Heading into the holiday season, stories out of two of our nation’s top fishing ports – New Bedford and Gloucester – remind us that cooperation between regulators, scientists and fishermen is essential to cultivating sustainable and economically viable fisheries. WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) December 23, 2013 — Heading into the holiday season, a story and an editorial from two of our nation's top fishing ports – New Bedford and Gloucester, Massachusetts – underscore the need for cooperation and communication between regulators, lawmakers, scientists and fishermen, and make clear that only turning a new leaf in terms of cooperation and communication will allow the return to sustainable and economically viable conditions for all fisheries.
From Gloucester:
On December 21, the Gloucester Daily Times reported on a chance conversation between a Gloucester fisherman and a NOAA representative that led to mutual understanding. At a Gloucester middle school, long time fishermen Peter Ferrante gave a guest presentation about the fishing industry, in which he intended to be critical of NOAA. But after speaking with NOAA biologist Colleen Coogan, who was also presenting that day, Ferrante changed his mind. In a constructive conversation that took place before the lectures, Mr. Farrante and Ms. Coogan found some common ground.
The Times reported:
"Coogan, according to Ferrante, explained that NOAA, in its mission to manage the nation's fisheries, is beholden to higher powers and the mandates that spring from the letter of the laws that govern the nation's fishermen and fisheries. They are not, she told him, in business to hurt fishermen, that there is no solution to the current crisis without them."
Ms. Coogan correctly notes that there have been times when well-intentioned NOAA employees have had their hands tied by higher authorities. Of course, a more nuanced and detailed discussion of this subject would take note of the many times when when the issue has not been the letter of the law as written by Congress, but its interpretation by NOAA's legal counsel and administration appointees who have at times twisted and reinterpreted the clear intent of Congress. No one was a more outspoken critic on this point than former Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank. His amendment to the 2006 Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization — requiring a referendum among fishermen before the imposition of quotas — endured an agonizing reinterpretation by NOAA lawyers. NOAA's interpretation, which allowed the introduction of catch shares without a referendum, was upheld by the courts even in the face of an amicus brief from Mr. Frank, the congressional author of the provision.
When Saving Seafood and various news organizations have filed Freedom of Information Act requests in an attempt to understand and shed light on the reasoning of NOAA's general counsel, NOAA has hidden behind attorney-client privilege. While attorney-client priviege is a sacrosanct part of our legal system, these are not private lawyers paid by private clients. We question the degree to which government lawyers, interpreting government laws for government employees — who are charged with implementing government regulation upon the citizenry — should be able to hide their interpretations from the public whose tax dollars fund those government lawyers.
From New Bedford:
An editorial published in the New Bedford Standard-Times on December 22 addresses the need for better communication but on a wider scale. Dr. Brian Rothschild, the former and founding dean of the UMass Dartmouth School for Marine Science and Technology (SMAST) and president of the Center for Sustainable Fisheries, met with the Standard-Times editorial staff to discuss solutions for the laws to which Ms. Coogan referred, which are currently hurting fishermen.
The Standard-Times wrote:
"The New England groundfishery is a disaster. Conservationists know it, the federal government knows it, processors, shipyards and supply houses know it. And nobody knows it like fishermen do… What is needed is the best science, a more robust development of marine law and a rewritten Magnuson-Stevens Act."
These stories illustrate conversations that lawmakers, regulators, scientists, and fishermen need to have going forward.
We are in a time of transition — New England's historic fisheries are in flux and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the law presiding over fishery management, is undergoing rewriting and reauthorization. As the New Year approaches, we need all parties to resolve to increase cooperation, transparency, and open communication between regulators and the people they regulate.
We urge our readers to take a look at these two pieces from two of New Englands celebrated fishing ports.
Happy Holidays,
Saving Seafood
Read the stories:
Read the story "The fishing gap – school style" at the Gloucester Daily Times
Read the editorial "Complex fisheries need the best minds" at the New Bedford Standard-Times