Fishing Industry Alerts

Long-time Gloucester fishermen Joe Orlando, Russell Sherman and Joe DiMaio say recent groundfish cuts have put them out of business. With no market to sell their boats, fishermen throughout Gloucester are forced to leave their vessels at the docks and wait. 

July 31, 2013 — A few years back, when the feds advised Joe Orlando to increase his number of fishing permits, he invested some $400,000, continuing to follow all the rules and expecting to see the industry bounce back as promised.

He still signs checks to pay off those permits – permits he says are now all but worthless since the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration sliced  quotas and landing limits by up to 78 percent this spring.

Now, Orlando, seeing no way out of the financial ruin that has overtaken the industry here, has joined countless other Gloucester fishermen in parking his 65-foot boat on the selling block.

"We're done," Orlando said Tuesday. "I still owe for these permits and now I've got nothing left to fish. We've been under NOAA's rebuilding plan for the last 10 years, and now there's no one accountable for it."

In the two months since the new fishing year took hold May 1, Orlando has already reeled in enough fish to meet the 12-month quota for two species left on his permits. Those permits lost a huge amount of their worth when NOAA reduced Gulf of Maine cod quotas by 78 percent, and cut quotas for other valuable fish stocks by 40 to 60 percent.

State and federal lawmakers have both pushed for an easing of the limits, noting that the Department of Commerce recognized the entire Northeast groundfishery as an "economic disaster" last fall. And state Attorney General Martha Coakley has filed a lawsuit challenging NOAA's actions, and the validity of the science on which the limits are based.

But NOAA's Gloucester-based Northeast regional administrator, John Bullard, has maintained that the dire cuts are needed to better rebuild the cod stocks  and other species, and has refused to back off or extend 2012 interim limits that, while cutting limits by some 22 percent, gave the fishermen viability.

"It's a sad, sad situation. They just killed us all at once," Orlando said. "They just shut the switch off with those cuts. I can't keep treading water, it just doesn't work."

Gloucester fishermen say they know of no market wanting to purchase their vessels; and one thing is clear, they add. No one in our region would be interested in buying.

Orlando's 65-foot Padre Pio, tied up alongside the Gloucester House off Rogers Street Tuesday, has yet to draw a prospective buyer.

One of Joe DiMaio's four boats has attracted a potential out-of-town buyer, but that sale is pending to a scalloper, not a ground fisherman, interested in the 99-foot Princess Laura.

And even that sale would far from solve the problems for DiMaio, who wants to work. A federal plan to release some added quota for other stocks would help fishermen "survive," he said, but that has not come. In the meantime, the numbers just do not add up if he chooses to send out a boat.

The fish DiMaio's crew landed on a recent four-day trip brought in only about $1,977, he said; meanwhile, the boat burned through some $2,500 in fuel per day over the four days at sea.

"We're all beaten. I don't want to get out of the business. Unfortunately I'm going out of business," DiMaio said.

The impact of the ongoing fishing crisis is far-reaching.

The United States already imports about 92 percent of the seafood we eat, but that number threatens to lurch upward if the Gloucester harbor dwindles out as a fishing port. And the disaster is taking its toll on families.

Christine Sherman met her husband, Russell, in a classic tale of fish city love about 40 years ago. She was working as a bartender and he as a fisherman. A fisherman later lost at sea had connected the couple.

Russell had moved to Gloucester and began fishing after graduating from Harvard University – to the dismay of his mother, Christine said Tuesday. But the couple worried little about the upfront cost of maintaining their boats' peak condition back then.

Now, Christine said, every cost is a loss. This year, the couple is due to replace a $5,000 life raft on Lady Jane, which is also up for sale.

"The littlest thing can just break you," said Christine Sherman, who co-owns the boat and volunteers at Gloucester's Northeast Seafood Coalition. "You're just throwing good money after bad continuously."

Sherman's boat has stayed at dock, still costing the family $739 each month to tie up there, along with about 10 other Gloucester boats, some for sale and some not.

Russell, whose Harvard degree is in History, has reached retirement age at 65. And Christine said neither she nor her husband are prepared for an alternate career this late in life. 

Read the full story at the Gloucester Daily Times 

NEFMC Chairman Cunningham has written NOAA Administrator John Bullard expressing the Council's opposition to NOAA's requirement for the industry to fund all monitoring for closed area access.

Chairman Cunningham suggests this requirement may prevent any participation in the program. He notes that as a result of the fragile economic state of many participants, the increased costs to fund observers may not be affordable. He also noted that little, if any, justification for this requirement was provided other than two general statements which the Council did not find convincing.

