Around 300 fishermen, dealers and at least one processor, gathered at the Whaling museum in New Bedford for a fisheries summit that is setting the direction how New England will move forward to address fisheries problems within NOAA.
The meeting was notable for the powerful unity of the basic message: NOAA has pushed the New England fishing industry too far by not responding to legitimate concerns about scientific methods and unwillingness to address economic issues central to Magnuson. As a result, the region is now committed to reforming Magnuson-Stevens and providing a clear Congressional mandate for the agency to live up the original intent of the law which was to sustain U. S. fisheries for the economic benefit of the nation
Fishermen said that the IG report vindicated their charges that they had been treated like criminals, and that their efforts to show scientists that data had to be erroneous were often rebuffed.
Some accused the fisheries service move to catch shares of ignoring the law that requires a LAPP program (Limited access privilege) to only be implemented through a referendum – which has not happened in New England.
Barney Frank likened NOAA to the 15th century vatican – rigidly holding on to the belief that the earth revolved around the Sun, despite increasing numbers of observations contradicting that. He said that 'it was hard to maintain theory of sun going around the earth, because the more they measured, the more they had it wrong, so they tried to amend the theory and after awhile they had a set of rules that were so complicated no one could follow them, and the whole edifice fell apart of its own weight because whole thing was flawed. That is where we are with magnuson. It is too rigid because we have tried to put certainty where it does not belong.'
One said that 'after each trip I would lie awake at night worried about what rule I might have violated'.
At the end of the day, Jimmy Ruhle, head of a national fishermen's organization, who fishes out of Wanchese, North Carolina, made the case that NOAA's trawl survey was useless, as they had no ability in the past to monitor how much their trawl was actually on the bottom. Doing comparative tows on skates (which are uniformly distributed across sandy bottom), Ruhle was able to catch 50 times the amount of the NOAA vessel, towing just one mile apart.
The broader seafood industry needs to pay attention and get behind this movement for flexibility. US fisheries laws call for a balance between sustainable fisheries development and the economic health of fishing communities. In New England, this balance has gotten way out of whack, and it is time for a restoration of common sense to fisheries policy.
This is not a battle between fishermen and environmentalists. It is a demand by the industry that environmentalists accept the legitimacy of controlled and regulated fishing, and recognize that maintaining such fisheries is in fact the law of the land.
SEAFOOD.COM NEWS – by John Sackton – March 9, 2010 – New Bedford – Around 300 fishermen, dealers and at least one processor, gathered at the Whaling museum in New Bedford for a fisheries summit that is setting the direction how New England will move forward to address fisheries problems within NOAA.
Headlining the meeting were Congressman Barney Frank, and Mass. Governor Deval Patrick. Also attending were representatives of eight New England Senators (Mass, Maine, NH and RI), the mayors of New Bedford and Gloucester, and numerous state reps and officials. Mayor Lang of New Bedford was one of the key organizers of the meeting.
Also attending were Eric Schwaab, new head of NMFS, and Pat Kurkul, the embattled New England regional director, as well as Mike Fogarty from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, and the Coast Guard.
John Bullard, former Mayor of New Bedford and also formerly director of NOAA's office of sustainable development moderated the entire event. Brian Rothschild, dean emeritus of U Mass school of fisheries, also provided perspective. Bud Walsh, who wrote the original national standards embodied in Magnuson, also participated on a panel.
The meeting was notable for the powerful unity of the basic message: NOAA has pushed the New England fishing industry too far by not responding to legitimate concerns about scientific methods and unwillingness to address economic issues central to Magnuson. As a result, the region is now committed to reforming Magnuson-Stevens and providing a clear Congressional mandate for the agency to live up the original intent of the law which was to sustain U. S. fisheries for the economic benefit of the nation.
The basic flavor of the meeting can be given by quoting some of the participants.
Ann-Margaret Ferrante (D-Gloucester) said 'Here is the one things I want to see- that the agency respects the fishing industry. (applause) 'Look at the IG's report – that report pains me, it shows better than anything else disrespect. People did not get data on catch history; people who hold permits, years later find they have no history and they no longer have a fishing opportunity. I hope we can find that day when there is respect; and that those who earn honest living are rewarded for that.'
She and others referred to the fact that poor record keeping, especially in smaller ports, meant many legitimate landings have gone unrecognized in determining catch histories.
Cong. Barney Frank said first, in a few weeks he was convening a bi-partisan congressional of both House and Senate members to discuss a package of amendments for the Magnuson act. The purpose is to do away with some of the rigid timelines for rebuilding stocks that have no scientific or rational basis, and to discuss mixed stock exemptions so that mixed stock species are considered separately from single stock fisheries.
Frank likened NOAA to the 15th century vatican – rigidly holding on to the belief that the earth revolved around the Sun, despite increasing numbers of observations contradicting that. He said that 'it was hard to maintain theory of sun going around the earth, because the more they measured, the more they had it wrong, so they tried to amend the theory and after awhile they had a set of rules that were so complicated no one could follow them, and the whole edifice fell apart of its own weight because whole thing was flawed. That is where we are with magnuson. It is too rigid because we have tried to put certainty where it does not belong.'
