify the vessels from which the products originated. But at the same time, the EU provides a wide exemption to countries that have sufficient internal fisheries management controls. So for example, neither Norway, Iceland, the US, or New Zealand, for example, are subject to this requirement.

But NOAA’s rule makes no exemptions for the lower risk of fraud from countries where enforcement and management is at the highest standard.

The rule would apply to ten species of fish and the five species of tuna, or 15 commodities altogether. The agency has deferred rule-making on shrimp and abalone.

The ten species are: Atlantic Cod, Pacific Cod, Blue Crab, Red King Crab, Mahi Mahi, Grouper, Red Snapper, Sea Cucumber, Shark, and Swordfish.

In addition, Albacore, Bigeye, Skipjack, Yellowfin and Bluefin tuna are included.

The complaint filed by NFI says:

“According to the Government’s own studies, most mislabeling occurs after seafood has entered the United States and even though many U.S. importers subject imported seafood to DNA testing to preclude fraud at the border. The Rule would accomplish its goals by requiring that fish imported into the United States be traceable to the boat or to a single collection point, time, and place that the fish was caught, and that this information be entered into a master computer program operated by the Government.

“The Rule, were it to go into effect, would remake the way in which seafood is caught, processed and imported around the World. These changes to food processing practices in every nation would reduce exports into the United States and would dramatically increase the cost of catching, processing and importing seafood. Fishermen, many of whom are subsistence workers operating in Third World Nations, would have to keep track of each fish harvested, as would the brokers who purchase the seafood from the fisherman, and processors who handle catches from hundreds of fishermen would have to be able to trace each piece of fish to a specific vessel and specific fishing events or to a single collection point. This would require significant changes in the way fish are processed overseas. It would also affect the way in which fish are processed in the United States, because these requirements would also apply to all domestically caught or farmed seafood covered by the Rule that are shipped outside the U.S. for processing and re-imported back into the United States.”

If implemented the rule will drive up seafood prices and reduce consumption, the exact opposite of the advice to consumers from government health agencies.

Alfa Seafood says “The Rule would require processors in Ecuador and Peru, where most of Alfa’s seafood originates, to change the way in which fishermen or brokers document their catches and the way in which processors actually process these catches, so that fish imported into the United States can be traced to a particular fishing event or to a single collection point. This will add hundreds of thousands of dollars to Alfa Seafood’s cost of importing fish, assuming that the processors abroad are willing to modify the way in which they process fish.

Handy says they already use DNA testing for all their imports to ensure accuracy. “If Handy’s processors modified their processing methods to segregate product by Aggregate Harvest Report and gathered the information required by the Rule, both the price of Blue Crab to Handy, as well as at retail, would increase by approximately 28%. The price of Grouper would increase by about 8% with a similar impact at retail.

Libby Hill restaurants says “The Department’s Rule would force Libby Hill to charge more for many popular seafood menu items, thus hurting its business and driving customers to less healthy fast-food options. Further, because of the very real possibility that certain species under the Rule may become less available in the U.S. market, Libby Hill may have to contend with supply interruption that will make it more difficult to attract return customers expecting to be able to rely on the same menu from visit to visit. Because return customers are essential in the fast-casual category of the restaurant industry, such uncertainty could have a debilitating impact on Libby Hill’s business.”

The rule would require the following to be entered for each seafood entry subject to the regulations:

a. Name of harvesting vessel(s).

b. Flag state of harvesting vessel(s).

c. Evidence of authorization of harvesting vessel(s).

d. Unique vessel identification(s) of harvesting vessel(s) (if available).

e. Type(s) of fishing gear used in harvesting product.

f. Names(s) of farm or aquaculture facility.

g. Species of fish (scientific name, acceptable name, AND an AFSIS number.

h. Product description(s).

i. Name of product(s).

j. Quantity and/or weight of the product(s).

k. Area(s) of wild-capture or aquaculture location.

l. Date(s) of harvest or trip(s).

m. Location of aquaculture facility [Not relevant to wild caught seafood].

n. Point(s) of first landing.

o. Date(s) of first landing.

p. Name of entity(ies) (processor, dealer, vessel) of first landing.

q. NMFS-issued IFTP number.

It would be a violation of Magnuson-Stevens to import any at-risk seafood without a valid IFTP number.

