Saving Seafood

New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell Voices Coalition Concern Over Marine Monuments at House Hearing

WASHINGTON – March 15, 2017 – The following was released by the National Coalition for Fishing Communities:

Today, New Bedford, Mass. Mayor Jon Mitchell delivered written testimony to the House Natural Resources Committee on behalf of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities. His testimony expressed serious concerns about the impacts of marine monuments, designated using executive authority under the Antiquities Act, on fishermen and coastal communities.

Mayor Mitchell had planned to testify in person before the Subcommittee on Water, Power, and Oceans as a representative of the NCFC, but was unable to attend the hearing in Washington due to snow and severe weather conditions in the Northeast.

In his testimony, Mayor Mitchell questioned both the “poorly conceived terms of particular monument designations,” as well as “more fundamental concerns with the process itself.” Mayor Mitchell also delivered a letter to the committee signed by eleven NCFC member organizations further detailing their concerns with the monument process and how fishing communities across the country are affected by monument designations.

The letter was signed by the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association, the California Wetfish Producers Association, the Fisheries Survival Fund, the Garden State Seafood Association, the Hawaii Longline Association, the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition, the North Carolina Fisheries Association, the Southeastern Fisheries Association, the West Coast Seafood Processors Association, and the Western Fishboat Owners Association.

In addition, three NCFC member organizations, the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association, the Hawaii Longline Association, and the North Carolina Fisheries Association submitted individual letters outlining in further detail their opposition to marine monuments.

Mayor Mitchell was also critical of the monument designation process, by which a president can close off any federal lands or waters on a permanent basis using executive authority under the Antiquities Act. He instead praised the Fishery Management Council process created by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which he said affords greater opportunities for input from stakeholders, scientists, and the public.

“The monument designation process has evolved effectively into a parallel, much less robust fishery management apparatus that has been conducted entirely independent of the tried and true Fishery Management Council process,” Mayor Mitchell said. “It lacks sufficient amounts of all the ingredients that good policy-making requires: Scientific rigor, direct industry input, transparency, and a deliberate pace that allows adequate time and space for review.”

Mayor Mitchell used his testimony to call attention to issues affecting fishing communities across the country, including New England fishermen harmed by the recently designated Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, and Hawaii fishermen harmed by the expansion of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument. He also expressed the concerns of fishermen in Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Pacific waters in dealing with the monument process.

Mayor Mitchell concluded by calling on Congress to integrate the executive branch’s monument authority with the established processes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ensuring that the long-term interests of all stakeholders are accounted for.

“This Congress has an important opportunity to restore the centrality of Magnuson’s Fishery Management Councils to their rightful place as the critical arbiters of fisheries management matters,” Mayor Mitchell said. “Doing so would give fishing communities much more confidence in the way our nation approaches fisheries management. And it could give the marine monument designation process the credibility and acceptance that it regrettably lacks today.”

The mayor spoke at the hearing on behalf of the NCFC. The city of New Bedford, as Mayor Mitchell stated in his testimony, was instrumental in the founding of the Coalition, providing an initial seed grant for its creation.

Read Mayor Mitchell’s full testimony here

Read the NCFC letter here

Read the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association letter here

Read the Hawaii Longline Association letter here

Read the North Carolina Fisheries Association letter here

SOUTHEASTERN FISHERIES ASSOCIATION: Eat More Sustainable Seafood for Health and Taste Benefits

January 20, 2017 — The following was released by the Southeastern Fisheries Association (SFA):

SFA President Peter Jarvis Says: “Eat More Sustainable Seafood for Health and Taste Benefits”

WASHINGTON — Soon after he’s sworn in as the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump will dine on Maine lobster, Gulf shrimp, and Seven Hills Angus beef, to name a few dishes.

These foods are all on the menu for the inaugural luncheon, a long-standing tradition in which the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies hosts a meal for the president and vice president at the Capitol following the inaugural address.

The committee organized its first luncheon in 1953, when lawmakers welcomed President Dwight Eisenhower for creamed chicken, baked ham and potato puffs in the Capitol’s Old Senate Chamber.