The text of Chairman Cunningham's letter follows:

July 26, 2013

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

Re: Proposed Rule to Allow Sector Vessels Access to Year-Round Closed Areas (78 Federal Register 41772)

Dear John:

On July 11, 2013 a Proposed Rule was published that requests comments on the Proposed Rule to Allow Sector Vessels Access to Year-Round Closed Areas (78 Federal Register 41772). I am concerned that the actions that are under consideration will inhibit the ability of vessels in sectors to mitigate the low catch limits that were adopted by the Council in Framework Adjustment 50. The industry, the Council and the Agency spent an enormous amount of time and effort to craft limited opportunities for sector vessels to target stocks such as Georges Bank haddock, pollock and redfish. One of these opportunities was the ability for sectors to request access to parts of the existing year-round closed areas. The imposition of the requirement for the industry to fund all at-sea monitoring (ASM) coverage for closed area access may prevent any participation in this program. Given the fragile economic state of many participants, the increased costs to fund observers may not be affordable. As a result, there will be little economic benefit to closed area access.

This concern was first raised in my letter of March 29, 2013 commenting on the FY 2013 Sector Operations Plan Proposed Rule (78 Federal Register 16220). These comments were deemed "not relevant" to that action and were not addressed in the interim final rule (78 Federal Register 25591). To ensure that they are addressed, I am reiterating and expanding those comments below.

A requirement in the Proposed Rule is that vessels accessing portions of year-round closed areas must have 100 percent observer coverage of all trips and that this coverage must be entirely funded by the industry. The Council opposes this new requirement. The Council did not choose to require 100 percent ASM coverage as a condition for access to year-round closed areas. Little, if any, justification is provided other than general statements that without higher coverage rates "discard rates would be difficult to estimate because there is little catch history in these areas" and the higher coverage would "allow NMFS to monitor whether vessels are interacting with protected species." Neither argument is convincing for the following reasons.

First, the implication that catch history is needed in order to accurately estimate discard rates is not supported by the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRM) methods. Nothing in that document conditions the accuracy of discard estimates on past catch history. When new fishing modes have been adopted in recent years – loosely analogous to a new fishing opportunity inside a closed area – there has not been any requirement for increased coverage levels so that discard estimates will be accurate in spite of a lack of catch history. Second, the SBRM does not indicate that 100 percent observer coverage is necessary in order to accurately monitor protected species interactions. Third, there is no evidence that the Agency considered a coverage level that is higher than in open areas but less than 100 percent.

The Proposed Rule also states that "this level of monitoring would also provide an ancillary benefit of gaining additional fishery dependent data from the catch in these areas." This is a false hope. The requirement for industry funding will probably discourage many vessels from fishing in the areas. It is also not clear that NMFS has considered whether the benefits of this additional data is worth the significant costs to the industry.

Even assuming that 100 percent coverage can be justified, the Agency's rationale for requiring that it be funded by the industry is not convincing. The Atlantic herring FMP allows herring mid-water trawl vessels to fish in the groundfish closed areas only when an observer, funded by the National Marine Fisheries Service, is onboard. It is not clear why this approach is not also permitted for the groundfish fishery.

The Agency expresses concern that allowing vessels to use NEFOP coverage in these areas would encourage vessels to use the exemption if selected for an observer. It is difficult to understand why this is a problem, seeing as how it would encourage fishing on healthier stocks. If the concern is that these trips will reduce observer coverage for other trips, we note that the adopted FY 2013 coverage standard is much higher than that needed for the required CV for almost all stocks so there would appear to be some slack in the coverage requirements. In addition, the number of vessels that are capable of fishing in CAI and CAII is relatively small and would not greatly affect overall observer coverage rates. There should not be a concern that these trips are not representative of standard sector trips since the Proposed Rule indicates closed area access trips will be stratified separately. These are just a few examples of alternative ways to address this issue; I'm sure that industry representatives could identify many others.

Finally, the Regulatory Flexibility Act analyses in the Proposed Rule appear to ignore the substantial costs associated with the monitoring program. It is not clear that different monitoring alternatives were considered that might increase the positive economic impacts of the proposed action.

Thank you for considering these comments. Please feel free to call me with any concerns.

Sincerely,

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

cc: William Whitmore, NERO
 
Read a PDF version of the letter here  

 

Jay Lindsay of the Associated Press examined the scientific assessments of fish stocks and the significant uncertainty inherent in those estimates. Despite that uncertainty, Federal law requires regulators to act on the best available information, even if that information might not be good.

What science says about the number of fish in the waters off New England shapes the rules that govern the region's struggling fishing fleet. And lately for key species, those estimates have been way off.

Some federal population estimates for bottom-dwelling groundfish, such as cod and flounder, have swung wildly. That leaves fishermen scrambling to deal with sudden drops or gains in the portfolio of stocks they depend on to make a living. In addition, a pattern has emerged showing the same bad predictions about key fish species are repeated.

