Fishing Industry Alerts

Monty Deihl, who directs fishing operations for Omega Protein in Northumberland County, Virginia, has written two opinion pieces on the menhaden fishery which were published over the Thanksgiving holiday.

November 27, 2012 — In the Fredericksburg (Virginia) Free Lance-Star, Mr. Deil argues that "while the environmental advocacy community claims these precipitous cuts are necessary to conserve the resource, the truth is much more nuanced."

And in the Roanoke (Virginia) Times, Mr. Deil engaged in a "point-counterpoint" with Chris Moore of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

Menhaden: Not overfished, not endangered
by Monty Deihl

Environmental organizations, including local groups such as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, have taken this opportunity to push for sharp catch reductions. The CBF advocates an immediate 25 percent reduction in harvests, while Pew Environment is pushing for an even steeper 50 percent cut.

In 2010, an ASMFC stock assessment found that menhaden were experiencing overfishing, meaning that, in 2008 (the last year of the assessment) fishing exceeded the ASMFC's designated mortality limit. This triggered the management process culminating in this December's prospective catch limits.

But the recent history of the fishery has not been marked by a pattern of over-exploitation: In 2008 overfishing was slight (0.4 percent over the limit), and this was only the second time in the period from 1993 to 2008 where it had even occurred. The stock fared even better in measures of fecundity (the number of eggs produced). The assessment found the population was producing more than enough eggs to sustain itself, meaning it was not overfished.

Further complicating the management process is the 2012 assessment. While it concluded that overfishing was still occurring but that the population was not overfished, the assessment was regarded by the ASMFC's Menhaden Technical Committee as severely flawed, especially in its pessimistic estimations of menhaden biomass and fishing mortality.

The committee found that these flaws were so bad that the assessment was unfit for management advice. As a result, officials at the ASMFC are now expected to regulate a fishery whose exact status is uncertain and regarding which the last reliable data come from 2008.

Omega Protein recognizes the importance of menhaden conservation. But good conservation is based on sound science and strikes a balance between the concerns of environmentalists and the needs of fishermen whose livelihoods are at stake. Pushing for Draconian cuts despite incomplete evidence does the opposite, needlessly hurting fishing communities while not advancing long-term conservation goals.

Read the op-ed in the Fredericksburg (Virginia) Free Lance-Star

Menhaden: Point/Counterpoint

Menhaden is not overfished
by Monty Diehl

Given the lack of reliable information, a cap based on three-year average landings level could be the best option. Under that approach, harvest cuts would be about 7 percent lower than in 2011. This will allow the menhaden stock to continue its growth while fishermen and fishing communities continue to survive. In contrast, proposed cuts in the range of 20 percent to 50 percent will result in significant job loss.

Omega Protein directly provides 250 jobs, and indirectly provides hundreds more. Its annual economic contribution is $88 million in a region where dependable, good-paying jobs are scarce. It is the largest private and also the largest minority  employer in Northumberland County. The United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 400 has asked fellow union members to support Omega fishermen.

Conservation of our marine resources is essential. But good conservation is based on sound science. Federal law clearly states that while preventing overfishing and rebuilding stocks, regulators are to "take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities." Taking drastic action on inconclusive evidence helps neither the fish nor the fishermen.

More menhaden, more bait, more jobs
by Chris Moore

Finally, the industry uses the threat of massive job losses to argue against harvest reductions. However, there once were numerous menhaden industrial plants up and down the East Coast, employing thousands of workers. Today, with menhaden numbers the lowest on record, those fisheries have severely contracted. The Reedville plant is the only one left.

Is maintaining the status quo really the best course for the industry? In the long term, conserving menhaden will restore jobs, not destroy them.

Clearly, more aggressive steps must be taken to protect the menhaden population to enhance both the coastal ecosystem and menhaden-related jobs. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation calls upon the ASMFC to produce a robust menhaden conservation plan when it meets on Dec. 14, and for the Virginia General Assembly to approve its implementation during the 2013 legislative session.