Dishes, consumed between toasts, gift presentations and speeches, often encompass foods from the home states of the new leaders, though Trump’s menu owes heavily to California, not his home state of New York or Vice President-elect Mike Pence’s state of Indiana.

President Barack Obama’s 2013 luncheon boasted a menu of steamed lobster, grilled bison and apple pie.

Trump’s, which will be held in the Statuary Hall, will feature three courses.

The first, Maine lobster and Gulf shrimp with saffron sauce and peanut crumble, will be accompanied by a J. Lohr 2013 Arroyo Vista Chardonnay.

The Gulf shrimp may be a tribute to Florida, where Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort is located and which the President-elect has called his “second home.”

Read the original story at CNN

Southeastern Fisheries Association: Keep Federal Management of Red Snapper

June 14, 2016 — The following opinion piece was released by Southeastern Fisheries Association Executive Director Bob Jones, concerning H.R. 3094, the Gulf States Red Snapper Management Authority Act. The bill “amend[s] the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to transfer to States the authority to manage red snapper fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico.” The bill will be subject to full committee markup by the House Natural Resources Committee tomorrow, June 15:

HR 3094 will scuttle, by action and precedence, the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). We believe the MSA has done much to make US fishery resources sustainable.

Before there was a federal fishery management zone, commercial fishermen brought their issues before the state legislatures. They were assured fair hearings by legislative committees. Then some state fish commissions, in Florida for example, assumed the management without legislative oversight. The Florida Marine Fisheries Commission did come under the Governor and SIX elected Cabinet Officers for a few years where fishery issues were fully discussed. Then an autonomous Florida Fish & Wildlife Commission was established so the commercial fishermen came under a SEVEN person group. In Florida we started out under a 160 member legislature, then down to a SEVEN member commission and now HR 3094 places us and a billion dollar seafood industry under the whims of THREE people with no federal oversight for managing federal resources. Is any other food producing industry subject to THREE unelected people in control of their livelihood?

When the MSA was enacted it established management of Gulf red snapper under a SEVENTEEN person fisheries council composed of all state members except one. The council operates under a mandated set of National Standards. For the most part it operates under the rule of law.

HR 3094 changes the rule of law to the rule of man by creating a FIVE member authority with no elected official oversight. On a FIVE member authority THREE votes is a majority.

“(502 (a) (1) of HR 3094 (says:) Gulf States Red Snapper Management Authority that consists of the principal fisheries manager of each of the Gulf coastal States.“

“{c) (i) of HR 3094 (says:) any recommendation by the GSRSMA to reduce quota apportioned to the commercial sector by more than 10 percent shall be reviewed and approved by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council.”

This means the ‘Gulf States authority’ will reallocate 9.99% of the red snapper each year from the commercial harvesting sector to the anglers. This Texas/Louisiana CCA inspired ‘authority’ will allocate all the red snapper for themselves in about a decade. That is the true goal of this bill. 

HR 3094 was already killed when it was proposed as an amendment to the MSA legislation. It has “risen from the ashes” to once more attempt to reward the only fishing sector without accountability. 

HR 3094 needs to be killed just as it was at full committee earlier in the Congress.

View a PDF version here

East Coast Fishing Groups Unite in Opposition to Atlantic Monument

June 2, 2016 — The following was released by the National Coalition for Fishing Communities:

UPDATE: A previous version of this release mistakenly omitted a statement by the American Bluefin Tuna Association. Additionally, since the original release, the American Scallop Association has endorsed the ASMFC resolution. The release has been updated to reflect these changes.

WASHINGTON (NCFC) — The most valuable fishing port in the U.S. – New Bedford, Mass. – and eight major fishing groups from Florida to Massachusetts are backing an Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) resolution opposing current proposals for a monument off the coast of New England. The fisheries most likely to be affected by a National Monument designation inside the continental shelf, including the valuable red crab, swordfish, tuna, and offshore lobster fisheries, have all come out in support of the ASMFC resolution.