Some question how population estimates with such obvious flaws can be used to as a basis for steep cuts in the catches, including massive reductions enacted in May.

''I think it's irresponsible to shut down fisheries based on such inaccurate stock assessments,'' said Steve Cadrin, a former federal stock assessment scientist and a professor at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth.

Counting fish is notoriously tough. Fishery scientists joke it's just like counting trees in the forest – if the trees were invisible and moving. But stock assessments try to draw as precise a picture as possible.

But if the underlying population estimates are way off, the scientific advice becomes worthless.

Lately, there's no proof the science is capable of giving the accurate advice regulators need, said Gloucester fisherman Vito Giacalone. ''All the proof, really, is that it's not capable.''

The saga of the Gulf of Maine cod offers the prime example of a faulty assessment. Deemed robust in 2008, by 2011 the stock was said to be struggling so badly that huge cuts were needed to protect it. In May, fishermen took a devastating year-to-year cut in their catch allotment of 78 percent. Many fishermen say a cut that steep simply doesn't allow them to catch enough fish to stay in business.

Meanwhile, the assessments of certain flounder, haddock and cod stocks have been plagued by a persistent flaw that causes future populations to be overestimated while projections of how much fishermen will catch are underestimated. So fishermen can be told to catch a certain amount one year, only to learn later it was too much, and a cut is coming for future seasons.

In the midst of the problems, the Groundfish Plan Development Team, a group of fishery analysts and experts, has fretted over the reliability of the assessments.

''If there is no confidence in the projections, then it seems they should not be used to determine if a particular catch will end overfishing or rebuild as required,'' the team wrote last August.

The significant uncertainty doesn't shut down the demands of fishery law, which requires regulators to act on the best available information. That's even if, as recent assessments have indicated, it might not be that good.

The Northeast's top federal scientist, Bill Karp, said the law is asking science to know more about the behavior of some fish stocks in the dynamic New England fishery than it can currently deliver.

''It's clearly not good enough to answer some of these questions,'' he said.

Fishery law also mandates rebuilding troubled fish stocks in 10 years. Tom Nies, executive director of the New England Fishery Management Council, said that assumes regulators know the population of that fish now, what its healthy population looks like and how to get it there. ''We often don't know any of those with any certainty,'' he said. There should be ways for managers to account for that uncertainty, he said, and ensure catch quotas don't spike or plummet based on one assessment.

Giacalone envisions an entirely new way of doing business, with assessment methods that better account for water temperatures, food supply and other environmental factors that make fish move, congregate and thrive.

''I think 15, 20 years (from now) we'll look back at this period as us operating like the world was flat,'' he said.

Read the full story by Jay Lindsay of the Associated Press at The Boston Globe 

Murkowski: "I want to make sure we're not locking ourselves into a standard here that is simply not the right standard"

(Seafood News) July 26, 2013 — In an occasionally tense questioning of the National Park Service Director today, Senator Lisa Murkowski convinced him in his public comments to revise the agencies guidelines and take steps to allow wild Alaskan salmon and other wild Alaska seafood back on the concession stands of national parks nationwide.

The issue arose when the Park Service developed its Healthy People Healthy Parks initiative – which has a broad goal of improving public health and sustainability in all areas of the national parks, including foodservice.  The Park service began work on this in 2011.

However, little attention was paid to the seafood sustainability guidelines until the final document was published in June of this year.  At that point, the park service said its vendors could  "provide only [seafood] that are "Best Choices" or "Good Alternatives" on the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch list, certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council, or identified by an equivalent program that has been approved by the NPS."

Most people in the park service, not understanding the issues around fisheries sustainability, likely did not realize that Alaska's salmon producers have by and large withdrawn from the MSC program, and the guidelines would prevent many vendors from serving wild Alaska salmon.

Two weeks ago, Senator Murkowski originally called attention to her problems with the National Park Service's flawed June decision to require high priced eco-endorsements from outside interests before selling wild Alaskan salmon at parks nationwide, with the risk that Alaska's world-renowned fish would be excluded.

Some apparent good news appeared earlier this week when Seafood.com News reported the NPS had reconsidered its decision, but nobody within the NPS would confirm this to the Senator. With NPS Director Jonathan Jarvis testifying before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Murkowski seized the opportunity to clear up the confusion.

At first, the Director pointed out that their guidelines were not policies or laws, but mere recommendations to their concessionaires that fish deemed sustainable by the controversial Marine Stewardship Council be sold. Murkowski continued on with her questioning, asking him about the NPS' procedures, the conflicting statements being circulated and why they were reliant on a London-based organization – ending with "it doesn't sound like you are pulling back on this."

