Fishing Industry Alerts

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

 

 

American fishermen are reacting with skepticism, concern and frustration at the latest murky steps to prevent fishing in vast tracts of the Pacific. The proposed expansion was announced along with other White House ocean conservation initiatives on June 16.

July 11, 2014 — The following is an excerpt from a story originally published on FoxNews.com. The full version can be read here.

Additional coverage from THE WASHINGTON POST:
"Pacific fishing interests oppose Obama's plan to expand marine reserve"

(Fox News) American fishermen are reacting with skepticism, concern and frustration at the latest murky steps to prevent fishing in vast tracts of the Pacific. The proposed expansion was announced along with other White House ocean conservation initiatives on June 16, as the kickoff to a two-day State Department conference aimed at greater international coordination to overcome a variety of ocean ills, including not only overfishing, but marine pollution and ocean acidification — the last linked by conservationists to global carbon emissions and "climate change."

When it comes to providing input to the administration's expanded preserve plans, however, a number of important stakeholders have already spoken — against them.
 
"All of this is a terrible, terrible abuse of power," charges  Doc Hastings, the chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources. "The president is ruling by executive order, by fiat. Policy on oceans should come through Congress. This is really an example of the administration simply not giving information on what it is doing."

The proposed restrictions are "unnecessary," and enforcing them would  be "overstepping currently managed sustainable management regimes, reducing US fisheries competitiveness, and yielding few, if any, ecological benefits,"  according to a report issued two weeks after the State Department conference by the Western  Pacific Regional  Fishery Management Council — a group created by the federal government itself.

The group also declared that the administration "failed to consult the [Council] about the true economic and environmental impacts of its plan to expand the Monument," which overrides existing fishery management legislation.

The fishermen also charge that the expanded preserves will almost entirely affect U.S. fishing vessels, which they argue are already the best managed and most supervised in the world, even though any overfishing in the vast Pacific involves a variety of international fleets, and notably these days a rapidly increasing flotilla from China.

The target for much of the fishing effort are tuna and mackerel and their kin, high-value food sources that are not heavily fished in the waters that would suddenly join the expanded preserve areas, but could become much more productive in future years, when El Nino currents change Pacific warming patterns and push fish stocks further into the reserve waters. But even then, U.S. fishing vessels are likely to honor the no-go areas, and others may not.

Moreover, according to Ray Hilborn, a professor in the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences at University of Washington and a renowned authority on global fish populations, the marine preserves embody a zoological contradiction. They are supposedly intended to protect fish such as tuna that are "highly migratory" and travel thousands of miles during their life-span.

"The areas proposed are too small to impact the stock status of large tuna populations that span the Pacific Ocean," he told Fox News. "These are token closures and will have no real impact on the fishes of the ocean."

Read the full story at Fox News

 

Proposed monument expansion won’t benefit fisheries conservation; unfairly penalizes US fishermen, warns Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council.

HONOLULU (WPRFMC) — June 30, 2014  — The following was released by the Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council:

The voting members of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC) from the State of Hawaii, Territories of American Samoa and Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, have analyzed the Obama Administration’s newly announced plan to expand the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument. They have determined that it would provide no added conservation benefit to marine resources, but will economically harm the area’s fishermen and those reliant on Pacific marine resources. Noting that the President himself has declared that the United States “has largely ended overfishing in federally managed waters,” the Council members are urging the Administration to continue allowing US fishermen into these areas. According to the WPRFMC, the Administration failed to consult the WPRFMC about the true economic and environmental impacts of its plan to expand the Monument. The WPRFMC also recommends modifications to the Antiquities Act to prevent similar such unilateral declarations in the future, which override existing fisheries management statutes, such as the Magnuson-Steven Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

The June 17 announcement, made at the Our Oceans Conference hosted at the State Department, would enlarge the current Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument-established by President Bush in 2009-to encompass the full 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone of seven US Pacific Island Possessions. However, the Council counters in its report that this expansion will ultimately be ineffective in reaching the Obama Administration’s stated goal of combating threats to the ocean’s health, like overfishing and ocean acidification caused by greenhouse gas pollution.

US fisheries are already required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act to eliminate overfishing, and the US boasts the strongest, most conservation-minded fisheries management in the world.

Fishermen in the region are already subject to catch limits, vessel monitoring, observer requirements, and gear restrictions to ensure that they do not overfish the species they target nor endanger other species in the process. The President’s plan aims to aid marine species like tuna, seabirds, coral reefs, and sharks, but, according to the WPRFMC, it disregards the effective management plans already in place. Because the region’s fish are highly migratory, the Council views the current, more focused international management approach as the most effective move to achieve the Administration’s stated goals, and that the Marine Monuments are superfluous in stopping overfishing.