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT), Chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, is in New Bedford today, where he will hear from regional stakeholders about the negative effects a monument would have on commercial fisheries.

Multiple environmental groups have been pushing the Obama Administration to use executive authority under the Antiquities Act to designate an offshore monument in the Atlantic. Earlier this month, the ASMFC unanimously approved a resolution urging the Administration to forgo a monument designation and instead allow the current management process protecting ocean ecosystems to continue. If the President decides to create a monument, the ASMFC resolution asks that it be seaward of the continental shelf, only prohibit bottom tending fishing, and that any plan be available for public review before it is implemented.

In a letter to the White House, the American Bluefin Tuna Association (ABTA) expressed concern that a monument designation would eliminate all forms of fishing in the protected areas. “Given that our fishing gear has no negative impact on deep sea coral, a proposed prohibition on the fishing methods we employ would be arbitrary, completely unnecessary and would result in significant negative economic consequences,” ABTA wrote.

A monument declaration may have devastating economic impacts on New Bedford as well. The mayor of New Bedford, Jon Mitchell, has come out strongly against a monument and praised the ASMFC resolution in a statement, saying he “applauds the ASMFC for asking the White House not to establish a marine monument off the coast of New England.”

East Coast fishing groups that may also be severely impacted by a monument designation, including many members of the National Coalition for Fishing Communities (NCFC), are lending their strong support to the ASMFC resolution. One fishery that could suffer if it is prohibited from fishing in a monument area is the red crab fishery, valued at over $15 million.

“Rarely in the history of New England commercial fishing have we seen the entire industry and its regulatory bodies unite behind a single cause,” said the New England Red Crab Harvester’s Association in a statement. “Yet with its recent unanimous vote on the marine monument designation, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission joined industry leaders in sending a clear message to the Obama administration: the current monument process poses a serious threat to effective ocean management, and would have disastrous environmental and economic impacts.”

The Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF), which represents members of the Atlantic sea scallop fishery, supported the ASMFC resolution in a letter to the White House. FSF argued that a monument designation would contradict the President’s own Executive Order 13563, which states in part that regulations should be based on the best available science, involve public participation, and include coordination across agencies.

“Public areas and public resources should be managed in an open and transparent manner, not an imperial stroke of the pen,” FSF wrote.

Other groups that have publicly supported the ASMFC plan are the Garden State Seafood Association, Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, Southeastern Fisheries Association, North Carolina Fisheries Association, and American Scallop Association. All of these groups are members of NCFC, which provides a unified voice for fishing groups and businesses. Similarly, the Blue Water Fishermen’s Association, which is not an NCFC member, wrote to the White House opposing an Atlantic Monument.

Southeastern Fisheries Association Statement on ASMFC Marine Monument Policy

May 11, 2016 — The following statement was released by Bob Jones, Executive Director of the Southeastern Fisheries Association, following the passage of the ASMFC motion calling for the president not to declare a marine monument in the Atlantic Ocean:

“The Southeastern Fisheries Association supports the ASMFC Resolution in support of continuing the current New England Fishery Management Council’s coral management process. We respectfully oppose a Presidential Proclamation designating a deep water marine monument. It is unnecessary and would have a negative impact on the nation’s ability to produce seafood on a sustainable basis.

Please allow the Magnuson Act to address these fishing issues.”

###

SFA’s mission is to defend, protect and enhance the commercial fishing industry in the southeastern United States for present participants as well as future generations through all legal means while maintaining healthy and sustainable stocks of fish.

BOB JONES: A Culture Worth Saving

Greetings:

The Catholic Church published an encyclical on June 18, 2015 by Pope Francis on the Environment of the world. It is called, “Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home”.

There are 85 million Catholics in North America and 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide.  Section 145 of Laudato Si contains a short paragraph, but it applies to all our coastal communities that have ever felt the pain of the local fishermen being banned from earning a living from the water.
The paragraph reads:

“Many intensive forms of environmental exploitation and degradation not only exhaust the resources
which provide local communities with their livelihood, but also undo the social structures which, for a long time,
shaped cultural identity and their sense of the meaning of life and community. The disappearance of a culture
can be just as serious, or even    more serious, than the disappearance of a species of plant or animal.
The imposition of a dominant lifestyle linked to a single form of production can be just as harmful as the altering of ecosystems.”