Read the "point-counterpoint" in the Roanoke (Virginia) Times

 

 

Acting Secretary of Commerce Rebecca Blank today announced the determination of a fishery resource disaster to help coastal communities in New Jersey and New York.

November 16, 2012 — The following was released today by NOAA:

As part of the Administration's focus on providing those affected by Sandy with all available federal support, Acting Secretary of Commerce Rebecca Blank today announced the determination of a fishery resource disaster to help coastal communities in New Jersey and New York.

Under Section 308(d) of the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act and Section 315 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Commerce Secretary can declare a fishery resource disaster and a catastrophic regional fishery disaster, respectively, which allows Congress to appropriate federal relief funds for assistance to alleviate harm resulting from a natural disaster. If money is appropriated, Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will work closely with members of Congress and the governors of impacted states to develop financial assistance plans to help coastal communities and the fishing industry. While this determination will focus on coastal communities in New Jersey and New York, NOAA will continue to work with other states in the region to determine if similar assistance is needed.

"We are taking action because of the storm's devastating impact on the people who live and work in coastal communities that were hit hard by Sandy. Many of these hardworking Americans depend on a robust fishing industry to support their families and local economies," said Acting Secretary Blank. "This disaster declaration is part of a coordinated federal effort to help the region rebuild. The Obama Administration is committed to bringing all available resources to bear to support state and local partners as well as affected communities as recovery continues."

Although the extent of the damage to local commercial and recreational fisheries and coastal infrastructure is not yet known, the cascading economic and social impacts of a storm of this magnitude will likely be extensive. In 2010 alone, New Jersey and New York commercial fisheries landed almost 190 million pounds of fish, valued at more than $210 million dollars. In the same year, New Jersey and New York recreational fishermen took more than 10 million trips and caught a total of nearly five million fish.

"Communities along the East Coast were ravaged by Sandy's impacts, including the fishing industry, especially in New York and New Jersey. Fishing is the lifeblood of many coastal communities, providing jobs and recreational opportunities for millions and contributing to the food security of the nation," said Dr. Jane Lubchenco, administrator, NOAA. "This disaster declaration is the first step in supporting these industries and communities up and down the East Coast as they continue recovery efforts."

 

 

Georges Bank Yellowtail flounder has become a serious issue for New England Fishermen in both the groundfish and scallop industries. Accordingly the Fisheries Survival Fund organized an event to discuss efforts to avoid yellowtail bycatch. View Saving Seafood's coverage of the forum here .

 

Dr. Karp presented an overview of the plan, which included an outline of the the planning process, the core activities planned, and the major research objectives.

November 13, 2012 — Today, in the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) meeting, Dr. Bill Karp, the recently appointed Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) Director, presented a “Review of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s Draft Strategic Plan.” Dr. Karp presented an overview of the plan, which included an outline of the the planning process, the core activities planned, and the major research objectives.
 
According to Dr. Karp, the goal of the strategic plan is to document and prioritize the science activities of the Center, including evaluating places where synergies are needed, plans that need consolidation, and putting management in a better position to deal with the budget challenges expected in the next several years.

Each of NOAA's science centers is drafting a plan of this type and is seeking input from the public, but it is only a part of the planning process so far, Dr. Karp explains. Equally important is the implementation process, where each of the activities at the Science Center will be evaluated annually on their performance and their conformance to the science plan. The complete science plan will then be evaluated every five years to make sure it is up to date with fishing priorities. 

Dr. Karp then described the main activities under the science plan, including the recent “integrated ecosystem assessment," which takes into account the impacts of changing environmental conditions due to climate change. The Strategic Plan covers themes that include problems with current assessments and science discussed at last Friday’s Fishermen’s Northeast Groundfish Science Forum.

Following up comments he made at the Science Forum, Dr. Karp described how collaborative research would fit into the science plan. “Not only am I concerned and interested in briefing and exchanging with our primary partners…but that the science itself is done through partnerships," he stated. “One of the primary purposes of a strategic plan of this kind is really to fully understand how well we leverage our science with respect to the partnerships that we have, and whether there are new opportunities for partnerships for building and improving the science that is so important to us.” Dr. Karp notes that the partners he references include those in the industry, the academic community, and other federal organizations.