He responded "What I am willing to do is to change the guidelines so it includes Alaska wild caught fish. I think that's the simple fix here." The guidelines were drawn broadly to give some guidance to our concessioners. We want a park visit to be a healthy experience. The food was the key component. And you have extraordinary food in Alaska."

Murkowski then said that she wanted to have further discussions with Director Jarvis, to lay out the many harmful and unnecessary impacts this has on Alaskan fisheries. NPS Director Jarvis has scheduled a meeting with Murkowski to follow-up on the matter.

Here is a partial transcript of the exchange.  A link to the video – well worth watching, is at the end of this article.

Senator Murkowski:  As you know, I sent a letter to you dated July 12th about the Park Service's new policy requiring that seafood that is sold by its vendors and concessionaires have to be certified by this non-governmental third party as sustainable. Everything that I can tell is that this policy was developed without consultation with NOAA, which is the federal agency that is tasked with the responsibility of managing our nation's fisheries sustainably. The NGOs that you are relying on here, in my view, have a troubling record of meddling with at least Alaska fishermen's fisheries management. We have got some real concerns about this.

So, I read yesterday, (in a seafood online site (After criticism National Park Srvc goes back to drawing board on seafood sustainability guidelines – Seafood.com News July 24th) – I thought it was pretty good news, that the Park Service is going to be pulling back on this and meeting with NOAA.

So then when we called your offices to confirm that whether or not this was true, we're told that no, not necessarily in fact that that may be an inaccurate statement that the National Park Service's spokesman made yesterday.

So, I'm trying to figure out what's really going on here… We can save ourselves both from that conversation if you just give me the assurance that you've pulled back and the Park Service is not going down this road. So, if you care to comment on that, I would certainly appreciate it.

Director Jarvis: I don't know how much time you want to take in this hearing, but I would be glad to come down to your office to talk in detail about this. I'm not pulling our national healthy foods sustainability standards over this issue because this is implying and was developed over a year long consultation process.

Senator Murkowski: With who?

Director Jarvis: With the concessioners. With every one of the concessioners. Our food service providers.

Senator Murkowski: Was NOAA involved with this?

Director Jarvis: I do not know whether NOAA was involved. But let me just clarify.

Senator Murkowski: NOAA is the agency that makes the determination in terms of what's sustainable within this country.

Director Jarvis: These are guidelines.

Senator Murkowski: I understand.

Director Jarvis: That's not a policy. That's not a law. That's not a regulation. It's a guideline. It's a recommendation to our concessioners that they use sustainable. Now, we wrote it.

Senator Murkowski: But you're saying that they need to have a certain label that is applied by some NGOs based out of London that says that this is the label that you have to have on your fish and if you don't have this then concessionaries, you shouldn't be using it. What kind of a message do you think that sends?

Director Jarvis: We grew from the industry's standards for guidelines for sustainable foods.

Senator Murkowski: What industry standards?

Director Jarvis: As I said, I'd be glad to come by to your office to get into details on this.

Senator Murkowski: We need to have a further discussion about this because you're giving me the very clear impression that in fact your spokesman [Director Jarvis: He was incorrect] Kathy Cupper, spokesperson for the National Park Service, was incorrect. [Director Jarvis: That's correct.] That you're not pulling back on this.

Director Jarvis: What I am willing to do is to change the guidelines so it includes Alaska wild caught fish. I think that's the simple fix here. The guidelines were drawn broadly to give some guidance to our concessioners. We want a park visit to be a healthy experience. The food was the key component.

And you have extraordinary food in Alaska. I mean I lived up there, I know I lived on the Copper River.  I want that Copper River salmon in those concessions. So this is a simple change to the guideline. It's not a withdrawal of our guideline.

Senator Murkowski: I think we need to have further discussion about this because what I'm concerned about is that the Park Service and HHS doesn't understand that when you go with one certification, again a certification by an NGO that is an internationally based entity coming in and saying that this is the label you have to have, what that does to the Alaska fisheries, as you well know, is limits their ability to market the healthiest, best, and oh by the way, most sustainable fishery that is out there. So we need to make sure that we're not cross-purposes on this because it's too important to my state and quite honestly, when we're talking about healthy, sustainable fisheries, I will take second fiddle to nobody on this issue. So, I want to make sure that we're not locking ourselves in to a standard here that is simply not the right standard.
 
Watch a video of the exchange on Youtube

 

Mr. Hutchinson's argument ignores most of the relevant information on dead zones, menhaden, and even the basic ecology of the Gulf of Mexico and Chesapeake Bay.

