Alerts

Video survey documents 32 percent, 77 million pound increase over 2012; sets stage for decade of strong scallop stocks 

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — August 7, 2014 — The following was released by the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth's School for Marine Science & Technology (SMAST):

UMass Dartmouth scientists announced this week that they have documented a major increase in the scallop population on Georges Bank, setting the stage for a decade of strong scallop stocks. The video-based survey, conducted from May to July 2014, indicated a 32 percent, 77 million pound increase in the scallop population over 2012. The overall stock biomass measured in scallop meat weight is estimated at 320 million pounds compared 243 million pounds observed two years ago. 
 
On Monday, UMass Dartmouth's School for Marine Science & Technology (SMAST) scallop video survey team, led by the Chair of SMAST's Department of Fisheries Oceanography Dr. Kevin D. E. Stokesbury, presented this year's results to the Fishermen's Steering Committee.
 
"The extraordinary news is the huge number of new recruits, small scallops less than three inches that will reach commercial size in the next few years," said Dr. Stokesbury. "The increase on Georges Bank is extremely large, 20 billion scallops mostly in the Nantucket Lightship and along the Southern flank, resulting in an overall resource of 26 billion scallops." 
 
On average there are eight billion scallops in the U.S. resource. In 2003, SMAST observed a large increase in the Mid-Atlantic, about 12 billion scallops, which increased the total stock to 16 billion scallops. These scallops were protected in the Elephant Trunk Closed Area created in 2004 and supported a large part of the fishery for the past 10 years.

"Large increases of this size in scallop populations seem to occur once every 10 years or so. These small scallops will need to be monitored closely, tracking their distribution and any mortality," said Dr. Stokesbury. "If protected and managed correctly these scallops could insure sustainable catches similar to those over the past 10 years for the next 10 years."
 
Total U.S. fleet revenues in 2012 were approximately $550 million. For the 13th year in a row, New Bedford, Massachusetts, had the highest-valued catch ($411 million), due in large part to the highly valued sea scallop fishery.
 
The fiscal year 2015 state budget contained $450,000 for SMAST fisheries research. The funding supported new technology developed by Dr. Stokesbury's research team to improve population estimates of groundfish and balance the economic and environmental factors associated with commercial fishing.
 
Click here to view video of Dr. Stokesbury's 2010 annual scallop survey.
 
Click here to view video of Dr. Stokesbury's latest groundfish survey.
 
The focus at SMAST is on interdisciplinary basic-to-applied marine science and the development of related innovative technologies. In addition to the scholarly marine science and technology communities, the SMAST mission also emphasizes interaction with regional industry, and government and non-governmental agencies on compelling regional marine-related issues and technological development.

 

Doctors abide by the Hippocratic Oath, where they pledge to "first, do no harm." It's a rule that applies equally well to fisheries managers, and something that the ASMFC should consider as it meets this week.

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — August 6, 2014 — The following opinion piece was submitted to Saving Seafood by Douglas B. Huntley, of the American Eel Sustainability Association (AESA):

Doctors abide by the Hippocratic Oath, where they pledge to "first, do no harm." It's a rule that applies equally well to fisheries managers, and something that the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) should consider as it meets this week and considers American Eel management options.
 
On the docket is Draft Addendum IV to the American Eel Fishery Management Plan, and along with it proposed new restrictions on the harvest of American Eels, which have the potential to limit the catch and restrict the growth of a fishery that has become the linchpin of a robust global eel market and a rare opportunity to improve the US trade balance. With the current status of the eel stock subject to uncertainty, and with the last round of eel regulations passed in Addendum III barely having had time to take effect, the Commission should act cautiously, and avoid overly harsh limits that may unnecessarily burden eel fishermen.
 
The measures before the Commission vary from maintaining the status quo, to deep cuts in harvest levels, to a complete closure of segments of the eel fishery. One of the biggest hurdles facing the Commission as it debates the appropriateness of these measures is that the scientific evidence does not indicate with any certainty that American eels are being overfished. As a result, it's unclear whether additional fishing conservation measures are needed. The most recent ASMFC assessment, released in 2012, concluded that eels were "depleted" relative to their historical averages, but stopped short of making a definitive determination of whether or not they were overfished.
 
