Saving Seafood

  • Home
  • News
    • Alerts
    • Conservation & Environment
    • Council Actions
    • Economic Impact
    • Enforcement
    • International & Trade
    • Law
    • Management & Regulation
    • Regulations
    • Nutrition
    • Opinion
    • Other News
    • Safety
    • Science
    • State and Local
  • News by Region
    • New England
    • Mid-Atlantic
    • South Atlantic
    • Gulf of Mexico
    • Pacific
    • North Pacific
    • Western Pacific
  • About
    • Contact Us
    • Fishing Terms Glossary

Professor: Carlos Rafael’s actions did little to affect the ‘big picture’

September 20, 2017 — NEW BEDFORD, Mass. — A study by an SMAST professor shows that claims alleging Carlos Rafael’s actions created hysteria in the New England Fishery are exaggerated. The study by Dr. Brian Rothschild was filed in federal court on Monday, a week before Rafael is scheduled to be sentenced for falsifying fish quotas.

Rothschild said he doesn’t condone anything Rafael did, but in his study argues the data associated with the fishing tycoon’s criminal actions reveal a minimal effect on stock assessments.

In 54 pages entitled “The effect of under-reported catch (URC) on the New England Fishery and stock dynamics,” Rothschild used data agreed upon by the Department of Justice and Rafael’s attorneys, who funded the study.

“The thing that stood out the most was in terms of the big picture the amount of fish that both parties agreed to was relatively small,” Rothschild told the Standard-Times. “I put no value judgement on that. That’s for others to do.”

In the study, Rothschild stated, “The URCs were so small relative to common-sense benchmarks, that they could hardly be noticed in either the abundance of fish in the ocean or in stock assessments.”

Among the dozens who’ve spoken out since Rafael pleaded guilty in March, including Gov. Charlie Baker, Mayor Jon Mitchell, the Maine Congressional delegation and other organizations, Rothschild is the first to present data minimizing the effects of Rafael.

“I think that it’s a very contentious issue. When you look at the data, it comes out different than what most people perceive,” Rothschild said. “At the end of the day, it’s the science that really counts.”

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times

Recent Headlines

  • Ocean Indicators We’re Tracking for El Niño’s Arrival on the West Coast
  • eDNA could play a bigger role in stock assessments
  • CALIFORNIA: El Niño bringing changes to Northern California ocean conditions and marine life
  • US Court Says Gulf of Mexico Fishery Council Has Too Much Power, but Overfishing Rule Can Stand
  • Western Pacific Scientists to Review Fishing Rules and Bottomfish Catch
  • US appeals court rejects challenge to turtle excluder device requirements in Louisiana
  • ALASKA: Seagrant launches Alaska Oyster Voyage interactive map and logging tool to encourage oyster consumption
  • Seafood Task Force launches first-of-its-kind tuna vessel monitoring program

Most Popular Topics

Alaska Aquaculture ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission BOEM California China Climate change Coronavirus COVID-19 Donald Trump groundfish Gulf of Maine Gulf of Mexico Hawaii IUU fishing Lobster Maine Massachusetts Mid-Atlantic National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NEFMC New Bedford New England New England Fishery Management Council New Jersey New York NMFS NOAA NOAA Fisheries North Atlantic right whales North Carolina North Pacific offshore energy Offshore wind Pacific right whales Salmon South Atlantic Virginia Western Pacific Whales wind energy Wind Farms
Tweets by @savingseafood

Copyright © 2026 Saving Seafood · WordPress Web Design by Jessee Productions