Fishing Industry Alerts

A diverse group of industry stakeholders and marine scientists are raising questions about the reliability of the TRAC's advice and the underlying science behind it.

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) August 20, 2013 — As the Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee (TRAC) publicizes its recommendations for drastically reduced catch limits for Georges Bank yellowtail flounder, a diverse group of industry stakeholders and marine scientists are raising questions about the reliability of the TRAC's advice and the underlying science behind it. This includes one of the largest industry associations, the Fisheries Survival Fund, and the current President of the American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists (AIFRB), Dr. Steve Cadrin.

Writing to NOAA Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) Director Dr. Bill Karp, FSF asks the agency to abandon their yellowtail catch recommendations based on the TRAC's 2013 assessment. The Survival Fund regards that assessment as critically flawed and "not viable for use as a basis for catch advice." Instead, they urge Dr. Karp to "provide catch advice using alternative catch advice strategies that rely on survey and catch indices" which they argue is more reliable. They also ask NOAA to initiate new research programs to study Georges Bank yellowtail flounder as part of an effort to "create a defensible process that leads to a result that all stake holders can believe in."
 
Most significant of FSF's criticisms is the persistence of a "retrospective pattern," in the assessment.  This is a statistical bias that occurs when stock assessment models consistently incorrectly estimate figures such as population and fishing mortality. Retrospective patterns were present in the 2011, 2012, and 2013 TRAC assessments. FSF believes that accepting the assessment violates both the Magnuson-Stevens Act as well as National Marine Fisheries Service guidelines, which state that the presence of a retrospective pattern is "grounds to reject the assessment model as an indication of stock status or the basis for management advice."
 
Dr. Steve Cadrin, President of the AIFRB and a professor in the Department of Fisheries and Oceanography in the School for Marine Science and Technology at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, voiced similar criticisms of the 2013 TRAC assessment. At an August 12 forum on the assessment hosted by NOAA, Dr. Cadrin examined issues such as the retrospective pattern, population models that are incompatible with the assessment data, and inconsistent estimates of yellowtail stock size. He recommended that a new benchmark assessment be conducted as soon as possible, with catch advice limited to bycatch until a new assessment is complete. According to Dr. Cadrin, "there is insufficient basis for more restrictive recommendations in the 2013 TRAC assessment." This advice was echoed in a letter to Dr. Jake Kritzer, Chairman of the New England Fishery Management Council's (NEFMC) Scientific and Statistical Committee, in which Dr. Cadrin declared, "I cannot accept the 2013 TRAC assessment of Georges Bank yellowtail flounder as a reliable basis for management decisions."

Read the press release on FSF's letter to NEFSC Director Dr. Bill Karp

Read the FSF letter to NEFSC Director Dr. Bill Karp

Read Dr. Steve Cadrin's letter to the NEFMC's Scientific and Statistical Committee

View Dr. Cadrin's presentation on the Georges Bank Yellowtail Flounder Assessment

Read the New Bedford Standard-Times story by Steve Urbon on NOAA's August 12 forum

 

Fisheries Survival Fund says issues raised a year ago have gone "essentially unaddressed, despite a series of reassurances"

[Editor's note: The scallop industry is concerned about yellowtail flounder because yellowtail often inhabit the sea bottom in the same areas as scallops. If scallopers' yellowtail flounder allocations are reduced to low levels, it will act as a choke species, preventing fisherman from harvesting abundant scallops.  The scallop fishery is among America's most profitable, and is largely the reason why New Bedford, Massachusetts has consistently been ranked as the highest-value fishing port in the nation.  It is widely viewed as a successful model of fishery management, the result of cooperation between the industry, the fishery management council, the academic research community, and government scientists.]

The following was released by the Fisheries Survival Fund: 

WASHINGTON — August 20, 2013 — Today, the Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF) wrote to NOAA Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) Director Dr. Bill Karp, calling the agency's latest 2013 stock assessment for Georges Bank yellowtail flounder "deeply flawed" and "not viable for use as a basis for catch advice." Their letter contends that NOAA Fisheries will be in violation of both federal law and agency guidelines if the agency accepts the Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee's (TRAC) recommendations, despite substantial evidence of flawed methodology and chronically inaccurate findings. The TRAC's conclusions allege that Georges Bank yellowtail is dwindling in numbers, and if taken as a guide for future management decisions, could result in steep harvest cuts for fishermen. 
 