In fact, there are metrics within the ASMFC's assessment that indicate American eels are at least stable, if not in the middle of a long, slow process of recovery. One of the assessment's models, the Depletion-Based Stock Reduction Analysis, calculated that, over the last 15 years, the overall eel biomass had gradually increased by 41 percent. Similarly, eel recruitment has been relatively stable over the last 25 years, meaning that there are no clear signs of population decline.
 
Other assessments have reached even more positive conclusions. In 2007, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) conducted the most extensive investigation into the status of American Eel to date, to determine whether the species merited protection under the Endangered Species Act. The FWS ultimately concluded that eels did not require protection under the Act, and that the American eel population was both stable and "very abundant."
 
However, even with these two assessments, there is still much about American Eels that we don't know. The information in the ASMFC's assessment is mostly derived from catch data. But the eel fishery only occupies a small fraction of the American eel's total range, which extends from Brazil to Greenland, and large parts of the US are not subject to fishing. This raises concerns that fisheries managers are not getting a clear and complete picture of the eel stock, as extensive portions of it remain unfished. This may affect the accuracy of both the estimates of eel abundance and perceptions on the stock's health.
 
At an upcoming meeting of the American Fisheries Society later this month in Quebec, some of the most preeminent experts in eel science and management are scheduled to present new data that is expected to shed further light on these issues. Passing new restrictive regulations before this information can be absorbed and evaluated by the ASMFC would be premature.
 
Clearly any hasty, potentially unnecessary restrictions on the eel fishery would hurt the fishermen who rely on eels, and who have fished the resource carefully and responsibly. In fact, Maine, which records one of the largest eel harvests, has been proactive in conservatively managing its glass eel fishery, one of the fastest growing and in-demand fisheries in the US. The state took measures to control the growth of the fishery by implementing an individual fisherman quota for the first time in 2014 and reduced the allowable eel harvest by 35 percent. And to ensure that this quota was not exceeded, officials also implemented a new "swipe card" program aimed at tracking eel transactions and cracking down on eel poaching. In its first year, the quota has successfully kept the harvest in check while still allowing eel fisherman to make a living and stimulate our economy.
 
In 2013 the ASMFC passed Addendum III, the last set of ASMFC regulations on American eel harvesting. These restrictions, which included net and gear restrictions to preserve the Silver Eels on their breeding migration; shutting down the fingerling eel fishery; raising the minimum allowable size for eels by 50 percent, to 9 inches; and implementing coast-wide gear restrictions for yellow eels, just took effect in January of this year. Having only been in place for seven months-and only halfway through one fishing season-it is impossible to definitely determine whether or not these regulations are sufficient, or whether further action by the Commission is needed. Waiting to see the effectiveness of current management measures is both a sensible course and yet another reason why the ASMFC should be cautious in its approach to this week's meeting.
 
With so many unanswered questions about the American eel stock, the ASMFC shouldn't overreach in its decisions this week. There are too many unknown variables, unanswered questions, and too much uncertainty for the Commission to move forward with some of the more aggressive measures up for debate. These include options that would shut down the glass eel fishery and reduce yellow eel harvests by up to 20 percent. Instead, considering some of Addendum IV's other, less restrictive options would still allow the Commission to be precautionary in its management, but without subjecting fishermen to unnecessarily strict cuts and economic harm.
 
Douglas B. Huntley
Member, Board of Directors
American Eel Sustainability Association
www.AmericanEel.org

 

Greenberg missed the boat on a number of issues, including the overall carbon footprint of seafood, but equally important, the reasons why most of the squid that California exports is consumed overseas!

Read the original Paul Greenberg op-ed in the Los Angeles Times

August 5, 2014 (SeafoodNews.com) — The following opinion piece appeared today on SeafoodNews.com:

In his op-ed to the Los Angeles Times last week, author Paul Greenberg could have dodged some critical misstatements and inaccuracies about the marketing of California squid – the state's largest catch.

All he had to do was check with local sources, including the California Wetfish Producers Association, which represents the majority of squid processors and fishermen in the Golden State and promotes California squid.
 
Instead, Greenberg missed the boat on a number of issues, including the overall carbon footprint of seafood, but equally important, the reasons why most of the squid that California exports is consumed overseas!
 