The rule would also reach into the US domestic industry, where currently no such reporting requirements exist, because any seafood exported from the US overseas for processing and re-imported into the US would be subject to the rule. So for example, this would change the entire reporting system for cod and salmon in Alaska.

The suit is being filed now, although the actual date of implementation is January, 2018.

The arguments are there are multiple ways in which this rule has violated the administrative procedures act:

There was no public sharing of the data on which the agency identified species at risk.
There is not a sufficient agency record to support the rule.
The final rule was rushed into being by a junior official, the Assistant Administrator For Fisheries, who is an employee of the Dept. of Commerce, not an ‘officer.’ There was no formal designation of authority to make the rule, and such designations are required to only go to “officers of the united states ” of the executive branch.
The agency does not have the legislative authority to ‘regulate seafood fraud’. That authority was given to the FDA, not NOAA.
The agency failed to do a regulatory flexibility analysis to see if the desired results could be achieved in a less costly and burdensome manner.
The agency failed to do an adequate cost benefits analysis.

The plaintiffs ask for a ruling that enjoins the effective date of the rule until the agency remedies the deficiencies that have been cited.

The plaintiffs ask the rule be declared invalid.

The plaintiffs ask the court to declare the Agency failed to do the required analysis under the regulatory flexibility act, and to enjoin the rule until such time as that is done.

The suit was filed on Friday in the federal district court in Washington, DC.

This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council: January/February 2017 Public Hearing & Scoping Meetings

January 4, 2016 — The following was released by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council:

The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council will hold a series of public hearing/scoping meetings and webinars between January 12 and February 8, 2017 to collect public input on proposed management measures for yellowtail snapper, red snapper options and more.

For details on meeting locations, webinar registration, amendment documents/presentations, and instructions on how to submit written comments, visit the Council’s website:

Public Hearing & Scoping Meetings

Mislabeled Seafood May Be More Sustainable

November 8, 2016 — With seafood, what you see is not always what you get.

It’s no secret that mislabeling is rampant around the world. Recent studies estimate up to 30 percent of seafood served in restaurants and sold in supermarkets is actually something other than what is listed on the menu or label.

Why mislabeling happens is a little squishier. Fraud, human error or marketing ploys — combined with an often multicountry traverse from boat to restaurant — make it possible you are eating a different fish than what’s on the menu.

A University of Washington study is the first to broadly examine the ecological and financial impacts of seafood mislabeling. The paper, published online Nov. 2 in Conservation Letters, finds that in most cases, mislabeling actually leads people to eat more sustainably, because the substituted fish is often more plentiful and of a better conservation status than the fish on the label.

“One of the motivations and hopes for this study is that we can help inform people who are trying to exert their consumer power to shift seafood markets toward carrying more sustainable options,” said co-author Christine Stawitz, a UW doctoral student in the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences and the Quantitative Ecology and Resource Management program.

Read the full story at the University of Washington

LOUISIANA: Coastal Conservation Association head blasts Wildlife & Fisheries secretary in email

November 3, 2016 — The head of Louisiana’s largest recreational-fishing advocacy group sent his members Wednesday a stinging rebuke of the secretary of the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries over his support of the current structure of red snapper management in the Gulf of Mexico.

Coastal Conservation Association Executive Director David Cresson said in the emailed message that at the most recent meeting of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, held the week of Oct. 17 in Biloxi, Miss., regulators discussed dropping the recreational season in federal waters next year to only one day.

The 2016 season was initially set at nine days but was extended to 11 days due to widespread bad weather during the short season.

In the missive, Cresson laid some of the blame at the feet of department Secretary Charlie Melancon, who has stated publicly his support for the Gulf Council and expressed strong opposition to HR 3094, a bill working its way through Congress that would transfer management authority to the five Gulf states.

“Inexplicably, Secretary Melancon supports this system,” Cresson wrote. “He even said at the July meeting of the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission that ‘the Gulf Council saved the red snapper.’

“Secretary Melancon is mistaken.”

Read the full story at The Times-Picayune

NOAA: Red snapper data can’t be shared with states

October 12th, 2016 — A letter written late last month by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration indicates that if red snapper are ultimately removed from federal oversight to be managed by the five Gulf states, much of the data currently collected on the species by NOAA — including stock assessments — would not be shared with the states.