July 24, 2013 — On his Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) blog, RFA Managing Director Jim Hutchinson argues that the perennial dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and the Chesapeake Bay are directly traceable to the menhaden fishery in these areas (“SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE: How 'Gas & Oil' Industry Helps Create Coastal Dead Zones,” 6/21). But his argument ignores most of the relevant information on dead zones, menhaden, and even the basic ecology of the Gulf of Mexico and Chesapeake Bay.

Mr. Hutchinson writes: “it should be of no surprise to anyone that the biggest dead zones in coastal U.S. waters are at the mouth of the Mississippi and in a small region of the Chesapeake, right where factory menhaden reduction operations…are based.” It is certainly unsurprising, but not for the reason Mr. Hutchinson alleges. Conspicuously absent from his highly selective account is any reference to agricultural runoff, by far the largest contributor to the formation of dead zones, especially in the Gulf of Mexico.

A dead zone forms when nutrients, like nitrogen, stimulate an excessive growth, or “bloom”, of phytoplankton. These small, plant-like organisms are at the base of the ocean food chain. As blooms proliferate and die off, they consume most or all of the oxygen in the surrounding waters.

When crafting his narrative, Mr. Hutchinson inexplicably fails to mention that huge quantities of nitrogen, in the form of fertilizer from farming, pour into rivers like the Mississippi and estuaries like the Chesapeake every year. This is despite the fact that it is easily one of the largest influences on the growth of dead zones.

The Gulf of Mexico’s annual summer dead zone is one of the largest in the U.S., forming around where the waters from the Mississippi River and its watershed meet the Gulf. The Mississippi watershed itself is massive: according to a NOAA fact sheet, water from 41 percent of the continental United States eventually discharges into the Gulf of Mexico via the Mississippi. Much of the land in that watershed is dedicated to farming, and much of that farming requires nutrient-rich fertilizer that will eventually return to the watershed, with dead zones being the direct result.

In its 2013 forecast, NOAA cites conditions in the watershed, specifically “flood conditions in the Midwest that caused large amounts of nutrients to be transported from the Mississippi watershed to the Gulf,” for the estimated size of this year’s dead zone.

What responsibility does NOAA assign menhaden for this year’s algal bloom? The agency’s forecast does not mention menhaden at all. In contrast, mentions of menhaden comprise the bulk of Mr. Hutchinson’s piece. But given the volume of nutrients that flow into the Gulf every year, blaming its dead zones on a lack of menhaden is absurd.

Similar flows of nutrients from farms and population centers have led to dead zones in the Chesapeake Bay. As with the Gulf, the key is the flow of nutrients into the Bay. According to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the reductions in the size of the dead zones can be attributed to programs designed to limit nutrient inflow, including “upgrades to wastewater treatment plants, stormwater management controls, [and] the implementation of agriculture management practices such as cover crops.”

But even if an overwhelming amount of nutrients weren’t flowing into U.S. rivers and estuaries, would menhaden be able to improve water quality by “filtering” phytoplankton? While Mr. Hutchinson certainly believes so, claiming that menhaden can rid the water of “4 to 6 gallons of algae” per minute, a substantial amount of evidence shows the opposite.

Several studies show that menhaden have limited filtering abilities, and that their ability to remove phytoplankton from the water decreases as they age. Juvenile menhaden have been found to consume relatively more phytoplankton than adults, which consume relatively more zooplankton, tiny marine animals such as krill. This is an important distinction because the menhaden fishery only harvests adult menhaden, and zooplankton do not contribute to algal blooms.

The most recent study, published in 2010 by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, found that menhaden only eat phytoplankton in significant quantities until they reach the age of 1. After that, they primarily consume zooplankton, meaning that adult menhaden do nothing to directly prevent algal blooms. A 2006 study from scientists at the National Marine Fisheries Service and the University of Massachusetts reached a similar conclusion: adult menhaden do not consume large amounts of phytoplankton. As a result, the fishery’s influence on the growth of algal blooms and the persistence of dead zones appears to be limited.

Dead zones are not the only environmental issue that Mr. Hutchinson gets wrong: his inaccuracies extend to his descriptions of how one company, Omega Protein, operates. He describes the company as a “resource degradation outfit” that “functions to take as much menhaden from areas of the Chesapeake and Gulf of Mexico as is technological [sic] possible.” Not included in this overzealous denunciation is the fact that Omega Protein operates within the catch limits set by the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions for the menhaden fisheries in the Chesapeake and Gulf of Mexico.

The company has also taken other environmentally conscious steps to reduce emissions and improve energy efficiency at its facilities in Reedville, Virginia and along the Gulf, as well as updating wastewater treatment equipment on its fishing vessels, and supporting oyster restoration efforts in the Chesapeake Bay.