The value of consulting regional management and local merchants in fisheries management is emphasized by the same Administration that announced this sweeping Executive plan. John Podesta, described by the Washington Post as “the man behind President Obama’s new environmental push,” has said, “Responsible fishery management grounded in strong science and reinforced by strong partnerships between the fishing, conservation, and science communities is crucial for the economic health of fishing communities and the country as a whole.”

Weighed against any prospective environmental benefit is the serious economic cost to Western Pacific fisheries and fishing communities. The areas covered by the Marine Monument are important for the region’s longline and purse seine fisheries, which were already pushed out of valuable fishing grounds with the original 2009 Pacific Islands Remote Marine Monument designation. Expanding the monument will sever local fishermen’s access to these resources and in turn strain the island communities that depend on the Pacific for their livelihoods. For this reason, the Council urges the Administration to continue to allow US fishermen into these areas.

Read the WPRFMC’s response to President Obama here

View a PDF copy of their release here

Watch footage from the WPRFMC’s press conference last week responding to President Obama’s announcement, and discussing potential consequences of the proposed Monument expansion here

Read the Washington Post‘s coverage of the WPRFMC’s response here

Only a couple of weeks ago, the coordinating committee for the eight fisheries management councils sent Oceana a letter that was a shot across its bow, charging that the analysis is faulty, data is skimpy, and assumptions are faulty.

June 27, 2014  — The following is an excerpt from an opinion piece originally published today in the New Bedford Standard-Times:

The environmental group Oceana seeks to impress us this week with Part 2 of a report on fishing bycatch, those fish that are brought up incidentally while fishermen target another species.

"Wasted Cash," the follow-up to "Wasted Catch," says that fishermen are throwing $1 billion worth of fish away each year, over the side instead of going to auction.

The first part of the report was published in March, and sought to document that there has been very little progress reducing bycatch. The furious response that followed pointed to all sorts of effective and innovative things that U.S. fishermen and researchers have come up with, like those underwater video surveys invented by UMass Dartmouth's School for Marine Science and Technology.

Only a couple of weeks ago, the coordinating committee for the eight fisheries management councils sent Oceana a letter that was a shot across its bow, charging that the analysis is faulty, data is skimpy, assumptions are faulty, omissions are plentiful and the science is way, way too thin. (The letter is very lengthy. I am sketching it here for you; the whole text is available online).

I wonder what Oceana was thinking when this letter dropped in its lap barely two weeks ago. After all, here was the report, almost ready to go, and the councils call foul even before its release.

The answer? Ignore the councils, it appears. The new Oceana report makes a passing nod to some improvements, then proceeds to revisit the first report as if nothing had happened.

So I contacted them to ask why. Back came a statement from Oceana fishing campaign manager Dominique Cano-Stocco: "Oceana will not retract the 'Wasted Catch' report, which uses the most recent and comprehensive data available from the federal government. The report mentions the positive steps that have been taken to decrease bycatch in U.S. fisheries, however there is still a long way to go to get to the finish line."

That last part we can agree on. Oceana's spokeswoman, Amelia Vorpahl, firmly told me that while both parties agree on the existence of the problem, "we come at it from different directions."

She said a response to the councils should be ready in a couple of weeks, but she spoke more in terms of rebutting the councils rather than daring admit that there might be some real problems with "Wasted Catch/Wasted Cash."

Read the full opinion piece at the New Bedford Standard-Times

 

June 26, 2014  — The following was released by NOAA: The U.S. Commerce Department today announced the appointment of 22 new and returning members to the eight regional fishery management councils that partner with NOAA's Fisheries Service to manage ocean fish stocks. The new and reappointed council members begin their three-year terms on August 11.
 
The councils were established by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to prepare fishery management plans for marine fish stocks in their regions. NOAA's Fisheries Service works closely with the councils as plans are developed, and then reviews, approves, and implements the fishery management plans. Council members represent diverse groups, including commercial and recreational fishing industries, environmental organizations and academia, and they carry out the act's requirements to end overfishing, rebuild fish stocks, and manage them sustainably.
 
"All of us at NOAA Fisheries are eager to start working with our new council members, and to continue the work we've been doing with returning members," said Eileen Sobeck, assistant NOAA administrator for fisheries. "The partnerships we have with the councils are more important than ever in order to continue the positive momentum we've been making with federally managed species in recent years."
 
Each year, approximately one-third of the total 72 appointed members to the eight regional councils are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The Secretary selects members from nominations submitted by the governors of fishing states, territories and tribal governments.
 