This was followed by a discussion of how the plan will be used to guide the Center’s work for the next five years, as well as comments by members of the Council and the public.

Listen to Dr. Bill Karp’s overview of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s Draft Strategic Plan and follow along with the slides. Please note: the webinar feed provided incomplete audio resulting in an abrupt start to Dr. Karp’s presentation.

Dr. Bill Karp’s review of the Center’s Draft Strategic Plan was followed by a Council member question and answer period. This portion of the discussion touched on a variety of issues including:

    •    The effect of environmental factors on fish stocks and the uncertainty that arises in stock assessment data as a result
    •    The need for public feedback on the Science Center’s Draft Strategic Plan
    •    The definition of a “healthy marine ecosystem” and “value”
    •    Human beings as an integral part of the ecosystem

Listen to Council members' comments regarding Dr. Bill Karp’s overview of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s Draft Strategic Plan.

The Council members' comments were followed by a public comment period, which also brought to light a variety of issues. These issues included:

    •    The inclusion of the resilience of human communities in the Science Center’s Draft Strategic Plan
    •    The development of effective and efficient science as a way of improving management
    •    The benefits of setting a multi-year fisheries management plan

Listen to the public’s comments regarding the Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s Draft Strategic Plan.

 

Last Friday, NOAA conducted a Fishermen’s Northeast Groundfish Science Forum in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, allowing fishermen and members of the public to interact with NOAA officials on groundfish science.
The following is a summary of the afternoon session. A summary of the morning session can be found here. Throughout the summary below are links to audio highlights of the day's meeting.  

Q and A Session

A question from Jim Kendall, a New Bedford seafood consultant, concerned the appropriateness of the sample areas for yellowtail flounder. Kendall claimed that the survey, although random, was not taking place in the areas where yellowtail are actually found, and was not getting a representative sample of the population. “It’s much like taking a national population survey–going to Dakota, going to Minnesota, Wisconsin, all those states,” he said. “But you can’t take those states and ignore the rest, where your heavy populations are–New York, California, Florida.”

The response was that the yellowtail survey was conducted in the same way as previous surveys, and that, over time, the results of the survey smooth out, regardless of which areas are surveyed in any given year.

Vito Giacalone of the Northeast Seafood Coalition started a discussion on concerns he had about the randomized way the surveys are conducted, and the selection process for what areas are chosen for the samples. He claimed the spatial distribution is too unpredictable and that even using historic data to find the correct areas to trawl in could be incorrect and flawed.

NOAA’s response highlighted the problems inherent in conducting a multispecies survey, and contrasted it with a single-species survey like scallops. They noted the difficulty of distributing sample areas, and accounting for differences among the species sampled.

Assessment methods, models & results

    •    Paul Rago, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)/Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) Population Dynamics Branch
    •    Mark Gibson, Rhode Island Department of Fish and Game Deputy Chief (RI DF&G)
    •    David Goethel, owner-operator F/V Ellen Diane, New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC)
    •    John Annala, Gulf of Maine Research Institute (GMRI), Chief Scientific Officer

Dr. Bill Karp introduced the panel on assessment methods, models & results.
 
Paul Rago of the Population Dynamics Branch of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, began the panel discussion with an explanation of stock assessments and the different factors that go into creating the final product. He discussed the different techniques of stock assessments and their role as an integration of the measures of trend and scale based on the basic population model that is dependent on a inputs and outputs of total biomass. He addressed that although we have a historical record, and data record, condition in the environment and within a species change, and this is where many of the issues the assessments are facing now take root.
 
Mark Gibson, the Rhode Island DF&G Deputy Chief, presented a sample stock assessment of Winter Flounder and discussed the role of environmental conditions and local stock assessments in
science. He explained how to assess winter flounder on a smaller scale with the Local Rhode Island stock assessment. Gibson gave an overview of the winter flounder assessment and outlined how changes in natural mortality due to climate change were now having to be factored into the model. He also noted that changes in mortality rate, environment, and the changing of the assessment models all need to be evaluated.
 