Mr. Hutchinson’s attacks on Omega Protein’s hiring practices are similarly long on rhetoric and short on reality.

He is particularly irate about the hiring of what he dismissively and demeaningly labels “cheap foreign labor,” in actuality temporary, seasonal workers hired through H2B visas. He writes that when “the Louisiana unemployment rate was 3.7% in 2006-2007, topping 6.5% in Mississippi during the same period, Omega’s manufacturing facilities in that region had utilized close to 600 of those low-paid foreign workers.” Such a statement is clearly ignorant of the actual requirements of the H2B program.

In order to even be eligible to hire non-domestic workers through an H2B visa, a company must first demonstrate that it can’t fill the positions domestically. While Mr. Hutchinson criticizes Omega Protein’s hiring of individuals born outside of the United States, the company was only able to fill the positions through the H2B program because of a lack of response from the domestic workforce.

Recent reductions in the menhaden harvest in the Chesapeake Bay have forced that company to consolidate its Chesapeake fleet. At the same time three boats were being decommissioned, two new boats were unveiled as part of an effort to modernize the fleet. Grasping at straws, Mr. Hutchinson sees this as evidence of hypocrisy on Omega Protein’s part. But, according to Monty Deihl, Omega Protein’s Director of Fishing Operations, the two newly commissioned vessels were purchased as part of a long-planned effort to improve its fishing vessels, before the ASMFC had even considered the new, harsh regulations. As Mr. Hutchinson himself notes, these are the first new vessels commissioned in Reedville in over 20 years. This isn’t hypocritical of Omega Protein, but instead represents a long-term investment in the menhaden fishery and the surrounding communities that depend on it.

Mr. Hutchinson makes only a cursory attempt at proving menhaden responsible for dead zones, instead diverting into irrelevant tangents about oil money and CIA conspiracies. The facts that are presented are obviously tailored to fit his preconceived notions, and omit some of the most relevant information on menhaden, the Gulf, and the Chesapeake. If Jim Hutchinson’s intention was to educate his readers on dead zones, he completely missed the mark. What he presents more closely resembles ideological opinionating, rather than objective reporting.

You can read the RFA story for yourself here

Executive Director Bob Vanasse interviewed Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren on efforts to bring relief to New England fishermen through provisions in the FY14 Senate Appropriations bill.

When asked about the bill, Senator Warren said that "it is vitally important that we support our fishermen" and that managers "need a two-pronged approach that provides immediate assistance to fishing families in the short term, coupled with the programs and policies that are going to help our communities in the long term"
 
The bill, if approved by the House, would provide $150 million in relief funding for fisheries disasters and also includes provisions that will expand available resources for fishery science and cooperative research efforts.
 
Senator Warren also discussed a provision directing that 10 percent of revenues from seafood import duties under the 1954 Saltonstall-Kennedy Act be used for grants to help coastal fishing communities and industry retool and modernize their fleets, shore services, and port facilities.
 
Another provision directs fishery managers to dramatically expand the chartering of commercial fishing vessels to serve as research and survey vessels for fish stock assessments.
 
Senator Warren mentioned that fishermen helped her identify parts of these solutions and she believes these measures will "improve both the quantity and quality of fishery data." She said these actions are "finally going to incorporate the fishermen's expertise into the scientific collection process."
 
In the face of hardship, Senator Warren reminded those affected by the fishery disaster of the successful turnaround of the scallop industry through cooperative efforts. "The fishing industry has faced tough times before, and through innovation they have found ways not only to survive but to thrive," she said.
 
To that end, she reiterated that "the fishing industry is an essential part of the Commonwealth's economy and it is part of our proud traditions. We are not going to let this go."

Listen to the full interview with Senator Warren here

 

Bill would return Saltonstall-Kennedy funds to original intent; Instructs NOAA to increase use of commercial vessels in research

WASHINGTON – July 18, 2013 – The Senate Appropriations Committee today announced it has included $150 million for fisheries disasters in its FY14 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) markup. Senator Elizabeth Warren applauded Appropriations Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski's (D-MD) and the CJS Subcommittee's efforts to provide aid to fishermen in Massachusetts and across the country.

"I'm deeply grateful to Chairwoman Mikulski and the Appropriations Committee for approving critical disaster aid and assistance programs to help hardworking fishing families in Massachusetts," said Senator Warren. "The fishing industry has long been an essential part of the Commonwealth's economy and our proud traditions, and it is vitally important we support our fishermen in these difficult times."

In September 2012, the Secretary of Commerce issued disaster declarations for several fisheries, including the Northeast Groundfish fishery, which faces significant reductions in catch allocation for key fish stocks such as cod for the next several years.