The letter dated Sept. 22 from Eileen Sobeck to Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Secretary Charlie Melancon contradicts what Rep. Garret Graves — the author of H.R. 3094 that would strip red snapper from federal oversight and award it to the Gulf States Red Snapper Management Authority — has said about how potential costs associated with stock assessments and data collection for snapper will be covered if his legislation becomes law.

Requests for telephone interviews to discuss details of the NOAA letter with Melancon were denied.

But Graves said the letter is just another in a long list of allegations brought by the LDWF in an attempt to derail the bill.

“The reality is this: NOAA is going to go out there and do fish surveys, and they don’t have any idea what type of fish is going to come up in that net or on that long line, so for them to suggest that they’re going to pretend that some fish isn’t there and another fish is there is completely bogus,” Graves said. “And if NOAA is going to jump in and play these political games with Charlie (Melancon), have at it. Y’all enjoy your next two and a half months of playing games because y’all are gone. It’s just continued silliness and obviously has no merit.”

Read the full story at Louisiana Sportsman

EDF on AL.com Article: We’re Proud of Our Work to Reform Fisheries

October 7, 2016 — The following was released by the Environmental Defense Fund in response to an earlier article published at Al.com:

A lengthy article published this week on AL.com seriously misrepresents the work of Environmental Defense Fund to advance fishery management reforms. Matt Tinning, Senior Director U.S. Oceans Program, released the following response:

“For the second time this year, AL.com has published a sloppy, inaccurate and inflammatory opinion piece about U.S. fisheries masquerading as investigative reporting. The writer’s primary focus is the Gulf of Mexico.

“AL.com, which gave EDF no opportunity to respond to many of the allegations leveled in their article, is failing its readers by presenting a distorted and factually-flawed picture of how Gulf fisheries are managed.

“Fisheries management is complex, and every decision involves difficult trade-offs based on a web of competing considerations about sustainability, access and societal impacts. In the Gulf of Mexico, EDF has worked with commercial fishermen, seafood buyers, recreational anglers, and government authorities for the last 15 years to help navigate these complex issues. We’ve done so with the singular focus of overcoming the profound management failures of the past and restoring fisheries to health for the benefit of the Gulf of Mexico’s coastal communities now and for future generations.

“We’re incredibly proud of what we’ve helped achieve. When we started, fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico were stuck under failing management that had perpetuated overfishing and reduced the population of Gulf red snapper to four percent of its historic level. Commercial fishermen worked in a derby fishery that forced them to fish in ever-shorter seasons. They often had to fish in dangerous weather and could not develop regular markets with buyers who needed more even supply.

“The new commercial management system known as an individual fishing quota (IFQ), which went on the water in 2007, has transformed the fishery. The initial allocation of quota was based on catch history, and a six percent consolidation cap was included to prevent concentration of quota in the hands of any one participant. The AL.com piece presents faulty numbers to make the false claim that some participants own much higher percentages. EDF believes that well designed fisheries management systems can prevent concentration. The claim that we favor ‘privatization’ of the resource is preposterous.

“Today, revenues for fishermen have doubled and the population of red snapper has tripled. In contrast with the pre-IFQ system, new entrants join the fishery every year, and many commercial fishermen are leading the way on innovations making the fishery even more sustainable. Restaurants, groceries stores and other seafood buyers are strong supporters of the commercial IFQ because it allows them to provide delicious, sustainable and local seafood (which they often struggled to obtain before 2007) to millions of customers.

“The Gulf of Mexico’s recreational anglers – many of whom had simply stopped targeting red snapper before 2007 because population decline had made them so hard to find – have seen their total allowable catch more than double. However, in contrast with commercial fishermen, they remain stuck under a failing management system that uses crude and outdated tools such as season limits. Many anglers are working to find better approaches. By using modern technologies like real-time tablet reporting to count every fish that they catch, headboats and charter captains can avoid the crippling economic consequences of short seasons and fish when customer demand is high.

“We’re proud to support these vital coastal small-businesses in their efforts to reform a failing system. And as private anglers consider what lessons they can learn from other wildlife management contexts (such as the rules embraced by hunters and freshwater fishermen) as an alternative to frustratingly short recreational seasons, we stand ready to assist.

“We look forward to being given space on AL.com’s website soon to respond in detail. Until then, we’ll proudly continue our work in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere to improve the health of the oceans and the livelihoods of America’s fishermen.”