David Goethel, of the NEFMC and the owner-operator of Ellen Diane, spoke on the issues and concerns of fishermen with the current stock assessment science. He acknowledged his belief that the assessment process generally works, but that the assessments had been “oversold,” with fisheries law and management overvaluing the estimates.

“It’s hard to manage on an estimate,” Goethel said, noting that the law “requires us to manage to that estimate like it’s a point, and that’s a real problem.”

He addressed several areas of concern including:

–       An over-reliance on the trawl survey, with survey gear not sampling the correct areas
–       Calibration in transition between the survey vessels was flawed and inaccurate
–       The need for a flatfish survey – cannot survey skates and flatfish with a rockhopper
–       An over-reliance on mathematical modeling in stock assessments
–       Domed vs. flat-topped selectivity
–       Stock boundaries for cod  

During a conversation about the current environmental conditions of the ocean waters and how they are being measured, Jim Odlin, fisherman and member of the New England Fisheries Management Council, points out that, “you have to have reference points for the regime you have, not for the regime you’d like to have.” In his comment he describes the current methods for determining the kind of regime that exists, especially in terms of environmental conditions. These include: attaching equipment to lobster traps, temperature depth probes on research vessels, and the use of historical data. He emphasizes that historical data is especially important for determining the current regime, using the example of the 1950s, with a similar warm water regime. During this time period, with no closed areas or management regulations and a smaller mesh size was used for fishing, conditions were better for catching more fish, yet the fish seemed nonexistent, Odlin explained. “The fish did their thing regardless of fisheries management,” he stated, “We can attempt to rebuild until hell freezes over, but its not going to happen.”

Dr. Karp opened discussion with a question posed by a webinar participant about collaborative research, and how best to incorporate the knowledge from fishermen into the stock assessment process. The panel responded by noting that, through peer review, science is a self-correcting process. They noted that the industry has information to bring into the process, but if it is to be included in the assessment it needs to be scrutinized in a scientific way in order to maintain confidence in that data.

Paul Rago, responded that he never uses the word anecdotal when referring to fishermen’s information, because it is incorrect statement and a good way to empty a room of fishermen. He also spoke that “if you want to see criticism come to a stock assessment meeting and see how we are on ourselves.” Mr. Rago explains that the one current concrete way in which the ideas from fishermen can be incorporated into the assessment process is the data recorded in vessel trip reports. When data is entered into these forms, its is more organized than delivering separate pieces of information to the scientists that they may not know what to do with.

On the panel, David Goethel described why fishermen are often smug about stock assessment results and often offer “I told you so” comments. He explained that the fishermen are not offered a real role in the scientific process, and that the current involvement with working groups is not enough. Goethel emphasizes the need for fishermen to get involved in the science process in a formal way, not just an informal way. He asserted that fishermen need to be included as peer reviewers and independent experts, and most of all: need to be paid. Fishermen cannot afford to take weeks off of the water to attend meetings, someone has to pay for it. He concluded that fishermen aren't going to trust the stock assessment process until they can have a more involved role.
 
In the closing comments, Jim Kendall complemented Karp on his successful cooperative programs in Alaska and expressed the hope he could use that experience to produce quality cooperative programs in New England.

 

 

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission is considering harvest restrictions that could threaten the future of the fishery and thousands of families who depend on it.

November 12, 2012 (Saving Seafood) — The United Food and Commercial Workers Union is urging its members to support working families in the menhaden fishery.  According to the union, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) is considering harvest restrictions that could threaten the future of the menhaden fishery and thousands of families who depend on it.

Numerous environmental groups, including the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation have repeatedly released statements and materials framing information about the fishery in such a way as to be misleading while stopping just short of being factually incorrect.  These groups are calling for a 50% reduction in harvest which would likely cripple the commercial menhaden fishery.
 
The United Food and Commercial Workers Union has asked its members to support the union fishermen at  Omega Protein Fisherman by signing a letter requesting that the ASMFC adopt reasonable catch restrictions to protect the fishery without destroying jobs that support working families.
 