To set the record straight, here are some inconvenient truths you wouldn't know about squid by reading last week's op-ed:
 
First, size matters and price rules when it comes to California market squid, which are one of the smallest of more than 300 squid species found worldwide. The U.S. "local" market really prefers larger, "meatier" squid, notwithstanding Greenberg's 'locavore' movement.
 
Greenberg acknowledged the labor cost to produce cleaned squid in California adds at least $1.50 per pound to the end product. In fact, local production costs double the price of cleaned squid, due to both labor (at least  $15 per hour with benefits) and super-sized overhead costs, including workers' comp, electricity, water and myriad other costs of doing business in the Golden State.
 
Del Mar Seafood is one processor in California that micro-processes cleaned squid at the request of markets like the CSA that Greenberg mentioned. In fact, virtually all California squid processors do the same thing at the request of their customers. But at 1,000 pounds per order, we would need 236,000 CSAs, restaurants or retail markets paying $1.50 more per pound to account for the total harvest.  If the demand were there, we'd be filling it!
 
Greenberg also misconstrued the issue of food miles. Respected researchers like Dr. Peter Tyedmers, from Dalhousie University in Canada, found that transport makes a minor contribution to overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, when considering the carbon footprint of seafood (or land-based foods). Mode of production is far more important.
 
Here's another surprise:  California squid is one of the most efficient fisheries in the world – because a limited fleet harvests a lot of squid within a short distance of processing plants.
 
Studies show that the California wetfish fleet, including squid, can produce 2,000 pounds of protein for only 6 gallons of diesel. Squid are then flash frozen to preserve freshness and quality. Keep in mind that even with immaculate handling, fresh squid spoil in a few days.
 
As counterintuitive as it may seem, even with product block-frozen and ocean-shipped to Asia for processing, California's squid fishery is one of the 'greenest' in the world. One recent survey estimated that about 30 percent of California squid is now either processed here or transshipped to Asia for processing (other Asian countries besides China now do the work) and re-imported.
 
China, although important, is only one export market that craves California squid. With a growing middle class billions strong, Chinese consumers can now afford California squid themselves. Many countries that import California squid prefer the smaller size, and California squid goes to Mediterranean countries as well.  In short, most of the squid that California's fishery exports are consumed overseas.  Why? The U.S. palate for squid pales in comparison to Asian and European demand.
 
Also important to understand: California squid is the economic driver of California's wetfish industry – which produces more than 80 percent of the total seafood volume landed in the Golden State. California squid exports also represent close to 70 percent by weight and 44 percent of value of all California seafood exports. Our squid fishery contributes heavily to the Golden State's fishing economy and also helps to offset a growing seafood trade imbalance.
 
The sad reality is that price really does matter and most California restaurants and retail markets are not willing to pay double for the same – or similar – small squid that they can purchase for half the price.
 
Nonetheless, we do appreciate Greenberg's pitch for local seafood. Our local industry would be delighted if, as he suggested, all Californians would be willing to pay $1.50 a pound more for California squid.  We may be biased, but in our opinion California squid really is the best!
 
D.B. Pleschner is Executive Director of the California Wetfish Producers Association, a nonprofit designed to promote sustainable wetfish resources.

 

The new analysis presents a grim picture for the potential recovery of this iconic fish stock.

Mr. E.F. "Terry" Stockwell, Chairman of the New England Fishery Management Council issued the following statement in response to the release and peer review request from the NOAA Northeast Fisheries Science Center: "The receipt of more bad news about the condition of Gulf of Maine cod is of serious concern to all New England Fishery Management Council members. Over the years, as this stock has continued to decline, the Council has repeatedly cut cod catches to promote stock rebuilding. At the same time, we have been very aware of the huge economic consequences shouldered by the fishing industry. As such, we are extremely disheartened about the current situation reported to us by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center. We will continue to work closely with them as briefings, discussions about a peer review, and other plans are developed in order to promote a coherent response to the situation. The Council remains committed to its NOAA partners and the regional fishing community as we address this daunting challenge." 
 