See the full post here

LOUISIANA: Charlie Melancon continues battle with Garret Graves’ bill

October 6, 2016 — Controversy continues to swirl around Charlie Melancon and his state agency’s position on regional management of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico.

The latest for Gov. John Bel Edwards’ appointed top man in the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries comes from a Sept. 15 letter Melancon penned to Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, the standing chairman of the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee.

In the missive, Melancon continued to decry HR 3094, a bill introduced by Rep. Garret Graves, R-Louisiana, that would hand recreational red snapper management in the Gulf of Mexico to the five Gulf states.

Melancon continued to state his objections to the bill, the same ones he and his staff offered in July, and continued to indicate that Bishop’s amendment passed with HR 3094 would put the onus of data collection on the states despite Bishop’s letter to the LDWF that his amendment did not indicate the states would have to assume the costs of data collection.

Read the full story at The Advocate

How a ‘rogue’ environmental group transformed American fisheries

October 5, 2016 — The following is excerpted from a story written by Ben Raines and originally published on AL.com. Mr. Raines is a 17-year veteran investigative reporter for Al.com specializing in Alabama’s natural systems. He wrote, narrated and coproduced ‘America’s Amazon’, a documentary about the Mobile River Basin. He is a Coast Guard licensed captain and leads tours in the Mobile-Tensaw Delta, to barrier islands and other remote spots:

“We always hear from them at the Council meetings,” said Bob Shipp, a former president and longtime member of the Council, which sets regulations for the commercial and recreational fisheries in the Gulf.

“They don’t explain how their groups are linked, but EDF and the fishermen with these non-profits are always on the same page.”

The intimate connection between EDF and the non-profits they helped start was on display on national television this year on the National Geographic TV show “Big Fish, Texas,” which starred Buddy Guindon and his family. On that show, the top EDF official in the Gulf was shown in a private meeting coaching Guindon on what to say moments before he spoke to the Texas Legislature.

“They pay for all of the travel, meals, everything for anyone who goes on one of these trips to Washington or the council meetings. They talk to the fishermen about what to say. And they tell the fishermen to just give them all their receipts and they’d cover everything,” said Wayne Warner, who was a founding member of the Shareholder’s Alliance but quit the first year because he disapproved of the environmental group’s involvement.

One of the nation’s largest environmental groups — bankrolled with $50 million from the heirs to the Walmart fortune — has spent millions of dollars pushing a wholesale change in how the U.S. manages its fisheries, an AL.com investigation reveals.

Critics blame the Environmental Defense Fund effort for hurting fishing communities on every coast, from Kake, Alaska, and Gloucester, Mass., to Bayou La Batre, Alabama.

But catch share systems are also blamed for knocking thousands of fishermen out of the industry, usually because of inequities in how the shares were originally distributed by the government.

In the Gulf of Mexico’s red snapper fishery for instance, some fishermen were granted the right to catch six percent of the annual harvest, worth millions of dollars a year, while others were granted as little as 0.006 percent of the harvest, or a few hundred pounds a year, meaning they could no longer earn a living from fishing.

Because all other fishermen are locked out of the fishery unless they buy or lease catch shares, critics say the system has turned those who were granted the largest portion of the harvest into Sea Lords who lease the right to fish to those who received the least. Many of these lords are able to earn millions of dollars a year without ever leaving the dock, simply by bartering the right to fish. The Sea Lord problem has affected fisheries all over the country, creating haves and have-nots when it comes to the basic right to fish, and forcing hundreds of crews out of the industry.

EDF gained unprecedented access to the levers of power in 2008 when President Obama appointed the vice-chair of EDF’s board – Jane Lubchenco — as the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which manages the nation’s fish stocks. Once in power, Lubchenco, a respected but little known fisheries professor at Oregon State University, enacted a national catch share policy that mirrored EDF’s longtime goals.

As Lubchenco pushed for catch shares from the top, EDF staff members simultaneously organized and funded the creation of several non-profit activist groups made up of small numbers of commercial fishermen on the Gulf and Atlantic coasts. Critics say the move was intended to create the impression of grass roots support for catch shares that didn’t actually exist.

The leadership of these non-profits often consists of the fishermen who control the largest portion of a given fishery, who are also the folks who benefitted most from the switch to catch shares.