FSF is asking Dr. Karp's office to reject those conclusions when setting catch limits on the species. 
 
This is the second time in 13 months that FSF has written to NOAA to point out serious issues with this assessment and to seek improvements in stock assessment science and methodology. 
 
The Survival Fund is asking four things of Dr. Karp:
To acknowledge that the current assessment is not suitable for catch advice,
to provide "an objective set of criteria" for judging the validity of the yellowtail
assessment,
to set interim catch levels based on survey and catch indices, and
to develop a research program for Georges Bank yellowtail flounder.
Each is required, their letter states, in order to "create a defensible process that leads to a result that all stake holders can believe in." 
 
The persistent appearance of a "retrospective pattern" within the assessments is of particular concern to FSF. A retrospective pattern is a type of statistical bias that occurs in a stock assessment when the model used consistently yields incorrect estimates for key factors such as population and fishing mortality. Retrospective patterns can generate inaccurate findings and their presence can indicate underlying flaws in a stock assessment model. In the case of Georges Bank yellowtail flounder, that pattern has plagued assessments since 2005. According to NMFS guidelines, "a strong retrospective pattern is grounds to reject the assessment model as an indication of stock status or the basis for management advice." To that end, FSF argues that, "at this point in the model's life, the uncertainty is so high as to make any results it produces an arbitrary product." 
 
If used to guide future management decisions, these findings may also violate federal law. National Standard 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act sets the guidelines for what can be considered the best available scientific data in US fisheries science. FSF points out that accepting the 2013 yellowtail assessment violated National Standard 2 in three ways:
By not addressing "alternative scientific points of view,"
By having scientists who worked on the assessment also work on the assessment's
peer review for the TRAC, and
By not subjecting to higher scrutiny the TRAC's method of fixing the
retrospective patterns. The assessments were adjusted using Mohn's rho, a value measuring the size of an assessment's retrospective pattern. Correcting a retrospective pattern in this fashion is an emerging scientific technique that is subject to continued research and debate. According to National Standard 2, "emergent science should be considered more thoroughly" than more established scientific methods.
FSF concludes that its requests are necessary to restore faith in the agency and maintain a working relationship with fishing communities, writing that "NMFS cannot ask the fishing industry to bear yet another dramatic cut in catch based upon a process that does not follow its own recommendations." 
 
The Fisheries Survival Fund is an industry group representing the majority of full-time, limited-access Atlantic scallop permit holders.
 
 
CONTACT: 
 
David E. Frulla
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP 
3050 K Street, N.W., Suite 400 
Washington, D.C. 20007 
Telephone: (202) 342-8648 
Facsimile: (202) 342-8451 
Email: dfrulla@kelleydrye.com www.kelleydrye.com

Download a PDF of the FSF press release on their letter Dr. Karp

Read the FSF letter to NEFSC Director Dr. Bill Karp

Read from July 2012, "Scallop Industry tells NOAA Feds have 'exhausted the statistical tool box' in the case of Georges Bank Yellowtail"

Read the FSF letter written a year ago on the same subject

 

 

 

Last year, fishermen warned Maryland officials that menhaden catch reductions would affect in-state fishermen, not just larger menhaden harvesters in Virginia.

Now, as restrictions are implemented, Maryland regulators appear to be sidestepping the very catch cuts that they led the charge to create.

Last December, Maryland officials advocated for Atlantic menhaden harvest restrictions, despite uncertain science. Their Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) representatives joined a winning vote to reduce the commercial menhaden Total Allowable Catch (TAC) — a decision that was publicly backed by both Governor Martin O’ Malley and Attorney General Doug Gansler despite objections from Maryland commercial fishermen, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 400, and the Maryland State Conference NAACP. Attorney General Gansler even went so far as to consider suing the largest menhaden harvesting company, Omega Protein, which operates out of Virginia, if the harvest was not substantially reduced.

That meeting resulted in the ASMFC’s adoption of Amendment II to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden, which reduced the overall allowable harvest of menhaden by 20 percent and allows for an additional 6,000 pounds of menhaden bycatch per vessel, per trip. This bycatch allowance is not included in the TAC and accounts for additional menhaden fishing pressure. Maryland estimates that 92 percent of menhaden caught in its waters are caught in pound nets, primarily as bycatch for the striped bass and other popular fisheries.