– – – – – – – –
 
WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — August 1, 2014 — The following was released by NOAA's Northeast Fisheries Science Center:
 
As part of our work to monitor conditions of fish stocks across the country, and to ensure we're managing our nation's fisheries in a sustainable fashion, NOAA Fisheries, working with our partners in industry and fishery councils, collects a variety of information to prepare stock assessments to evaluate the health of federally managed fish stocks.

We have prepared a stock assessment update for Gulf of Maine cod, a key fish stock for the Northeast groundfish fishery.  Unfortunately the news is not good. The new analysis presents a grim picture for the potential recovery of this iconic fish stock.

The results indicate virtually every indicator of stock condition declined or worsened in 2013. 

– Spawning biomass levels are estimated to be at 3 to 4 percent of the biomass target for maximum sustainable yield.

– Fishery resource survey indices and spawning stock biomass are at all-time lows.

Part of the rationale for developing this update was to move forward in our efforts to streamline the way in which we alert fisheries managers to changes in stock conditions or other data collected between full assessments. In addition, we examined the most recent survey data for Gulf of Maine cod, and all major indicators of stock health appear to have deteriorated since the 2012 assessment.  Therefore, we generated an assessment.  We hope this will be accepted as part of a standardized approach to providing these kinds of timely updates in the future that managers can use in decision-making.

The stock assessment update entailed adding new catch, survey, and age data to our peer-reviewed stock assessment models that were used to complete the 2011 and 2012 full assessments for this stock.  The update reflects stock condition through 2013.

We realize that this news is difficult and NOAA Fisheries will work with our partners in the New England Fishery Management Council to discuss next steps, including peer review options of these preliminary results. 
 
Read the release here
 
Read a letter from NOAA to the New England Fishery Management Council requesting their assistance with peer reviewing this latest stock assessment  

 

Every day, fishermen across the country are working to proactively conserve and manage the marine resources that they depend on. Writing on National Geographic's Ocean Views blog,  Saving Seafood Executive Director Bob Vanasse highlights one such story.

WASHINGTON (National Geographic Newswatch) July 31, 2014 — Too often, environmental groups, regulators and fishermen find themselves cast in antagonistic roles on marine issues. Prolonged legal and regulatory battles frequently top headlines, while successful conservation partnerships go unheralded. The Chesapeake Bay, long plagued by problems like pollution and runoff, is benefiting from one such partnership. Regional fishermen, government agencies and environmental groups are cooperating to restore the Bay's iconic oyster fishery. It's one of the best examples of how an effective public-private partnership works toward building a sustainable fishery and a better environment.

"Restoring oyster reefs in Chesapeake Bay is essential because they play so many critical roles," said Mark Bryer, Director of the Nature Conservancy's Chesapeake Bay Program, which helped bring private funds to restoration efforts in Maryland, particularly to examine their effectiveness. "We know from experiences here and around the world that success requires large-scale action and everyone playing a part, including the oyster industry, private citizens, government agencies, and non-profit organizations."

…

Some of the Bay's biggest fishing companies are vital to the effort. Virginia oyster processors like Bevans Oyster Company, in Kinsale; Cowart Seafood, in Lottsburg; and Kellum Seafood, in Weems, provide the VMRC with the recycled shells necessary for the project. Each year, shells are distributed to replenish the oyster beds, with the newly laid shells allowing oyster larvae to settle on the beds and grow into new oysters. Kellum also contracts with the VMRC to deliver the shells and other materials to beds across the state, using boats designed to travel in the shallow waters where the beds are located.

"It's a great opportunity in fisheries management for the industry to be able to support the sustainability of the fishery," said Tommy Kellum, of Kellum Seafood. "It's one of the few fisheries where the byproduct of consumption – leftover shells – can be used to sustain the resource."

Omega Protein Corporation, which operates the largest fishery in the Chesapeake Bay, annually donates the use of land at its Reedville, Va. facility to serve as a staging area for the recycled oyster shells before they can be redistributed to the state's reefs. In addition to providing storage space, the company's facilities are a convenient, centralized location, with easy access to the Bay and major rivers.

"We're very happy to help with Virginia's oyster restoration efforts by providing shell storage and deep-water access for loading," said Monty Deihl, Omega Protein Corporation's Senior Director of Plant Operations in Reedville. "A thriving oyster population is vital to the health of the Chesapeake Bay, our fellow watermen's livelihoods, and the state's economy."