“They work hard to make the public and politicians believe they are representing the majority of charter for hire boats when in reality they represent maybe 200 of 1,300 federally permitted owners,” said Bob Zales, president of the National Association of Charterboat Operators. “Through EDF and their puppet associations such as the Charter Fishermen’s Association, there is much political lobbying and at least yearly, sometimes more often, trips to D.C. to garner support for catch shares in all fisheries, commercial, charter, and private recreational with stamps.”

“What you are seeing is a conservation group that has gone rogue… What EDF really wants is to privatize the entire resource,” said Daniel Pauly, a professor at the University of British Columbia and one of the world’s preeminent fisheries scientists. Pauly is responsible for developing the concept of keystone species in aquatic food webs and popularizing the notion that the world’s fish stocks are much worse off than most scientists believe. He disputes the EDF position that catch shares improve fisheries. Instead, he said, they cause “economic redistribution.”

“Everywhere you have a catch share, a small group of people end up controlling the fishery. We have in British Columbia, one person controls 50 percent of our fishery. This is what is happening in the Gulf,” Pauly said. “EDF has no business favoring the concentration of capital and ownership, but that is what it is doing.”

Indeed, one of the key benefits of switching to catch shares, according to Lubchenco’s national catch share policy, is “consolidation” of the fleet. In other words, when catch shares are put in place, the number of people in a fishery shrinks, often dramatically, as the larger harvesters buy up shares from the smaller fishing boats.

EDF officials describe such concentration as one of several “unintended consequences.” Others say it created an age of the sea lords and sharecroppers that began in earnest with Lubchenco’s appointment. Lubchenco, who left NOAA in 2013 and resumed her position on the EDF board, did not respond to requests for comment.

Lubchenco met fierce resistance in Massachusetts, when catch shares were enacted for the fisheries in the north Atlantic. John Kerry, then a senator, along with Gov. Deval Patrick and most of the state’s congressional delegation, bitterly opposed the introduction of catch shares, saying they would cost hundreds to thousands of jobs and devastate coastal communities.

“A lot of our fishermen have been put out of business or pushed to the brink,” because of catch shares, Kerry said at the time.

“Normally environmental groups and NGOs are for the little guy, but here, the EDF people are siding with the big guys, the corporate interests that want to own and privatize our fisheries,” Pauly said. “It makes EDF very strange in the world of environmental groups. But then they are being funded by Walmart.”

Pauly said the solution is to require the owner of shares in a fishery to actually captain the boat that is doing the fishing. In most U.S. catch shares, such as the red snapper IFQ, there is no such requirement. In fact, any U.S. citizen is allowed to buy, sell, or trade shares in the fishery, whether he or she has a boat, or has ever been fishing in their life.

Read the full story here

Council Approves Measures to Extend Atlantic Cobia Season; End Overfishing for Hogfish

September 19th, 2016 — The following was released by South Atlantic Fishery Management Council:

If approved by the Secretary of Commerce, new regulations will be implemented in 2017 for Atlantic cobia in federal waters offshore from Georgia to New York. The measures, approved by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council during their meeting this week in Myrtle Beach, SC, are designed to help extend the season for both recreational and commercial fishermen and help ensure consistent and stable fishing opportunities for the migratory stock. New regulations as proposed in Coastal Migratory Framework Amendment 4 would reduce the recreational bag limit from 2 fish to 1 fish per person per day, implement a vessel limit of 6 fish, and raise the recreational minimum size limit to 36” fork length. A commercial trip limit of 2 fish per person per day, with no more than 6 fish per vessel per day, whichever is more restrictive, would be established.

The recreational fishery for Atlantic cobia in federal waters closed on June 20, 2016. The closure occurred during the peak cobia season off the coasts of North Carolina and Virginia impacting both private anglers and charter captains targeting the popular species. The early closure for 2016 was required due to an overage of recreational annual catch limit of Atlantic cobia in 2015 and the accountability measure currently in place that requires a shortened season the subsequent year. Framework Amendment 4 would also modify the accountability measure.