Both Frank, and Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick said NOAA was continuing to be unresponsive. Frank said that NOAA had not responded to his letter from last fall asking specific questions about US – Canada transboundary stocks; for a new analysis of closed areas; why pollock numbers were revised so drastically after two tows, and he said he has yet to see NOAA take the economic analysis sections of the Magnuson act seriously.
Patrick chided NOAA for not responding to his request last year for new technology to be used in fish stock surveys on the Atlantic coast. He said that the transition to sectors was a major change, and that it depended heavily on sound science, and that was where NOAA appeared weak in New England.
The heart of the meeting were three industry panels, followed by public comments.
The first panel, on catch shares and sectors, had Richie Canastra, owner of the New Bedford Seafood Display Auction, Vito Giacalone, director of Northeast Seafood Coalition, operator of about 60% to 70% of the groundfish sectors, Carlos Rafael, owner of 44 permits and the largest holder of scallop vessels in New Bedford, Frank Mirarchi, a small boat fisherman from Scituate, MA, Bud Walsh, an attorney with extensive experience in Magnuson, and Julie Wormser, New England director for the Ocean Program for EDF. Also added to the panel were Pat Kurkul, regional director of NMFS, and Paul Diodati, director of Mass. Div. of Marine Fisheries.
Kurkul spoke first, and although she provided a lot of specific details, did not take the opportunity to address the larger picture, which is that the agency's lack of knowledge is crippling implementation of sectors through unnecessarily low allocations, and threatening the ability of the New England fishing industry to continue in business.
Carlos Rafael said 50% of the people in the room would be out of business by August, due to low catch limits. However, during the meeting, it also came out that 50% of the permit holders have access to only 15% of the allocations, and the other 50% presumably has access to 85%. Rafael is in the later category, and he said he would survive.
Jimmy Odlin, a boat owner and council member from Portland Maine, although not on this panel, said he was at the meeting to defend the sector concept, and to argue that consolidation was happening anyway, and it needed to happen in a humane way.
Vito Giacalone got to the heart of one issue, that was subsequently debated by the audience. Some accused the fisheries service of ignoring the law that requires a LAPP program (Limited access privilege) to only be implemented through a referendum – which has not happened in New England.
Vito said that sector allocations were not LAPPs- there is no expectation that major changes in allocations will not be made in the future, either to protect communities, or through ownership caps, or re-constructing catch histories. As a result, any banker that would treat these allocations as a true catch privilege would be throwing his money away.
He said that the catch history allocations were functioning as 'currency' like days at sea, and that there is plenty of time for the council to revisit the allocation issues, as they are currently doing.
The public comments were uniformly about the manner in which the industry has seen consolidation already from 1100 vessels in 2000 to about 600 active today, and that fishermen simply don't trust NOAA fisheries surveys on the East Coast.
Fishermen said that the IG report vindicated their charges that they had been treated like criminals, and that their efforts to show scientists that data had to be erroneous were often rebuffed.
One said that 'after each trip I would lie awake at night worried about what rule I might have violated'.
The final straw that has ignited this whole movement was the cavalier way in which catch limits have been cut based on poor data or lack of data. Many repeated the charge that pollock TAC's were cut from 11,000 tons to 3500 tons on the basis of two questionable tows – and that rather than even average the data, the scientists just took the worst result and translated it into a 70% cut.
The owner of Foley fish got up and said how disruptive that was for companies trying to market New England fish. The science was so erratic that no buyer would trust the products would be available from year to year. Foley sells a lot of pollock to high end restaurants.
Fishermen also charged that NMFS was needlessly limiting yellowtail. Not only do the Canadians (which share the stock) have a much larger quota because they are not part of an arbitrary rebuilding time line, they also charged that even large yellow tail tows with observers on board were ignored by fisheries scientists.
Over and over again there was strong support for cooperative research, with fishermen saying that is the only way that NOAA scientists can improve their data, and expressing dismay at the underfunding.
At the end of the day, Jimmy Ruhle, head of a national fishermen's organization, who fishes out of Wanchese, North Carolina, made the case that NOAA's trawl survey was useless, as they had no ability in the past to monitor how much their trawl was actually on the bottom. Doing comparative tows on skates (which are uniformly distributed across sandy bottom), Ruhle was able to catch 50 times the amount of the NOAA vessel, towing just one mile apart.
This movement has grown tremendously from an angry demonstration in the parking lot at NOAA headquarters in Gloucester to a national demonstration, and now a powerful political coalition making the case that New England fisheries are in much better shape than NOAA is recognizing, and that under the law, they have to balance the economic and environmental goals of Magnuson.
The broader seafood industry needs to pay attention and get behind this movement for flexibility. US fisheries laws call for a balance between sustainable fisheries development and the economic health of fishing communities. In New England, this balance has gotten way out of whack, and it is time for a restoration of common sense to fisheries policy.
This is not a battle between fishermen and environmentalists. It is a demand by the industry that environmentalists accept the legitimacy of controlled and regulated fishing, and recognize that maintaining such fisheries is in fact the law of the land.
John Sackton, Editor And Publisher
Seafood.com News 1-781-861-1441
Email comments to jsackton@seafood.com