Read the article here  

 

 

Today, NOAA conducted a Fishermen's Northeast Groundfish Science Forum in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, allowing fishermen and members of the public to interact with NOAA officials on groundfish science.

November 9, 2012 — The following is a summary of the morning session. A summary of the afternoon session will be published next week.

Throughout the summary below are links to audio highlights of the day's meeting.

In addition, read coverage of the event by Jay Lindsay of the Associated Press in the Boston Globe

Introduction
 
*    Bill Karp, NMFS/NEFSC Science & Research Director
*    John Bullard, NMFS/NERO Regional Administrator
*    Rip Cunningham, NEFMC Chair
 
In his opening remarks, Dr. Bill Karp, the Director of NOAA's Northeast Fisheries Science Center, stressed the importance of a close working relationship between NOAA scientists and members of the industry.
 
"Fishermen are scientists much as we at the Science Center are scientists," Dr. Karp said. "Every one of you goes to sea every day, and has to draw on your understanding of how the ecosystem works, and the biology and ecology of the fish that you depend on to support yourself and your families."
 
NOAA Northeast Regional Administrator John Bullard made a similar point when discussing the forum, noting that, during his listening tour of the region, there was much skepticism within the fishing community about the validity of the stock assessment science. "Any time a person from the government comes into your life, skepticism is warranted. Skepticism is a good thing," Bullard said. He said that the goal of the forum was to make sure that the skepticism was constructive. "Scientists and fishermen can learn from one another, if we can find ways to talk to one another, in a way where we're also, as Bill [Karp] said, listening to one another," Bullard added.
 
Dr. Karp noted what he saw as several bright spots in the collaborative relationship between scientists and fishermen. He mentioned that, after the controversy over the most recent assessment of Gulf of Maine cod, several workshops were developed, involving a broad audience and bringing in new perspectives to be incorporated into the assessment. "I think it's a model, and I think it's a model that we can build on," he said.  
 
Dr. Karp mentioned working with institutions such as the School of Marine Science and Technology (SMAST) to develop the capacity to conduct collaborative surveys with the industry, as well developing long-term strategies for improving the survey process. He also mentioned working with the industry to address their concerns about NOAA stock assessment science, particularly concerns raised by fishermen over the NOAA Research Vessel Bigelow. 
 
Dr. Karp addressed earlier calls for an "end-to-end" survey of the scientific process of the NOAA Science Centers, as a result of the Sissenwine-Rothschild report. He announced that, next year, there would be an independent peer review of the data collection process at all of NOAA's Science Centers. The year after, a similar review would examine the stock assessment process itself.

"We have designed a process, we are moving forward with that process," Dr. Karp said. "We are sensitive to the concerns that your community has about the data collection issues about the stock assessment processes themselves, and this is how we're going to move forward to respond to that." 
 
Current groundfish status and stock assessment process
 
Dr. Steve Cadrin of the University of Massachusetts School for Marine Science and Technology gave an overview of the stock assessment process and concluded with his perspective and opinion on the current state of the assessment science.

Dr. Cadrin reviewed the dynamics of fish populations, monitoring, surveys, assessment data, population estimates and projections and the determiniation of biological reference points.  He concluded with a discussion of his concerns. 
 
Dr. Cadrin noted that, given their experience in the field, fishermen often understand some of the fundamentals of stock assessments better than some scientists, and that stock assessments in the last decades have performed very poorly. They have been unable to provide fisheries managers the information they need in order to achieve goals such as ending overfishing and rebuilding stocks.

In order to find the common causes of the stock assessment problems, Dr. Cadrin said that stock assessments need to be approached differently. He noted that tools that worked during the 1990s are currently failing fisheries managers, and that different resources, including academic science and cooperative research with fishermen, need to be considered as part of a broader approach to fisheries management. 
 
Resource surveys and other data used for assessments
 
*    Robert Johnston, NMFS/NEFSC Ecosystems Surveys Branch
*    Jim Gartland, VIMS and NEAMAP
*    Jeremy King, MA DMF
*    John Williamson, F/V Seakeeper
*    Amy Van Atten, NMFS/NEFSC NE Fisheries Observer Program

Russell Brown, NMFS/NEFSC Deputy Director introduced the topic providing general information about different types of surveys and what fishery dependent and fishery independent data contributes to the stock assessment science respectively. He also spoke on the different types of collaborative research that goes into stock assessment science, coming from academic institutions, historical data, and input from the industry. 
 