“The Council considered numerous comments received during public hearings held in August, as well as comments received during a Q&A session held in May, public input during its June meeting, written comments, and comments from fishermen attending this week’s meeting,” said Council Chair Dr. Michelle Duval. “We heard from fishermen about the negative economic impacts of the Atlantic cobia closure, particularly off the coasts of North Carolina and Virginia. We’ve worked diligently, looking at various combinations of changes to bag limits, vessel limits and size limits, to help maximize fishing opportunities and to have new regulations in place in time for next year’s season,” said Dr. Duval. “A new Cobia sub-panel to the Council’s Mackerel Cobia Advisory Panel will allow for additional input and expertise from fishermen on cobia management issues as we move forward.” The Council is also working with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to develop a complementary plan to allow additional management flexibility. The majority of cobia landings occur in state waters off the northeast coast of North Carolina and Virginia. Both states implemented additional restrictions in harvest in state waters following the federal closure in June. The Atlantic cobia annual catch limit includes landings from both state and federal waters.

Hogfish

The Council also approved measures for hogfish in federal waters that would establish two separate management units, a Florida Keys/East Florida stock and a Georgia/North Carolina stock and implement new regulations through Snapper Grouper Amendment 37. Hogfish are primarily harvested off the coast of Florida and a popular target for both divers and hook-and-line fishermen. A recent stock assessment found the Florida Keys/East Florida stock overfished and undergoing overfishing. Measures proposed to end overfishing and rebuild the stock include substantial reductions in the annual catch limits and limits to harvest.

If approved by the Secretary of Commerce, the amendment would implement the following regulations for the Florida Keys/East Florida stock: 1) increase the minimum size limit from 12 inches fork length to 16 inches fork length for both commercial and recreational sectors; 2) decrease the recreational bag limit from 5 fish to 1 fish per person per day; 3) establish an annual recreational fishing season from May through October; and specify a commercial trip limit of 25 pounds (there is currently no trip limit in federal waters).

New regulations proposed for the Georgia/North Carolina hogfish stock include increasing the minimum size limit to 17 inches fork length, establishing a recreational bag limit of 2 fish per person per day and a commercial trip limit of 500 pounds gutted weight (there are currently no bag limits or commercial trip limits for hogfish off the coasts of Georgia and the Carolinas).

Other Business

The Council also continued to develop management options to allow for limited harvest of red snapper. The fishery remains closed to harvest in federal waters in the South Atlantic. NOAA Fisheries estimated the total number of fish removed in 2015 exceeded the annual catch limit of 114,000 fish by more than double. The draft options paper includes the use of time/area closures to reduce bycatch and end overfishing along with several adaptive management measures. Options for the recreational fishery include a set fishing season with some combination of size and bag limits, designated fishing areas, a recreational stamp, and reporting requirements. Commercial options include closed seasons, new trip limits, size limits, and designated seasons. The Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee will provide recommendations following its October meeting for the Council to consider as it moves forward in developing the options paper for Snapper Grouper Amendment 43 during its December meeting. Public scoping is planned for January/February 2017.

The Council reviewed comments received during public scoping for the Dolphin/Yellowtail Snapper Allocation Amendment and removed an action that would have established annual catch limits by gear type for dolphin for the commercial sector and continued to modify options for sector allocations. The Council will review the revised document during its December meeting. The Council also continued discussions regarding limited entry for federally permitted for-hire vessels, noting public comments received during its Snapper Grouper Visioning process and historical recommendations from the Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel, and acknowledged differing opinions on the issue. A scoping document will be developed for review at the Council’s December meeting.

The next Council meeting is scheduled for December 5-9, 2016 at the Doubletree by Hilton, Atlantic Beach, North Carolina. Final committee reports and other materials from this week’s meeting are available from the Council’s website at http://safmc.net/Sept2016CouncilMeeting.

LOUISIANA: Embattled Melancon says governor supports his red snapper strategy

September 16, 2016 — Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Secretary Charlie Melancon called a full staff meeting Thursday, where he attempted to rally employees behind his leadership in the midst of ongoing challenges facing the agency.

“There’s some good news for some, and some bad news for others,” he told the crowd gathered at the department’s Baton Rouge headquarters. “The good news, for the majority, I believe, is I am here for the duration. Some people have exaggerated … my demise.

“For some, the bad news is I am here for the duration.”

Melancon has drawn heat in recent months, particularly from the recreational-fishing community, over his handling of red snapper management. The previous administration, headed by Secretary Robert Barham, pushed to transfer management authority of the popular reef fish to the five Gulf states, but Melancon has expressed his desire to maintain the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council’s control of the fish.

Read the full story at The Times-Picayune