Saving Seafood

Saving Seafood Announces the National Coalition of Fishing Communities

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — November 16, 2015 — The National Coalition of Fishing Communities (NCFC) has been organized to meet the challenges of modern communication for the commercial fishing industry and related business and civic communities. NCFC is a unique partnership of seafood interests, dedicated to transmitting the voices of fishermen and their communities. NCFC will ensure that fisheries managers, scientists, academics and elected officials understand the positions of our members, and address their concerns. We will accomplish this through dialogue, education and outreach.

“This is a very exciting time for us,” says Sarah Garcia, former Harbor Planning Director of Gloucester, Massachusetts and the Director of Outreach and Membership for NCFC. “The strength and diversity of NCFC can make a big impact in the way fishing communities deliver their message in Washington.”

The Coalition will formally launch during the next U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting, to be held in Washington, DC on January 19, 2016, and is currently engaged in a membership drive. Already, over 60 members have signed up, drawn from America’s top commercial fishing ports, leading fishing businesses, and regional associations.

Saving Seafood will provide the communication and media relations in numerous forms and venues, creating the opportunity for our messages to be received. Too often, misleading information about the industry makes its way into print, and the media hear only one side of the story. The NCFC allows its members to make their positions clear, and deliver their messages to a wider audience of media, policymakers, and likeminded industry members. 

“Five years ago, Saving Seafood began as a trade news and information organization, aimed at telling the truth about our industry,” said Greg DiDomenico, Executive Director of New Jersey’s Garden State Seafood Association. “They have proven to be capable of helping the industry, and can assist locally, nationally, and globally”

The Coalition is made up of different types of communities. In addition to municipalities with economic, social, and cultural ties to the fishing industry, NCFC includes associations who represent and are supported directly by working commercial fishing families; businesses who are involved in the harvesting, processing, distributing, marketing, and serving of seafood; and individuals in fishing communities across the country who see first-hand the necessity of local knowledge informing policy.

“America’s fishing communities and seafood industry have been maligned by special interest groups working in collusion, who have slandered hard-working Americans with outrageous claims and misrepresentations,” says Saving Seafood Executive Director Bob Vanasse. “We’re aiming to bring the entire supply chain of fishermen, shoreside businesses, processors, markets, and restaurants together to join this effort to move the national conversation in a positive direction.” 

Members can join at the NCFC website, fisheriescoalition.org, and choose one of the three membership plans that best suits their needs, with plans for individuals, small business, and corporations starting at $10, $100, and $500 per month levels.

Members receive the NCFC’s newsletter, which contains the most up-to-date information on current events, and through the NCFC mailing list will be connected to a nation-wide effort to make sure their concerns are communicated to policymakers, media and the public, to bring a new perspective to important industry issues that have been overwhelmed by special interest campaigns. 

“An umbrella group like NCFC makes it easier for fishing organizations around the country to be vocally involved in the management process,” said Rod Moore of West Coast Seafood Processors Association in Portland, Oregon and a NCFC member. “The Coalition is a platform through which we can speak out about issues that are important to our members.”

Like Saving Seafood, NCFC is committed to the proper implementation of U.S. fisheries management law, which requires that regulators take into account “the social and economic needs of the States.” [Magnuson-Stevens Act (2)(b)(5), Public Law 101-627] 

NCFC is founded on the principles of integrating the needs of communities with the goals of conservation, utilizing the best available science, and connecting members of the national fishing community to each other. The Coalition will create a proper understanding of the struggles of our community, and articulate our message.

Join us now to be a part of the movement. Visit http://fisheriescoalition.org/join-us/ to support America’s fisheries and let your voice be heard.

Saving Seafood is a 501(c)(6) Washington, DC – based non-profit that conducts media and public outreach on behalf of fishing communities, and keeps the public informed on fisheries issues. Saving Seafood’s national reach and influence provides fishermen with a recognized voice in the nation’s capital to communicate their concerns and build public awareness of the industry’s priorities.

View a PDF of the release here 

House Natural Resources Committee Convenes Hearing to consider “The Potential Implications of Pending Marine National Monument Designations”

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — September 22, 2015 — The House Natural Resources Committee’s Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans will convene next Tuesday, September 29, to consider “The Potential Implications of Pending Marine National Monument Designations.” This hearing comes in the wake of a major campaign from environmental organizations seeking to enact a marine national monument off the coast of New England via direct Executive order from President Obama. While strongly supported by many environmentalists, the campaign has been sharply criticized by industry members and prominent elected officials as overstepping transparent, public management processes and existing protections for the areas in questions.

The hearing will begin at 10am EST in the Longworth House Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.

Read Saving Seafood’s analysis of this proposal here

Read the meeting notice from the House Natural Resources Committee

Read more about the hearing

New Bedford Standard-Times slams federal at-sea monitoring decision in dual opinion pieces

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — September 15, 2015 — This past week, the New Bedford Standard-Times ran two opinion pieces criticizing current federal policy that will require fishermen to directly pay for the costs of at-sea monitoring. The first, an op-ed by fishing boat owner Carlos Rafael, notes that many of the remaining fishermen will be unable to afford the cost of the program, which is expected to cost the fishery an estimated $2.64 million per year. This will cause many to leave the fishery entirely and lead to further consolidation of the fleet.