But when regulators met in May to discuss each state’s plan to implement these restrictions, Maryland representatives proposed different measures for its own fishermen that would revisit the bycatch cap for which the state voted last December, and would effectively exempt the state from the same strict harvest limits that it helped create. At the May meeting of the ASMFC’s Menhaden Management Board, the Board approved Maryland’s proposal to increase the menhaden bycatch trip limit from 6,000 pounds per vessel to 12,000 pounds per vessel if two permit holders are on board.

Maryland’s action led the other states affected by these restrictions to seek a similar accommodation for their fixed gear fisheries. In Maryland, virtually all menhaden are caught with pound nets. Pound nets and other stationary fixed gear differ from the mobile purse seine fishery, which uses purse-like nets deployed by vessels around menhaden schools. The purse seine fishery harvests the overwhelming majority of menhaden caught in states other than Maryland, and remains accountable to the strict restrictions that Maryland proposed, voted for, and then eased for its own fishermen.

So, after cutting menhaden harvests for fishermen who rely on the species, Maryland is now doubling menhaden bycatch for its own in-state fishermen and paving the way for other states to do the same. This seemingly contradicts Maryland’s previous calls for reductions based on extreme conservationist ideals and ensures menhaden catch is limited only for the mostly-out-of-state fisheries that target and rely on the species.

At the time Maryland officials supported strict menhaden restrictions, they did so even though the state did not possess the regulatory infrastructure required to effectively monitor those regulations — specifically, the reduced menhaden TAC — as mandated under Amendment II. Unlike Virginia, which requires weekly reporting on menhaden catch numbers, Maryland monitors their menhaden catch monthly, with at least a two-month lag time before landing reports are updated.

Maryland began implementing weekly reporting in July, which means that the state was operating on estimates, rather than reported numbers, when it switched to a reduced menhaden TAC in June. The state’s decision to increase bycatch landings before reports from earlier in the season became available contradicts the strict regulatory conservation efforts for which Maryland previously advocated.

Though the increased bycatch allowance is bringing relief to some fishermen affected by the cuts, Maryland is ultimately skirting larger, important questions regarding their regulatory rationale and the aftermath of constrictive decisions for already-struggling fishermen.

 

After Mass AG Martha Coakley announced a lawsuit against NOAA alleging that the agency did not use the best science available and did not consider the impact on the fishing industry, Pew's Peter Baker appeared on WBUR to discuss the issue.

In the course of the interview, Mr. Baker made several misleading statements and omissions about the current state of cod and the fishing industry.

Saving Seafood drafted a response and submitted it to WBUR. The response is reproduced below.

In a May 30 Radio Boston segment on the state of the New England cod fishery ("Coakley Sues NOAA Over Catch Limits"), WBUR offered The Pew Charitable Trusts' Northeast Fisheries Program Director, Peter Baker, an opportunity to respond to Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley's lawsuit against the Federal government on fisheries regulation.

Mr. Baker stated that "decades of overfishing have gotten our fish stocks, namely cod, into terrible shape." Instances of overfishing have certainly contributed to the current state of stocks like cod, but environmental factors such as rising water temperatures and the relative abundance of predators play a significant role.

Ocean temperatures in New England are on a steady upswing. An all-time high for sea surface temperatures in the Northwest Atlantic was set in 2012. A scientific consensus is developing around the idea that warming water temperatures likely shift the distribution and disrupt the migration patterns of commercially valuable fish stocks. A 2009 study from NOAA, "Changing spatial distribution of fish stocks in relation to climate and population size on the Northeast United States continental shelf ," concluded that roughly half of the stocks studied had gradually migrated north in the last 40 years. Why? It's believed that the trend is in response to a warming of traditional habitats, with fish either shifting north or moving deeper in the ocean in search of water within their optimal temperature range.

In a May 30 interview with WCVB Boston, NOAA Northeast Regional Administrator John Bullard remarked that "cod are a cold water species, and the waters are getting warmer. This isn't the fishermen's fault," he said. "The waters are getting warmer. The fish are moving."

These were also the conclusions of a 2013 study from scientists at the University of British Columbia published in the journal Nature. They found that, over the past several decades, warming trends in ocean temperatures have forced fish species to migrate from traditional habitats to cooler waters. In the case of cod, this may be causing the species to migrate north, outside of the range of the New England cod fishery.

Mr. Baker cited the fact that fishermen were unable to catch their quotas as evidence that New England's cod is dwindling. But many factors influence how fishermen catch their allocations. 