Dr. Brown introduced the panel for this section, each of whom spoke briefly on their respective roles in surveys and assessments:
 
Rob Johnston of the Echo Systems Survey Branch at the Northeast Science Center spoke on the multispecies bottom trawl surveys for the New England area. He described the data currently being used to perform the surveys including the Henry B. Bigelow research vessel, which he acknowledged has encountered criticism for its size and inability to sample inshore areas. He explained that although the net does not catch all species at the highest efficiency possible, the survey needs to sample all habitat types and effectively catch about 50 different species. He also addressed concerns about the net design, which he explained was designed over a period of three years with input from industry representatives, gear researchers, and the center scientists.
 
Jeremy King of the Massachusetts DMF discussed the Massachusetts Trawl Survey and its contribution to stock assessments. An old survey, dating back to 1978, the trawl survey has used the same net and tow times and speeds to produce a great source of standardized time series of data. The data has been used in many assessments and was included in the Massachusetts Ocean Planning Process.
 
Jim Gartland of VIMS discussed the NEAMAP Inshore Trawl Survey for the Mid Atlantic and Southern New England. This multispecies survey started in 2007, and because of its young age, has only contributed to a few assessments, including winter flounder, squid, and sturgeon. Because the Bigelow is unable to sample inshore, the NEMAP has filled in some data gaps for the New England area. It is a fishery independent survey conducted on a commercial vessel captained by Jimmy Ruhle. Though the tow times are short (about 20 minutes), each tow brings in about 1000 pounds, which is a great amount of catch data.  
 
Amy Van Atten of the NMFS/NEFSC Northeast Fisheries Observer Program discussed how her program operates at the Science Center. The Observer Program collects fishery-dependent data, and is included in numerous surveys, such as the scallop survey. The program trains individuals to work with fishermen to collect the best data in fields like species verification. Ms. Van Atten acknowledged how difficult it is to have an observer aboard a commercial vessel, but thanked those who do because the program is an essential part of the management process and monitoring for Annual Catch Limits.
 
Before John Williamson of the MREP program spoke, Russell Brown asked him questions involving recent concerns of fishermen. He explained that the commercial industry has little faith in the science programs, citing the lag time in the Observer program, and a reporting process that appears to be redundant and inefficient to industry members.
 
Williamson answered that all of the scientists working on the stock assessments need to be in the field working with the industry to better understand the complete picture.
 
John Williamson, Captain of the Seakeeper, discussed the Marine Resource Education Program (MREP) run through the Science Center. He explained that the program is intended to educate industry fishermen in the complexities of stack data, and the encourage cooperation between the commercial vessels and the assessment science. He discussed that most of the fishermen who are involved in the program are surprised that the scientists that they speak with greatly respect them for all of their experience and knowledge. 
 
Q and A Session
 
After the first set of presentations had concluded, the floor was opened for questions from the audience and from the online webinar.
 
One question concerned the use of a rockhopper sweep, as opposed to a cookie sweep, on the NOAA research vessel the Bigelow during its groundfish surveys. This led to a detailed series of questions and answers regarding gear used on the Bigelow, and a commitment from NOAA officials to conduct further meetings to address concerns of the industry about the accuracy of the vessel and its gear.

 

 

Opinion piece by Emilie Litsinger and Dick Allen, submitted to Saving Seafood by the Environmental Defense Fund on the eve of the National Marine Fisheries Service "Fishermen's Northeast Groundfish Science Forum."