The second piece, from the Standard-Times’ editorial board, argues that the policy on at-sea monitors is the latest in a series of rules and regulations from the federal government that have distorted the seafood market and do not properly take into account the economic costs imposed on fishing communities. The editorial calls for environmental groups to fund further studies to more accurately estimate the health of regional fish populations.

Excerpts from both articles are reproduced below.

Carlos Rafael: White House should heed call
on burden of at-sea monitors

In a show of bipartisan cooperation that’s all too rare in today’s politics, Massachusetts’ Republican governor and all-Democratic congressional delegation united late last month to call upon the Obama administration to reverse a particularly egregious federal policy: the current plan by NOAA to require the fishing industry to pay the full cost for at-sea monitors for the groundfish fishery. Fishermen will now be required to hire monitors from an approved short list of for-profit companies. This policy will impose a significant burden on area fishermen, and poses a threat to the future of a fishery that is already reeling from a string of onerous federal regulations.

Thanks goes to Gov. Charlie Baker, Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, and all nine of our Massachusetts representatives in Congress for giving voice to what fishermen have been saying for years: Forcing fishermen to pay for the observers who monitor their catch will be a financially disastrous outcome for the fishery. As their joint letter notes, ther National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s own analysis of shifting the cost of monitors onto the industry finds that 60 percent of the fleet would be operating at a loss if required to pay for monitoring. In just the first year, the program would cost fishermen an estimated $2.64 million.

Yet NOAA does not seem to fully realize how seriously this policy puts the fishery at risk. The $2.64 million that NOAA expects the fishery to pay in monitoring costs is $2.64 million that fishermen simply don’t have. The fishery still has not recovered from years of declining quotas and a federally declared economic disaster in 2012. Imposing another unfunded mandate on the fishery will force many remaining fishermen to exit the industry altogether.

The agency at least needs to look into alternatives to reduce the exorbitant price tag for the at-sea monitoring program, as well as look at ways to make the program more cost-effective. A program that is too expensive for the fishery and which the federal government refuses to pay for is not sustainable in the long term.

Read the full opinion piece here

New Bedford Standard-Times: Environmental groups’
misguided spending on oceans

In a free market, fishermen are going to see a net filled with sanddab and move to another part of the ocean. They’ll judge whether it makes more sense to spend labor on discarding the bycatch or to land the fish at a loss while pursuing a more valuable species.

This minutia of the market shows how poorly devised is the current regime of management tools. Our confidence in what good data would say notwithstanding, we would not advocate wholesale changes to policy based on our certainty. We also know that the government is hardly going to be convinced to reallocate scarce funds to measure the vast, unseen worlds below the surface.

Therefore, we would call on the most powerful advocates for ocean health to put their hundreds of millions of dollars to the highest use, that is, to count the fish. Environmental groups that for two decades have solicited and spent half a billion dollars trying to restrict fishing under the narrative that the oceans are in crisis owe it to their benefactors to determine how accurate their claims are.

The lower fish landings we count at the dock can be blamed on overfishing, but it’s far more likely that the cause is the changing ocean environment. Let’s find out for sure. Let’s see if one environmental group has the integrity to actually improve fishery science by supporting good work like that being done at UMass Dartmouth’s School for Marine Science and Technology to improve the accuracy of stock assessments. Ironically, the environmental groups appear to have blamed fishermen and overlooked the true culprit of challenges in the fishery: climate change.

There is no indication that any stocks considered to have been “rebuilt” achieved that status as a result of regulations. Fish aren’t bouncing back, we would argue, they’re just swimming back. Environmental advocates have resources and leverage that could maintain sustainable fish stocks and fishing communities. It’s a shame that power is misdirected.

Congressman William Keating: Wrong to Bankrupt Fishermen Over Monitors

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — August 31, 2015 — The following op-ed was written by Congressman William R. Keating (D – MA), and originally appeared in the Boston Globe. Congressman Keating wrote to the Globe to denounce plans to shift the costs of at-sea monitoring entirely onto New England fishermen :

For centuries, Massachusetts’ fishermen have played a vital role in our coastal economy, providing our families with food and our communities with revenue. The last decade, in particular, has again demonstrated the grit and perseverance of this historic industry, with changes in regulations, decreasing stocks, and rising fuel costs.

A comprehensive monitoring program is an important tool for collecting essential catch information for managing fisheries. At the end of the day, it is the fishermen who will benefit most from robust and thriving fisheries. However, the majority of the industry is simply unable to cover the costs.

I have worked with my colleagues in Congress and Governor Baker to urge the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to continue to fund the observer program and not shift the burden onto the industry. In the meantime, as discussion continues over the use of Bin 3 groundfish disaster money as an interim solution, this option should not absolve NOAA of its responsibility to deal with this issue both in the short- and long-term.

There are long-term solutions to this problem, including investing in cost-effective alternatives such as the wide-scale adoption of the use of cutting-edge technologies that allow for electronic monitoring. In the meantime, NOAA must find a way to support this historic industry and not bankrupt it with bills that they cannot afford.

Read the opinion piece from Congressman William Keating online at the Boston Globe