Groundfish species intermingle. No matter what fish are targeted, other species are inevitably caught as bycatch. A low quota on a species that can't be avoided can prevent fishermen from catching another species. A low enough quota can turn these fish into "choke species," forcing fishermen to avoid them altogether in order to preserve their limited allocation for bycatch.

Ultimately, whether or not fishermen meet their yearly quota is a poor indicator of the health of fish stocks. Fishermen are often unable to catch their entire quota. Georges Bank haddock, for example, is not overfished, but in 2012 only 4 percent of the total haddock allocation was caught.

Mr. Baker argued that stock assessments are highly reliable, saying fisheries science is "about as questionable as the science as to whether global warming exists or not." But that doesn't take into account several recent, high profile examples of when the science was flat out wrong. The 2008 NOAA cod stock assessment noted that cod was rebuilding.  But three years later, another stock assessment resulted in a dramatic reversal of that finding, leading to the substantial quota cuts devastating the fishery this year. In contrast, the pollock population was recently found to be six times higher than previous estimates. These instances bear very real consequences for fishermen and lead to legitimate skepticism.

For nearly two decades, fishermen have accepted cuts, and operated within limits set by federal regulators. Today they are being asked to cut back even more, based on science that they don't trust. Attorney General Coakley's lawsuit aims to keep the industry alive through an exceedingly difficult period.

Works Cited

Nye, Janet A; Link, Jason S.; Hare, Jonathan A.; Overholtz, William J., "Changing spatial distribution of fish stocks in relation to climate and population size on the Northeast United States continental shelf", Marine Ecology Progress Series, volume 393, October 30, 2009

NOAA Northeast Fisheries Science Center, "Sea Surface Temperatures Reach Highest Level in 150 Years on Northeast Continental Shelf", April 25, 2013

Cheung, William; Watson, Reg; Pauly, Daniel, "Signature of ocean warming in global fisheries catch", Nature, volume 497, May 15, 2013

NOAA Northeast Fisheries Science Center, "The 2008 Assessment of the Gulf of Maine Atlantic Cod (Gadus morhua) Stock", March 25, 2009

 

The New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) is seeking applicants to serve for the next three years on its advisory panels (APs), from January 2014 through December 2016. A notice with more information is attached.

August 5, 2013 —

Read the notice from the NEFMC

 

Brooklyn-based filmmaker has released a teaser for his yet-to-be-titled documentary film, in which he chronicles the hardships faced by fishermen in New England's groundfish industry.

Mr. Family began working on his self-funded documentary in September of 2012 after the federal government declared the New England groundfish industry to be in a state of economic disaster. Since then, Family has reached out to the National Science Center (NSC), attended New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) meetings, and met with the fishermen whose livelihoods are being threatened by cuts to their allowable catch.
 
Mr. Family's film will provide an in-depth look at the groundfish industry, from the efforts of New England's fishermen, young and old, to fish processors, and ice companies, all of whom play an important role in coastal communities and waterfront business throughout Massachusetts.The film will explore ports in Gloucester and New Bedford, as well as the town of Scituate, Massachusetts, a small fishing community that is on the brink of losing its entire fleet.

Mr. Family began his journalism career covering the 2009 presidential elections in Iran. Since returning, his work has appeared in PBS Frontline, The New York Times, Washington Post, Global Post, NHL, NFL among others.  He holds a BA in history and French from the University of Hawaii, and an MS in digital media from Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism.

Watch a teaser for the film 

 

In the wake of the recent partial disapproval of Amendment 5 to the Herring Plan, NEFMC chairman Cunningham has written to NOAA Fisheries Northeast Administrator John Bullard expressing broad concerns about the process leading to that outcome.

The points made by Mr. Cunningham included:

– NERO participants have opportunities to be constructive members of the Plan Development Teams and Committees. It is not productive to always simply point out what will not work, but to help craft measures that will move toward the desired result.
– It sometimes seems the agency is playing a twenty questions game with the Council, waiting for the Council to guess the approvable solution rather than working as an equal partner.
– The council's job is to craft the concepts of how measures should work. NERO participants have to execute the details. Somewhere in that process things are breaking down. Mr Cunningham suggest it may be a question of "ownership" of the document at each stage of the process.
– He states that if the goal is to keep the Council process stifled, his letter can be "circular filed." But if the goal is to energize the Council process and move management to a more functional level, then something needs to be done.
– He ends with a quote from political humorist P.J. O'Rourke, stating that the current situation is "like giving car keys and whiskey to teenagers," and opines that "There's gonna be a crash."