Most of us totally concur with Pope Francis that banning a sustainable harvest of fish by professional fishermen in favor of increasing sport fishing, is as harmful as altering the ecosystems.

Pope Francis has no authority over “Who Gets the Fish,” but once again The Big Fisherman is speaking out on behalf of people who labor at any level of the seafood industry. I have always been proud that, according to most Bibles, the first four Apostles were commercial net fishermen.

How many fishermen and fishing communities have been harmed by the South Atlantic federal fisheries management council that allocated 73% of the finfish to anglers and 27% to the commercial fishermen who provide seafood for those who do not want a boat or who cannot afford the time and luxury to own a boat?

The fish are for all of us.

Bob Jones
Southeastern Fisheries Association

Reps. Walter Jones, Patrick Murphy ‘Ask for Answers’ on Red Snapper

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — December 3, 2015 — Last week, Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC) and Congressman Patrick Murphy (D-FL) wrote to Dr. Roy Crabtree, Regional Administrator of NOAA’s Southeast Regional Office, requesting the Agency explain its decision to close the commercial and recreational red snapper fisheries for 2015.

The Congressmen question the data used by the Agency to close the red snapper fishery, noting that NOAA’s estimate for red snapper landings in an abbreviated 2014 fishing season was “nearly 3 times the estimate for a full fishing year in 2013; and similar to the average annual catch estimate for the period 1992 to 2009 when fishing occurred year-round.”

The letter raised several questions about the quality of scientific data available for fish stocks in the South Atlantic. It asked why the Agency has not conducted a stock assessment for red snapper since 2010, and why, despite the “controversial closure” of the fishery following that assessment, no follow-up has yet been conducted. Among other data issues, the letter also inquired on why most stocks in the South Atlantic are considered to be “data-poor,” and why requests for cooperative research with the regional fishing industry “have largely fallen on deaf ears.”

The Congressmen’s letter, and its requests for answers regarding the quality of scientific data on red snapper, was praised by regional fishery advocates.

“We are very pleased that Congressmen Jones and Murphy wrote the letter to Dr. Crabtree,” said Jerry Schill, President of the North Carolina Fisheries Association. “While their words address a huge concern with the red snapper fishery, it highlights the much larger issue of science in all of fisheries management. Industry knows the importance of basing fishery management decisions on science; however, with the lack of confidence in regulatory agencies to provide adequate science, including stock assessments, we are constantly faced with draconian measures due to these uncertainties. The negative effects are on fishermen and their communities. The cause, however, lies with the failure of the regulators to do their part, which is to provide adequate science and stock assessments.”

Bob Jones, Executive Director of the Southeastern Fisheries Association, was similarly positive about the letter.

“Congressmen Walter Jones Jr. and Patrick Murphy have been steadfast in their efforts to protect fisheries in Florida, North Carolina, and the entire Southeast for all users. They have worked to make certain the seafood industry is treated with respect and equity, and we are proud to support their efforts here.”

Read the letter to Regional Administrator Crabtree here

Read a release from Congressman Walter Jones regarding the letter here

Southeastern Fisheries Association Criticizes New Asset Forfeiture Fund policy

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) – August 14, 2015 — On August 9, 2015, Bob Jones, Executive Director of the Southeastern Fisheries Association, wrote to the National Marine Fisheries Service urging the agency to reexamine its updated Asset Forfeiture Fund (AFF) policy. The letter questioned the transparency and the effectiveness of the new policy, which outlines how the AFF may be used to fund NOAA Office of Law Enforcement activities.

The policy, which went into effect July 15, 2015, is intended to “establish a stringent policy for effective oversight of the AFF that will ensure no conflict of interest – real or perceived.” However, in his letter Mr. Jones calls into question whether NOAA will be able to effectively implement this new policy.