In this opinion piece, submitted to Saving Seafood by the Environmental Defense Fund on the eve of the National Marine Fisheries Service "Fishermen's Northeast Groundfish Science Forum," Emilie Litsinger and Dick Allen make the following recommendations:

   •    Each assessment should begin with one or more industry meetings to directly engage fishermen from the outset and solicit insights on stock and ecosystem trends.   
    •    Stock assessment work groups should include industry members who can help interpret how markets, management actions and other factors have affected fishing behavior, and therefore catch and effort trends. 
    •    Expand the fleet of potential survey vessels by augmenting surveys by government boats with more extensive surveys using commercial fishing vessels. 
    •    Establish processes in New England to engage non-government scientists, including academic scientists and those supported by the fishing industry, in the stock assessment process. 
    •    Assessment reports to fishery managers should clearly convey the outcomes and relative strengths and weaknesses of other plausible models including those provided by industry and other stakeholders. 
    •    Assessments need to begin incorporating a broader range of factors where possible.  Fishermen should play a vital role in determining which factors are most important and in collecting the needed data.

BOSTON — November 8, 2012 — On November 9 the New England groundfish industry will have an opportunity to discuss the state of fishery science with scientists from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The workshop in Portsmouth, NH responds to criticism generated by abrupt changes in scientific evaluations of the status of fish stocks that support fishing communities from Maine to New Jersey. The goal of the meeting is to improve assessments by sharing knowledge among fishermen and scientists.



Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) supports greater involvement of fishermen in the stock assessment process and encourages fishermen to work with scientists to ensure that their knowledge and experience add to our understanding of these valuable resources. EDF has developed recommendations aimed at producing the most dependable stock assessments possible. The accumulated knowledge of the fishing industry can contribute to improved stock assessments, and greater industry participation can increase confidence in fishery science.



The first priority is to expand the fleet of potential survey vessels by augmenting surveys by government boats with more extensive surveys using commercial fishing vessels. We believe this is the single most important step that can be taken to improve the reliability of stock assessments and confidence in those assessments.



The stock assessment process at present is open and participatory, with public participation welcome at each meeting.  However, each assessment should begin with one or more industry meetings to directly engage fishermen from the outset and solicit insights on stock and ecosystem trends. Furthermore, stock assessment work groups should include industry members who can help interpret how markets, management actions and other factors have affected fishing behavior, and therefore catch and effort trends.



In other regions of the country, there are established processes to engage non-government scientists, including academic scientists and those supported by the fishing industry, in the stock assessment process. Taking further steps to establish a similar process for the New England region would pay significant dividends. Providing for more formal engagement of these stakeholders would help build trust and provide badly needed expert input.



Stock assessments ultimately select a final model to determine reference points and status.  However, other models are typically considered along the way, including those provided by industry and other stakeholders.  Sometimes, the relative merit of one model over another is slight, yet the outcomes can differ significantly.  Although a final model is needed for status determination, assessment reports to fishery managers should clearly convey the outcomes and relative strengths and weaknesses of other plausible models.  That information can play an important role in characterizing uncertainty and setting buffers.



Increasingly, fishermen and scientists are reporting rapid and complex changes in marine ecosystems. The distribution and abundance of species are shifting, the timing of spawning and migrations is changing, and new species are arriving from southern waters. This challenges the assumption of most assessment models that the ecosystem is more or less constant.  Assessments need to begin incorporating a broader range of factors where possible.  Fishermen should play a vital role in determining which factors are most important and in collecting the needed data. 



Meetings like this week's Portsmouth workshop are an important step to improving communications and trust, and in identifying areas where scientists and fishermen can better work together.  We hope that the meeting leads to additional opportunities for scientists and fishermen to discuss trends in fish populations and the processes driving those trends out at sea.



Under federal fishery conservation laws, New England fishermen are held to strict catch limits. The future of the region's fish stocks and its fishing communities require that scientists set those catch limits to allow fishermen to catch what the stocks can support while preventing excess catches.

Fishermen have a vital stake in getting the catch limits right; their knowledge can help to reach that result.
 
Dick Allen was a commercial fisherman for more than 30 years and is now a fishery consultant.



Emilie Litsinger is the New England Fisheries Manager for Environmental Defense Fund.

 
Read the op-ed on the Environmental Defense Fund website  

 

 

The Fisheries Survival Fund will be hosting a forum on Georges Bank Yellowtail Flounder and Incidental Catch Avoidance on Tuesday, November 13, at 5:30 pm.