The complete text of the letter follows:

August 1, 2013

Mr. John Bullard
Regional Administrator, Northeast Region
National Marine Fisheries Service
55 Great Republic Drive
Gloucester, MA 01930

Dear John:

Since our conversation about NERO's response to the submission of Amendment 5 to the Herring Plan, I have been thinking not only about NERO's response, but about the process that lead up to this decision. It feels like I have received more calls about this partial disapproval decision than anything else during my tenure as Chair. I know that Council members and Council staff are very discouraged about the time and effort put into this amendment and the ultimate outcome. It is hard to see approximately 6 years of work essentially disapproved.

My intent is not to focus on the individual issues, but to look at the process that got us to where we are and hopefully try to make it function better. Taking a step back, the request by my predecessor was to have an outside examination of how the Council, NERO and NEFSC interact with the desired outcome to make those interactions more efficient and effective. The Touchstone/Pate report went beyond that, but at the heart of that request was the original intent. Yes, there have been some positive outcomes to the report, but things like the operating agreement do not get at, what seems to many, to still be an issue and that is a sense that the Council and NERO are aiming at two different targets.

During any Amendment process, the NERO participants have many opportunities to be constructive members of the PDTs and Committees. I do not believe it is productive to always simply point out what will not work, but to help craft measures that will move toward the desired result. NERO employees tend to be better versed in the technical and legal aspects of fishery management and should take a more active role in finding solutions to management problems. I sometimes feel that the agency is playing a twenty questions game with the Council, waiting for us to guess the approvable solution rather than working as an equal partner.

It is obvious to me that Council members, in general, are not nuts and bolts people. Their job is to craft the concepts of how measures should work with the support of Council staff. NERO participants are the ones who have to screw the nuts and bolts together. Somewhere in that process things are breaking down. It may be a question of "ownership" of the document at each stage of the process, but must we have failure to prove who was right or wrong? The industry has the perception that NMFS in general, and NERO in particular, wants to push the blame onto the Council. I have and continue to assume that both entities are trying to get to the same place. If I am not completely naive, then how is it that rational people cannot interact in rational ways?

When I ran a business, I managed by walking away, after I made sure that folks had the tools to succeed, knew what success looked like and knew that I expected them to succeed. I did not micro-manage. I did not care ifthey spent 20 hours a week at the job or 60 hours a week at the job. I wanted the job done and would support that effort however I could. When I left, the business carried 67% of the market share in a very competitive market. People generally want to get the job done, so there has to be a way to do it even in a very arcane government process.

If the goal is to keep the Council process stifled, this letter can be circular filed. If the goal is to energize the Council process and move management to a more functional level, then something needs to be done. I believe that we all want to "get'r done," but the old ways are dysfunctional. My sense is that NERO's top management needs to encourage and empower staff to create and suggest workable solutions.

I know that the Tiger Team is working on some aspects of this, but I also think that there needs to be a shared sense of accomplishment rather than a delineation of responsibility.

To steal a phrase from P.J. O'Rourke, where we are now is "like giving car keys and whiskey to teenagers." There's gonna be a crash.

C.M. "Rip" Cunningham
Chairman
New England Fisheries Management Council

cc:
Samuel D. Rauch, NOAA Deputy Administrator for Regulatory Programs
NEFMC Council members
Regional Fishery Council Chairs

Read a PDF version of the letter here  

 

NOAA Fisheries will host an informal public discussion on the results of the 2013 Georges Bank Transboundary Fishery Stock Assessments, and the likely condition of the three fish stocks shared with Canada. This will include updates on  Georges Bank yellowtail flounder, Eastern Georges Bank haddock and cod.  The discussion will be held on Monday, August 12, 2013 from  10-11:30 AM at the New Bedford Free Public Library (Main Library). 
 
WHO: NOAA Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries Science Center fishery researchers and science leadership, other knowledgeable researchers

WHAT: It's a chance to talk informally about likely condition of all three stocks shared with Canada, and the challenges of predicting the future for yellowtail flounder in particular.  Scientists and NOAA Fisheries Service leaders from the region will be on hand to talk about upcoming special flatfish surveys, a recent international stock assessment workshop that took on the yellowtail assessment, and the next steps for using the results in fishery management.