According to the letter, one of the main issues with the policy is that expected revenue from the AFF is included in NOAA’s annual budget. The letter notes “OLE must raise its own AFF money from the fishermen for all the approved activities listed in your memo,” a situation it likens to small town “speed traps” that invite abuse. It recommends that, as a transparency measure, AFF revenue collection – along with information such as transactions, violations, vessel names, and who paid for fines – should be posted on NOAA’s website.

The letter concludes by recommending that the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement refrain from implementing the new AFF policy until it has been further advertised and discussed with members of the fishing industry, and their concerns are addressed.

The full letter is reproduced below:

Dear Mr. Doremus:

We have studied your Memorandum for the Office of Law Enforcement, NMFS-Enforcement Section; Office of General Council dated July 15, 2015, (attached).  Our industry would like to know how NOAA is going to keep the Asset Forfeiture Fund (AFF) totally transparent and not become the same quagmire we lived under a few short years ago.

From our experience, the only way this revenue collection scheme can work, is for every transaction to be posted to a NOAA website, so everyone can review; what was the fishery violation, what was the vessel name and home port, how much was the fine, who paid the fine, a copy of every check written to and from the AFF fund and an annual audit posted to the NOAA website. Please hear us out on this vital issue before rejecting it at NOAA headquarters.

Your memo is strongly worded. It says NOAA’s goal is “to establish a stringent policy for effective oversight of the AFF that will assure no conflict of interest – real or perceived – associated with the use” of the money. We believe NOAA’s memorandum forces its law enforcement officers to fund the AFF activities through fines primarily placed on the commercial fishermen. What is NOAA’s stringent oversight policy and how will we know you are doing what you said you would do?

The memorandum says that “NOAA has identified and accounted for the AFF in its annual budget”. Please tell us how much money has been budgeted from fines on fishermen during the upcoming fiscal years? If the budget calculates a specific amount of fine income, anyone can logically surmise that NOAA law enforcement officers have to get in the field and hustle-up that amount of money or there will be a shortfall. This greatly concerns us. The OLE must raise its own AFF money from the fishermen for all the approved activities listed in your memo. This is similar to small towns depending on driving fines to fund their city needs. It reminds us of “speed traps”. Such a system to fund a government entity usually turns out bad in the long run.

We have discussed with state and federal law enforcement officials our observation that commercial fishing vessels are stopped, boarded and fined – sometimes very heavily – while thousands of angler violations are ignored. Illegal fishing by anglers occurs in every coastal county.  That is a well-known fact. Backdoor sales of illegally harvested fish occur daily throughout the Gulf of Mexico. This is no secret. Whenever adequate law enforcement is assigned to this black-market sale of fish, arrests are made and poachers are identified. Unfortunately, in many cases where illegal harvesting happened in federal waters, the anglers were handed over to state officers to be cited and fined under state regulations which are much more lenient.

We are aware federal prosecutors have full dockets. They don’t seem to have time to enforce the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) fishery regulations on anglers the same way they are enforced on professional fishermen. We understand the reluctance to pursue a fish violation by a sport fisherman because he/she might only have a dozen red snapper and that causes too much trouble for the federal dockets. But our knowing how full the federal dockets are doesn’t change our observation and concern that the MSA is enforced differently on anglers than commercial fishermen. The law enforcement system currently in place is more lenient for anglers.  Such a dual system of enforcement does not comply with the rule of law in our opinion.

We have met with state and federal law enforcement officers practically begging them to at least issue and enforce Summary Settlements. Do not just watch an angler’s boat come in from offshore with big red snappers that everyone knows were caught in deeper federal waters.

We respectfully request NOAA – OLE not implement the AFF program described in your memorandum until it has been further advertised and discussed. We further request an informal meeting with you or your designee at the St. Petersburg Regional Office to discuss the AFF program? We would be honored if Mr. Jim Landon could be with you. I have heard nothing but good things about him. Semper fi.

Respectfully,

Bob Jones, Executive Director

Southeastern Fisheries Association

Read NOAA’s Asset Forfeiture Fund Policy here