The forum will be held at the Atrium at the Newport Marriot Hotel (25 America's Cup Avenue, Newport, Rhode Island), and is open to the general public.
 
The presenters at the forum will be:
 
– Dr. Steve Cadrin and Cate O'Keefe of the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth's School of Marine Science and Technology
 
– Dr. David Rudders of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science 

– Capt. Ron Smolowitz of the Coonamesset Farm Foundation.
 
 View the bulletin for the forum here    
 
Listen to a July 7th, 2011 interview conducted by Saving Seafood Radio with Cate O'Keefe and Greg DeCelles on the SMAST yellowtail bycatch avoidance program here  

 

 

New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell has written to NOAA's Northeast Fisheries Science Center Science and Research Director Bill Karp regarding anticipated cuts in 2013 Annual Catch Limits.

The mayor says the forecasted cuts are impossible for New Bedford fishermen to accept due to the growing concerns about the accuracy of the groundfish stock assessments.

He notes that his is not simply an issue of fishermen expressing frustration of the quota levels, noting that when fishermen are confident in the underlying science, they will accept lower quota because they understand it is in the long-term interest of the fishery. He cites the scallop industry's willingness to accept lower quota in 2013 because they have confidence in the science and the data collection process

The mayor also asks Dr. Karp to consider the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Institute (MFI)'s proposals to participate in an end-to-end stock assessment review and a cooperative yellowtail research survey.

The text of the letter follows…

November 7, 2012

BY EMAIL AND REGULAR MAIL

William A. Karp
Science and Research Director
Northeast Fisheries Science Center
166 Water Street
Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026

Re: November 9, 2012 NOAA Science Forum

Dear Dr. Karp:

As mayor of New Bedford, Massachusetts, which recently was named the nation's highest grossing fishing port for the twelfth consecutive year, I want to thank you for holding the fishermen's groundfish science forum on November 9, 2012 in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. I greatly appreciate your commitment to strengthening the relationship between fisheries scientists and industry.

As you know, draconian cuts in the Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) are forecasted for the 2013 fishing year for a number of stocks in the multispecies fishery. If implemented, these cuts would be devastating for New Bedford. Annual groundfish landings in New Bedford are worth $20 million. Our scallop industry – for which one species in the multispecies fishery, yellowtail flounder, is bycatch – brings in $400 million in direct annual revenue. Taking into account their ancillary businesses, the two fisheries account for nearly $1.3 billion in annual economic activity in Greater New Bedford.

The forecasted cuts are impossible for New Bedford fishermen to accept due to the growing concerns about the accuracy of the groundfish stock assessments. There is a misperception that fishermen are concerned solely with the amount of quota, not with the quality of science. If fishermen are confident in the underlying science, they will accept lower quota because they understand it is in the long-term interest of the fishery. For example, the scallop industry has expressed its willingness to accept significant cuts to their quota in the 2013 fishing year because it has confidence in the science and the data collection process, and it is confident that the reduced quota will result increased scallop biomass and improved harvest levels in the future.

It is my hope that we can all work together to build the same level of cooperation and confidence in groundfish assessments and surveys. As a next step, I strongly urge you consider the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Institute (MFI)'s proposals to participate in an end-to-end stock assessment review and a cooperative yellowtail research survey. I believe that an end-to-end review of the data collection, assessment and management process will promote a constructive dialogue between scientists,government, and industry on how best to improve fisheries science and management in New England. MFI's proposed cooperative survey of yellowtail flounder will also help foster confidence in the stock assessments and positive relations. If fishermen believe that survey data reflect the actual abundance of the stock, then they will be more likely to accept the resulting stock assessments and management measures.

The fishing year starts on May 1, 2013, so there is no time to waste. Given the importance of the multispecies fishery to New Bedford, I hope that you can work with MFI to resolve the unanswered questions about the status of the groundfish fishery and give New Bedford's fishermen confidence that decisions are being made with the best and most complete information possible.

Sincerely,

Jon Mitchell
Mayor