In March, the Senate passed a bipartisan budget amendment introduced by Senators Warren and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) allowing appropriations to be allocated to provide disaster assistance to fishermen. Senator Warren and former Massachusetts Senator Mo Cowan also sent a letter in April to President Obama urging immediate action to provide relief for the industry.

Additional Background on the FY14 Subcommittee Bill:

The bill approved today directs the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to use its revenue stream from seafood import duties on fisheries research, as required by the 1954 Saltonstall-Kennedy Act, which Senator Warren has strongly supported. Ten percent of the revenues generated by the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act will be used for competitive grants towards community based plans to help coastal fishing communities and industry retool and modernize their fleets, shore services, and port facilities to improve innovation and sustainability. The Saltonstall-Kennedy Act funds also cannot be used for internal NOAA management.

The funds approved today are directed to be used for cooperative research, annual stock assessments, and efforts to improve data collection including catch monitoring. Southern New England Lobstermen have been facing difficult challenges and the committee will require NOAA to engage the industry to improve coordination in states in conducting surveys and research.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is required to provide adequate funding for at-sea and dockside monitoring for sector management plans that impose observer coverage as a condition for new and expanded fishing opportunities in the Northeast Multispecies fishery. In addition, the Committee directs NOAA to dramatically expand the agency's activities in chartering commercial fishing vessels to serve as research and survey vessels for fish stock assessments. Increasing these charter opportunities will improve the quantity and quality of fishery data that is used for stock assessments. 

The following was released by the Northeast Seafood Coalition:

Today, the Northeast Seafood Coalition (NSC), a non-profit commercial groundfish fishing industry membership organization, announced the redesign and launch of its website at northeastseafoodcoalition.org. The redesign is part of an ongoing communications initiative to improve internal communications with NSC membership and external communications with media, political leaders and staff, fishing communities and other interested stakeholders.

The redesigned site serves to inform visitors about the Northeast Seafood Coalition, the organization’s ongoing work, mission, events and latest initiatives. The site also features unique pages including a timeline of fisheries management measures and NSC’s positions via public comments since the organization’s inception. Visitors can also find out how they can support local fishermen and NSC. For instance, visitors can browse through recipes that feature local seafood, like the Gloucester Fishermen’s Wives Redfish Soup which features Acadian redfish or Emeril Lagasse’s Bacalhau a Gomes De Sa, a Portuguese dish made with Atlantic cod.

Also, Northeast Seafood Coalition members now have the ability to access in-depth information at their leisure, including policy updates and notices from the organization’s leadership via “My NSC,” a private, members-only area. “My NSC” will encourage members to collaborate, provide feedback to leadership, and be a portal for the free-flow of information. According to NSC Chairman of the Board of Directors John Bell, “The new ‘My NSC’ portion of our website is the front door to communications to our members about public policy. Keeping NSC members up to date is essential. It will be a vital tool to our membership.”

The website redesign also unveils NSC’s branding initiative, which better represents the organization. It features a new logo design and new, more modern coloring and typefaces.

About the Northeast Seafood Coalition:

The Northeast Seafood Coalition is a non-profit organization representing over 250 commercial fishing entities, which hold over 500 limited access groundfish permits, in the northeast United States on political and policy issues affecting their interests as participants in the groundfish fishery and the Sector program in the Northeast multispecies groundfish fishery. NSC members are small, independent, entrepreneurial businesses that fish for— and support fishing for—cod, haddock, flounders, and other groundfish species along the northeast coast. NSC’s fishing business members fish from small and large ports all along the northeast coast. They fish small, medium, and large vessels, and they employ all groundfish gear types.

NSC works for rules that embody real solutions to complex fishery problems.

Read a PDF version of the press release here

 

Since 2009, the Coonamessett Farm Foundation has been developing an industry based electronic data collection system. CFF uses funding from the scallop Research Set-Aside Program so that the fishing industry can have its own independent source of scientific and fishing data.

The project is now in field testing, and NOAA and the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission have provided additional funding to test a similar system that would transmit required data to the government electronically, replacing the paper system and its associated time lags.

Below is the project's summary and goals. Current funding will pay to install 24 systems on scallop vessels fishing out of mid-Atlantic ports and, if there are extra, some additional ports.

Scallopers interested in participating should e-mail Ron Smalowitz with your name, vessel ID information, port and personal contact information.

Project Summary:

In order to better monitor Allowable Catch Limits (ACL) of sea scallops and Sub-ACLs of bycatch species allocated to the limited access fleet, CFF has worked with partners to develop a real time electronic reporting system. One objective of the system is to have the U.S. scallop fleet regularly report their tow data, bycatch, and scallop catch electronically to a database accessible by the Fisheries Survival Fund (an industry organization), the NOAA Northeast Regional Office and NOAA's Northeast Fisheries Science Center. The data would act as an electronic log book and would be available to the entire fleet in order to alert fishermen of hot-spot areas of high yellowtail flounder to scallop meat catch ratios.
 