Read the full story at National Geographic

 

WGBH News in Boston gives viewers an in-depth look at the impacts of climate change and rising ocean temperatures on New England's commercial fishing industry.

Editor's Note: In an email version, a statement below incorrectly stated that fish were moving toward warmer waters instead of towards their normal, cooler temperatures. It has been corrected below.

BOSTON (WGBH) — July 24, 2014 — WGBH's coverage features informative interviews and a panel discussion with the Northeast Seafood Coalition's Executive Director Jackie Odell and the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) Northeast Regional Administrator John Bullard.

Protecting and maintaining New England's commercial fisheries in the face of warming waters is a multifaceted challenge, Mr. Bullard explains. He tells WGBH News that ocean temperatures, sea level, and even chemistry – specifically pH acidity – are all changing and impacting fish stocks. And the impacts of these shifts are not short term either, Mr. Bullard says. "We need to understand and be prepared for the fact that some of these things are linked to trends like ocean warming that are probably not going to reverse," he warned. One such serious long-term impact, according to Mr. Bullard, is the migration of fish stocks away from their warming natural habitat toward cooler waters.

Based in Gloucester, Mass., the Northeast Seafood Coalition's Executive Director Jackie Odell says that New England's fishermen aren't alone in needing to adapt their practices to changing ocean temperatures. She explains that fisheries management will also need to accommodate shifting environmental conditions. Ms. Odell shares with WGBH her concerns that regulators must devise more productive rebuilding goals, plans, and timelines for groundfish stocks as changes in the ocean ecosystem become increasingly apparent. "If we are going to have less productivity occurring because of warming water temperatures, then we need to factor that into our stock assessments and into our rebuilding goals, and we presently don't do that," she said.

Watch the full news segment from WGBH News

 

 

Mr. Landry's response highlights serious inequities and problems surrounding the enforcement of historic cuts to the commercial Atlantic menhaden fishery. Reedville, Va. (National Fisherman Magazine) — July 24, 2014 — Earlier this year, and timed to coincide with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (ASMFC) Spring Meeting, Peter Baker, The Pew Charitable Trusts' Director of U.S. Oceans, Northeast, published an opinion piece titled, "Atlantic Menhaden Catch Cap a Success." Mr. Baker's account of regulatory affairs since an historic 20 percent coastwide Atlantic menhaden harvest cut was enacted in 2012 praises the implementation of the cuts and alleges that job losses and economic struggles predicted by fishermen have not "come to pass."
 
Responding in National Fisherman Magazine's August 2014 edition , Ben Landry highlights what he sees as the serious inequities and problems surrounding the enforcement of cuts to the commercial Atlantic menhaden fishery, which were ignored or glossed over in Mr. Baker's analysis. Mr. Landry is the Director of Public Affairs at Omega Protein Corporation, which operates the largest menhaden fishery on the East Coast from it's Atlantic operations base in Reedville, Virginia.
 
The harvest cut stems from a 2012 decision by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Mr. Baker was heavily involved in the effort to enact these cuts he now defends, having led the Pew Trust's "campaign" in support, which was also characterized by questionable claims. Three days before the vote, the Pew Environment Group ran large newspaper ads in state capitals up and down the East Coast , asking governors to "take note." The ads stated "menhaden numbers along our coast have plummeted by 90 percent." When the Providence Journal asked the Pulitzer Prize winning group PolitiFact to analyze the claim, they deemed it to be "Mostly False" .
 
Mr. Baker writes, "All 15 Atlantic coast states have successfully implemented the catch cap ." Mr. Landry notes, however, that he makes no mention of those states which, despite vocal support for cuts in 2012, have since flatly refused to enforce or skirted enforcement of the quota reduction. Maryland, one of the most vocal supporters of the cuts, manipulated a regulatory loophole allowing fishermen to continue catching menhaden as bycatch once the state exceeded its directed catch quota. New York categorically refused to enforce its quota , claiming the new quota – based on the cuts for which New York voted in 2012 – was rendered using flawed landings data. Mr. Landry's commentary is substantiated by a September 19, 2013 Newsday story detailing New York State's refusal to enforce its new quota .
 