WHERE: New Bedford Free Public Library (Main Library)
613 Pleasant Street, New Bedford MA

WHEN: Monday, August 12, 10-11:30 AM

GOAL: Understanding among fishermen and researchers about scientific information available on these three stocks and next steps for using it in fishery management

For more information, contact Teri Frady, NOAA NEFSC, teri.frady@noaa.gov, 508.495.2239.

Directions to the library

Read the stock assessments

Link to the announcement on the NOAA website

Read/Download a PDF of the announcement

When the National Park Service (NPS) announced it would utilize third party seafood ratings to set guidelines for seafood options within U.S. National Parks, the agency revived a debate surrounding the eco-certification of U.S. seafood.

Tomorrow, NPS is meeting with NOAA in an attempt to reconcile concerns and ensure that its new sustainable seafood guidelines aren’t detrimental to fishermen, processors, and consumers alike.

In June, the National Park Service (NPS) announced a new initiative to provide healthier and more sustainable food options in national parks across the United States. As part of the program, NPS created guidelines for “sustainable seafood,” stating that parks will “provide only [seafood options] that are ‘Best Choices’ or ‘Good Alternatives’ on the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch list, certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), or identified by an equivalent program that has been approved by the NPS.”

In response, John Connelly, President of the National Fisheries Institute (NFI), wrote a letter to NPS, in which he asked that the Agency reconsider their guidelines. He stated that “any fish caught in U.S. waters is already ‘certified sustainable,’ based on rigorous NOAA oversight and does not need additional certifications.” His point speaks to the strict conservation standards in the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), which are enforced by NOAA.

The Seafood Coalition, an ad hoc group representing members of the seafood industry across the U.S., followed up with their own letter. In it they asked: “Why would the NPS limit its vendors to those whose products are deemed sustainable by outside interests while ignoring [NOAA’s] FishWatch, an existing and proven program?”

During a hearing of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski questioned NPS Director Jonathan Jarvis on this issue. She asked Mr. Jarvis if NPS had worked with NOAA, stating, “NOAA is the agency that makes the determinations of what is sustainable [seafood] within the country.” She concluded, “I want to make sure we’re not locking ourselves in to a standard here that is simply not the right standard.”

These serious concerns from the seafood community have caught NPS by surprise. In an interview with Seafood Source , NPS spokesperson Kathy Kupper apologized. She stated, “We didn’t mean to step on anyone’s toes. The people who worked on the [sustainable food] guidelines tried to find some easily-understood guidelines.” Ms. Kupper told Saving Seafood that NPS has set up a meeting with NOAA, but this meeting does not indicate that NPS is pulling back. “We are going forward with our standards,” she said. “We are not changing anything, we are looking at adding more.” The meeting is scheduled for Friday, August 2.

More than just ruffling feathers in the seafood industry, the NPS guidelines rekindled a longstanding debate on the meaning of “sustainable seafood.” And, as a government agency, the repercussions for what NPS deems “sustainable” carry weight.

In his letter, Mr. Connelly touched on the heart of this issue. He writes: “Why would [the Department of the] Interior and NPS require third party certification of seafood sustainability if Commerce [NOAA] were doing its job well?”

Or, in other words, if all U.S. species are by law managed sustainably, then there is no need to follow additional third party seafood certification guidelines for U.S. seafood.

The U.S. is widely considered a model of responsible fishery management. The MSA mandates NOAA must use the “best scientific information available” in setting regulations and ensuring compliance with the law’s strict conservation standards. Even fisheries that are recovering are under rebuilding plans that require fishermen to harvest only a quantity deemed sustainable by Federal managers. NOAA estimates that, as of April 2013, 33 U.S. stocks that previously experienced overfishing have been rebuilt.

Industry members question why, if all U.S. seafood is managed sustainably according to Federal conservation standards, third party recommendations are used for U.S. seafood at all.

But the groups that issue third party guidelines and provide certifications do not agree that management under MSA guarantees sustainable standards for commercial fishing. In addressing its view on the matter, the Monterey Bay Aquarium states , “when there is scientific uncertainty, we err on the side of conservation.”

This conservationist perspective can provide useful guidelines to careful consumers, but these ratings are unrealistic as a sole standard for sustainable fisheries. The Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch ranks species instead of specific fisheries, which can lead to generalizations that prevent many sustainable fisheries from achieving a fair rating. For example, separate stocks of the same species are listed as one, sometimes causing a healthier stock to be rated lower. Also, gear types are evaluated across the board, regardless of location. This prevents any fishery that uses bottom-tending gear from achieving a “Green/Best Choice” rating, even if it is proven to have minimal environmental effects.