Council members are appointed to both obligatory (state-specific) and at-large (regional) seats. Council members serve a three-year term and can be reappointed to serve three consecutive terms.Asterisks preceding a member's name indicate a reappointment.
 
New England Council
The New England Council includes members from Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island. The appointees for 2014 will fill four at-large seats.
 
At-large seats:
*Thomas D. Dempsey (Massachusetts)
Elizabeth "Libby" M. P. Etrie (Massachusetts)
*Peter T. Kendall (New Hampshire)
*Mary Beth Nickell-Tooley (Maine)
 
Mid-Atlantic Council
The Mid-Atlantic Council includes members from the states of Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. The appointees for 2014 will fill obligatory seats for Maryland, North Carolina, New York, and Pennsylvania and one at-large seat.
 
Obligatory seats:
*G.(George) W. Elliott (Pennsylvania)
*Francis "Dewey" Hemilright, Jr. (North Carolina)
*Howard J. King, III (Maryland)
*John G. McMurray (New York)
 
At-large seat:
*Laurie A. Nolan (New York)
 
South Atlantic Council
The South Atlantic Council includes members from Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The appointees for 2014 will fill two at-large seats.
 
At-large seats:
William "Chester" Brewer, Jr. (Florida)
Mark E. Brown (South Carolina)
 
Caribbean Council
The Caribbean Council includes members from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The appointee for 2014 will fill an obligatory seat for Puerto Rico.
 
Obligatory seat:
Marcos R. Hanke (Puerto Rico)
 
Gulf Council
The Gulf Council includes members from Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. The appointees for 2014 will fill three at-large seats.
 
At-large seats:
*Pamela J. Dana (Florida)
Gregory W. Stunz (Texas)
David A. Walker (Alabama)
 
Pacific Council
The Pacific Council includes members from California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. The appointees for 2014 will fill an obligatory seat for Washington and one at-large seat.
 
Obligatory seat:
*Richard "Rich" H. Lincoln (Washington)
 
At-large seat:
*Jeffrey "Jeff" N. Feldner (Oregon)
 
North Pacific Council
The North Pacific Council includes members from Alaska and Washington. The appointees for 2014 will fill an obligatory seat for Alaska and an obligatory seat for Washington.
 
Obligatory seats:
*John J. Henderschedt (Washington)
Simon Kinneen (Alaska)
 
Western Pacific Council
The Western Pacific Council includes members from American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The appointees for 2014 will fill an obligatory seat for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and two at-large seats.
 
Obligatory seat:
John E. Gourley (Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands)
 
At-large seats:
*Edwin "Ed" A. Ebisui, Jr. (Hawaii)
*Frederick M. Rice (Hawaii)

The Regional Fishery Management Council Coordination Committee has recommended that environmental group Oceana retract its March 2014 report on fisheries bycatch.

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — June 18, 2014  — The Regional Fishery Management Council Coordination Committee, representing all eight U.S. regional Fishery Management Councils, has recommended that environmental group Oceana retract its March 2014 report on fisheries bycatch, “Wasted Catch,” that was widely-reported in the press without independent verification of its allegations.

Saving Seafood reported on problems in Oceana's report in brief on the day of its release and in-depth earlier this month.

Oceana Report on Bycatch Ignores Examples of Environmental Stewardship in Commercial Fishing

Oceana's Bycatch Report and Media Coverage Ignores Key Successes in U.S. Fisheries

After an exhaustive analysis of the report, the Councils found "a variety of substantial errors, omissions, and organizational approaches” in the Oceana report that “may seriously miscommunicate bycatch information.” The Councils have recommended that Oceana retract the report “until [they] have the time and/or resources to develop a better understanding of the data summarized in the report.”

The Councils contend that “misinformation in reports like Wasted Catch undermines those productive relationships between industry, management, and NGOs that have been effective in reducing bycatch.” They are especially critical of the fact that Oceana relied heavily on only one document, the National Marine Fishery Service’s "National Bycatch Report," and in doing so has left the report “unlikely to result in a full representation of the best available science.”

The Councils recommended that for future reports, Oceana should adopt “a standardized peer review process to ensure that reports like this accurately and objectively represent the best available science."

The analysis by the Councils lists general issues with and critiques of the report, followed by a region-by-region analysis of errors and omissions identified by Council staffs.

The Councils conclude by acknowledging, “there are no laws requiring Oceana reports to accurately represent the best available scientific information or to undergo peer review." But they urge that "to do so would be in the best interest of all involved parties."

Read the full letter from the Regional Fishery Management Council Coordination Committee here