Mr. Landry's response notes the irregularities and inequities in the enforcement of the coastwide cut, highlights serious areas of concern for the legitimacy of enforcement thus far, and makes clear that Mr. Baker's characterization of the cuts as having succeeded, "depends on a very limited definition of 'success.'"
 
Further, Mr. Landry points out that Mr. Baker's attempts to downplay job losses and economic struggles are not based in face. In Virginia, a state that did abide by the new reduced quotas , the number of active vessels in the fishery was reduced by two, and sixty-five jobs have been lost at Omega Protein Corporation's facility in Reedville, Virginia since 2010 as a result of the pending, and since enacted, harvest cuts. 
 
Mr. Baker's piece was distributed on Pew's own websites and the Conservation Law Foundation's "Talking Fish" blog on May 14, 2014 .
 
 
Read Mr. Landry's full response in National Fisherman Magazine here
 
 
About Omega Protein:
Omega Protein Corporation (NYSE: OME) is a century old nutritional company that develops, produces, and delivers healthy products throughout the world to improve the nutritional integrity of functional foods, dietary supplements, and animal feeds. Omega Protein's mission is to help people lead healthier lives with better nutrition through sustainably sourced ingredients such as highly-refined omega-3 rich fish oil, specialty proteins, and nutraceuticals. 

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — July 22, 2014 — The following was released by the Office of Senator Mark Begich:

A revised draft of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) reauthorization legislation is now available online for public review and comment, said U.S. Senator Mark Begich, chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard.  The MSA is the primary federal law that governs marine fisheries management in U.S. waters.

"This shorter, revised draft incorporates many comments from Alaskans and others around the nation who responded to our initial discussion draft in April," said Begich.  "I hope the public will review these changes and get back to me soon so we can advance to the next step in the process.  That's why I posted the revised draft online-so everyone has the opportunity to review it and send their comments to my office or to the committee website."

Begich, who sought the subcommittee chairmanship so that Alaska priorities would be reflected in important national legislation, noted that the current MSA version is still in draft form pending a formal introduction of an amended bill.  The public will still be able to comment as the bill is taken up by Begich's subcommittee, and marked up by the full Commerce Committee before moving to the Senate floor for action.  Any Senate version of MSA must then be reconciled with the House version.

As committee chair, Begich held several MSA hearings around the nation and six listening sessions for Alaskans.  He reached out to Alaska sport fishermen, subsistence users, commercial fishermen and processors to get their suggestions and concerns.  While Alaska concerns are a priority, Begich noted the Magnuson Stevens Act is national legislation and reflects broader concerns heard from around the nation.

The revised MSA discussion draft can be found here
 
More information about Senator Begich's work on the MSA and Alaska fisheries issues can be found here

Read the original release here

 

Newburyport, Mass. (Saving Seafood) — July 22, 2014 — Tom Nies is the Executive Director of the New England Fishery Management Council. His opinion piece appeared yesterday in the Providence Journal:

Editor's Note: Saving Seafood has previously covered problems and concerns surrounding Oceana's report, "Wasted Catch: Unsolved Problems in U.S. Fisheries." You can read our comprehensive analysis of their report here.

The New England Fishery Management Council takes a different position from the one expressed in the July 1 editorial ("Frightening waste of fish"), as well as those reported in recent publications about wasteful fisheries bycatch and the related costs to fishermen and society.

The authors of those reports, staff from the international environmental advocacy organization Oceana, addressed important topics that all fisheries managers face. But there are numerous errors and inaccuracies in the Oceana report – so many that the eight regional fishery management councils, established by federal statute in 1976, collectively put together remarks that discuss the shortcomings of Oceana's publication. The letter is posted on the New England Council's website at FMCs letter to Oceana.

It may be helpful for readers to know that the U.S. fishery councils are charged by law to "prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, facilitate long-term protection of essential fish habitats and to realize the full potential of the nation's fishery resources." The councils are also charged with minimizing bycatch.

While no one disputes that problems remain in our fisheries, Oceana grossly misleads the public by lumping U.S. problems in the same report with global bycatch issues. Additionally, the fishery councils, after comparing the bycatch report's statements with core reference documents developed with the support of the federal fishery science centers, raised their serious concerns directly to Oceana about substantial errors, omissions and organizational approaches that are problematic throughout the publication.