This information would enable fishermen to make informed decisions regarding where to fish in order to avoid the yellowtail flounder bycatch that may trigger accountability measures. Success with yellowtail reporting may be the first step in using this two-way communication and data system for dynamic area action programs for species such as loggerhead turtles, windowpane, and winter flounder. This project will continue the refinement of the software and introduce broadband technology to allow cheaper and faster data transfer between vessels and shore.

 

The following was released by the Seafood Coalition:

Last month the U.S. Department of the Interior's National Park Service (NPS) announced that it was now requiring that vendors at all of the food service establishments in its parks, monuments, etc. serve seafood that is certified as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council or identified as "green" or "yellow" in reports prepared by the Monterey Bay Aquarium.

The members of the Seafood Coalition applaud the decision of the NPS to require that only sustainable seafood products be served by the vendors it does business with. By definition any permitted commercial fishery in U.S. waters must be sustainable and would therefore qualify for inclusion on NPS menus. We don't understand how the leadership at the NPS in making this decision completely ignored the existence of FishWatch, an existing program of the National Marine Fisheries Service that has been rating U.S. fisheries for several years, while endorsing two private enterprises, one of which is a voluntary eco-labeling program in which many fisheries choose not to participate and the other rates fisheries arbitrarily and randomly based on its own internally developed standard.

Why would the NPS limit its vendors to those whose products are deemed sustainable by outside interests while ignoring Fishwatch, an existing and proven program? To do so is particularly ill conceived considering that the FishWatch program was created by and is administratively part of the agency that manages our nation's fisheries – with the primary management goal of ensuring the sustainability of the fisheries it manages.  Beyond that, the agency employs world-class scientists and managers who can provide unbiased reviews of non-U.S. sourced fish products that might be offered by NPS vendors.

But our concerns extend beyond the inherent waste resulting from passing over an existing federal program fully capable of and in fact already providing sustainability certification. As a federal agency, part of the U.S. Department of Commerce, the National Marine Fisheries Service can and will be held to a level of transparency and accountability that is not and will not be possible with similar "private" enterprises. Considering the level to which various ENGOs and the foundations that support them have become adept at swaying public policy in support of their particular agendas, the domestic seafood industry needs the protection that such transparency and accountability will provide.

We don't oppose the NPS, or any federal agency, demanding that any vendors that they deal with provide proof of the sustainability of their products, and we trust that this admirable action on the part of the NPS leadership will be extended to all of its vendors for all of their products (including meats, poultry, dairy, vegetable, and paper or plastic items). However, in the interests of equity and objectivity, a federal sustainability certification program should be allowed as one of the acceptable paths for providing products to federal agencies.

Read a PDF version of the Seafood Coalition's release

Media Contacts:

Rod Moore (West Coast)

Nils Stolpe (East Coast)

About the Seafood Coalition

he Seafood Coalition is composed of organizations and companies that represent or participate in commercial fishing and seafood processing as well as organizations that include many of the major suppliers of seafood directly to the American consumer. The Coalition was formed in 2001 to provide a strong, coordinated voice for the seafood industry in promoting science-based marine resource conservation and management in the U.S. and in international arenas. The Coalition is a forum for affected commercial fishing and fish processing interests and seafood suppliers to develop and support policies that improve federal marine resource conservation and management practices. In addition, the Coalition's goal is to foster sustainable development and to strengthen fishing communities along with enhancing the supply of healthy and nutritious seafood for consumers. The membership of the Seafood Coalition represents commercial fishing and fish processing interests in every coastal state from Maine to Texas, from California to Alaska, and in Hawaii as well as seafood suppliers in most interior states. In 2008, U.S. commercial fishermen landed over 8 billion lbs. of seafood. Seafood Coalition members account for the harvesting and/or processing of over three-quarters of those landings.

Members include: At-sea Processors Association, BASE New England, Blue Water Fishermen's Association, Coalition of Coastal Fisheries, Columbia River Crab Fisherman's Association, Coos Bay Trawlers, Directed Sustainable Fisheries, Florida Keys Commercial Fishermen's Association, Garden State Seafood Association, Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, Midwater Trawlers Cooperative, Monkfish Defense Fund, North Carolina Fisheries Association, Northeast Seafood Coalition, Organized Fishermen of Florida, Pacific Seafood Processors Association, South Carolina Seafood Alliance, Southeastern Fisheries Association, Southern Offshore Fishermen's Association, West Coast Seafood Processors Association, United Catcher Boats, Western Fishboat Owners Association.