In comparison, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) provides more in-depth and specialized evaluations by certifying individual fisheries. But this program is costly, and many fisheries either cannot afford certification or believe their resources could be more beneficial elsewhere. The MSC program, which is intended to address international sustainability issues, has also faced criticism for being too complex and creating sustainability standards that are “moving targets .” MSC’s certification and recertification process can be inconsistent with NOAA’s established, specialized, and proven fishery management. In her discussion with NPS Director Jarvis, Senator Murkowski spoke to this point, saying, “The NGOs that you’re relying on [MSC], in my view, have a troubling record of meddling with, at least, Alaska fishermen’s fishery management.”

Ultimately, as NPS moves forward with its guidelines, the government agency sets a precedent for both seafood providers and consumers. U.S. fisheries following the rules set by Federal conservation standards should be recognized by all agencies on the Federal level. While there is use for third party ratings and certifications as indicators of sustainability, U.S. jobs and seafood producers suffer when inferior scientific reports from seafood guides and commissioned certifications create market barriers for sustainably harvested seafood products.

These discrepancies in third party ratings go deeper than different interpretations of “sustainability.” They reveal a serious disconnect between the ratings and realities of U.S. fisheries. Saving Seafood has compiled an investigative report that details key issues with the most popular seafood guides and the obstacles they can create for U.S. seafood providers.

Read the Saving Seafood investigative report on how third party ratings and certification programs can mislead retailers and consumers.

Read the 2012 story by Saving Seafood “Whole Foods Is Wrong Says Industry, Environmentalists, Scientists, Congress and Government Data”
 

 

The coalition alleges that there is no peer-reviewed scientific study using the best available science that establishes the Atlantic menhaden in the Bay are in need of conservation or are overfished.

July 31, 2013 — "We've tried and tried and tried to work with DNR, and the reason this coalition was started is we can't do anything else," Bob Newberry, spokesman for the coalition, said.

The coalition, which was recently organized and is made up of independent watermen and farmers, is growing in membership quickly, according to Newberry. It is accusing DNR of not following proper procedure for promulgating a fishery management plan (FMP) on menhaden.

The coalition alleges that there is no peer-reviewed scientific study using the best available science that establishes the Atlantic menhaden in the Bay are in need of conservation or are overfished.

Officials from both DNR and the ASMFC said the 2009 to 2011 stock assessment is the best available science.

Newberry said the regulations are causing strain on watermen economically and could put them out of business, specifically pound netters in Dorchester County whose primary catch, and the way they make a living, is menhaden.

According to a letter the coalition sent to the DNR, when the bycatch limits are in play, the most a waterman can harvest on a single day is 240 boxes of menhaden. At current market rates, 240 boxes sell for roughly $1,500. It costs about $600 in fuel and labor for a waterman to untie his boats, travel to his pound nets and harvest that quantity of menhaden in a day. Also, boat payments, boat maintenance, equipment, equipment maintenance, taxes and regulatory fees must be paid.

The letter also states the regulations will drive up the price of the menhaden used by crabbers as bait, therefore driving up the price of Maryland blue crabs.

"We have nothing left to lose. They're (DNR) getting ready to put a $250 million dollar a year business right out the window," Newberry said. "Every other avenue has been explored in trying to get DNR to listen to the watermen of the state of Maryland, and this latest thing with the menhaden was the biggest kick in the face. These guys are putting us out of business."

The coalition alleges there hasn't been an economic impact study on how the regulations will affect Maryland. Kerns said ASMFC isn't required to do an economic impact study, but Newberry said DNR would be required to under law.

Read the full story at the Easton Star-Democrat

Read the comment letter submitted to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources on behalf of the Land and Sea Coalition

Read the letter from the Land and Sea Coalition to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Read the letter from the Land and Sea Coalition to the Maryland Joint Committee on Administrative, Executive, and Legislative Review

Saving Seafood has extensively covered issues relating to Atlantic menhaden and the menhaden fishery. Links to some of our previous reports are provided below.

"Menhaden are Overfished" Reports were Premature

Areas of Concern in the ASMFC's 2012 Atlantic Menhaden Assessment Update

Pew Environment Letter-Writing Campaign on Menhaden Misleads Public with Selective Presentation of Facts