Some of the errors were repeated in the editorial when it made reference to a few fisheries that operate in Rhode Island waters as "some of the biggest wasters among fisheries identified in the report." The paper did not expand on its remarks, but Oceana called out the gear type, the northeast bottom trawl fishery. Identified problems, it said, included killing and injuring "too many" sea turtles. It further claimed that, for the same vessels, shrinking quotas encourage the discarding of fish at sea. 
Other facts do not support these statements. According to federal documents prepared in 2013, there was a single interaction with a sea turtle in bottom trawl gear in the Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank region. It is well-known that although a small number of turtles venture north to New England during the summer, most prefer the warmer waters of the Mid-Atlantic.
 
It was equally unclear to fishery managers how reduced quotas, generally associated with less fishing opportunities, could increase bycatch. The rationale was neither explained nor was any reference made to a recent action taken by the New England Council to reduce the minimum sizes of a number of groundfish species, taken primarily in order to avoid "regulatory discards" or tossing sub-legal size fish overboard.
 
These examples illustrate only a few of the misstatements and factual errors the councils identified in the bycatch report. Their suggestion to Oceana was to follow a practice long ago adopted by federal fishery managers who are held to stricter scientific standards – to adopt a standardized peer review process to ensure that reports like the one discussed here accurately and objectively represent the best available science.
 
Oceana chose not to reply to this suggestion.

Read the full opinion piece at the Providence Journal

 

BOSTON (Saving Seafood) — July 16, 2014 — The following letter was sent to NOAA Fisheries Assistant Administrator Eileen Sobeck from the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Maeve Vallely Bartlett:

Assistant Administrator Eileen Sobeck
NOAA Fisheries
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910

Re: New England Groundfish Disaster Aid

Dear Administrator Sobeck,

Over the last four years Governor Patrick has supported federal disaster aid for the Commonwealth's groundfishermen. Since 2010 it has been clear that the men and women of our New England fishing communities have been weathering a crisis that has seen their revenue from groundfish harvests plummet despite adhering to federal catch limits. I applauded the Secretary of Commerce's September 2012 decision to declare a federal fishery disaster ahead of the drastic catch limit reductions in fishing year 2013 and our Congressional Delegation's support in securing federal fisheries disaster funding to aid our groundfishermen in February of this year. Yet nearly two years since the original declaration, and months since Congress appropriated funding, our fishermen are still awaiting distribution of these critically needed funds.
 
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is poised to act and begin the process of distributing funds for prequalified permit holders for Phase I direct aid. Concurrently, the Commonwealth is proceeding with an open and transparent public process to develop a Phase II state spending plan. I urge you to expeditereview of the Commonwealth's Phase I direct aid so that we may distribute aid to impacted permit holders as soon as possible. Fishermen started a new fishing year over two months ago, and with that new year came new business decisions about fishing-related obligations. Our fishermen need this funding to offset declines in groundfish revenues due to deep catch limit reductions and to make investments to ensure their businesses survive this fishing year and into the future.
 
Your leadership is needed to support New England's historic groundfishery. We look forward to working cooperatively with NOAA Fisheries to disburse of this critical direct aid as quickly as possible to our groundfishermen. Thank you for your continued partnership and I respectfully request you undertake expedited review of our grant proposal.
 
Sincerely,
Maeve Vallely Bartlett
Secretary
 
 
cc:
Massachusetts U.S. Congressional Delegation
Massachusetts Senate President Therese Murray
Massachusetts Senator Bruce Tarr
Massachusetts Speaker of the House Robert Deleo
Massachusetts Representative Ann-Margaret Ferrante
Mayor Carolyn Kirk, City of Gloucester
Mayor Jon Mitchell, City of New Bedford
Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator Dr. Kathryn Sullivan
NOAA Regional Administrator, Greater Atlantic Region, John Bullard
Terry Stockwell, Chair NEFMC
Tom Nies, Executive Director, NEFMC
Commissioner Mary Griffin, MA Dept. of Fish and Game
Director Paul Diodati, MA Division of Marine Fisheries
 
 Read a PDF of this letter here