Fishing Industry Alerts

Mass Sen John Kerry has written to Commerce Sec'y John Bryson, NOAA Admin Jane Lubchenco, and NMFS chief Eric Schwaab asking for an immediate new stock assessment of cod in the Gulf of Maine.

The following was released by the Senator's office:

BOSTON – Senator John Kerry today called for an immediate new stock assessment of cod in the Gulf of Maine and preparations for simultaneous economic relief in the event of a verified cod crisis.  
 
In a letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Kerry called on NMFS "to immediately conduct a new assessment" with "complete information that has been developed with the consent of all stakeholders."
 
"The most recent Gulf of Maine cod assessment threatens to further exacerbate a number of issues our fishermen already face, with potentially disastrous consequences," Kerry wrote after a recent report showed a stock level of only 11,400 metric tons, 22,600 metric tons less than a previous assessment.  "Our only option is to rapidly develop a response that is fair and sound and that our fishermen can trust."
 
Kerry outlined immediate steps needed to develop a balanced and strong federal response to aid New England fishermen, including:
 
·         requesting NMFS conduct a new assessment that includes additional sources of information and data and ensures that the data used to set catch limits is as robust and accurate as possible and has buy-in from the people whose livelihoods are most impacted by the results;
 
·         asking NOAA to undertake an end to end review of the stock assessment process that includes the analysis and recommendations of outside parties, with the help and participation of industry leaders and the Massachusetts Marine Fishery Institute (MFI);
 
·         asking NOAA to work with Senator Kerry to develop an economic assistance package for our fishermen and fishing communities if there is a significant change in the existing catch limits on Gulf of Maine cod; AND
 
·         urging NOAA to take action to maintain the sustainability of the fishery and the Gulf of Maine cod stocks while the new assessments are being done.
  
The full text of Senator Kerry's letter is below:
 
December 14, 2011
 
The Honorable John Bryson               The Honorable Jane Lubchenco
Secretary                                             Administrator
U.S. Department of Commerce          National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1401 Constitution Ave NW                1401 Constitution Ave NW, Room 5128
Washington, D.C. 20230                    Washington, D. C. 20230
          
The Honorable Eric Schwaab
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
National Marine Fisheries Service
1315 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
 
Dear Secretary Bryson, Administrator Lubchenco and Assistant Administrator Schwaab:
 
I am writing to ask for your special attention and close collaboration with me in developing the federal response to the recent National Marine Fisheries Service Gulf of Maine cod assessment which, as I know you understand, could have a dramatic impact on fishermen in Massachusetts and around New England. Judging by the swiftness with which you organized last week's stakeholders meeting, I know I do not need to underscore how urgent and sensitive this situation is for Massachusetts fishermen. We've had many frank conversations on these issues the last couple years, and on this one in particular there's no complicated way of putting it: we simply need to get this right, right from the start.
 
As you acknowledge, the most recent Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod assessment threatens to further exacerbate a number of issues our fishermen already face, with potentially disastrous consequences. The 2008 Gulf of Maine Cod Assessment showed a stock level of 34,000 metric tons of cod which allowed for fishing limits of 12,000 metric tons of cod. The new report shows a stock level of only 11,400 metric tons of GOM cod. We are told that this could require a fishing limit as low as 1,000 metric tons of cod and we are extremely concerned that this action would effectively shut down the fishery. We appreciate the fast response to the new assessment from NOAA and NMFS; we thought the meeting in New Hampshire last Friday was a good example of how reaching out to stakeholders beyond federal agencies can result in positive dialogue. However, further action needs to be taken immediately to address this potentially disastrous situation.
 
First, as you know, the issues surrounding the Massachusetts fishing industry are personal to me. I've worked on these issues for 26 years in the Senate, and tried especially hard to bridge the divide on contentious issues, whether it was fishing science, rewriting Magnuson Stevens on the Commerce Committee, or securing disaster assistance under previous Democratic and Republican administrations. That is why I have been particularly dismayed in recent years to see these issues become more and more difficult and divisive. Even before the recent cod assessment, too many of our fishermen – particularly small boat fishermen – and local businesses were finding it increasingly difficult just to stay in business. As a result, the tensions between federal regulators and the fishing community have reached a boiling point. The emerging cod situation elevates the urgency of collaboration beyond any measure. If there is going to be a well-managed outcome to this situation, it hinges on a level of trust and partnership that has been so elusive in recent years. Our only option is to rapidly develop a response that is fair and sound and that our fishermen can trust – and I'd emphasize the word "trust."
 
Only with more complete information that has been developed with the consent of all stakeholders will we be able to resolve the mistrust between fishermen and federal regulators over the science that forms the basis of fishery management decisions. It is absolutely logical why so many of our fishermen and scientists continue to have concerns with the results of the most recent cod assessment. They wonder how the results could change so dramatically from one study to the next – particularly when these studies have such an overwhelming impact on their ability to go to work every day and make a living for their families. I believe the questions that have been raised by members of the fishing community demonstrate the need for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to immediately conduct a new assessment that will allow for broadened Terms of Reference for the Science and Statistical Committee to be able to review additional sources of information and data, including tagging studies, catch per unit effort data and new systems of data collection for the recreational fishery. I strongly believe this new assessment should be done in the closest collaboration with both local scientific experts and our fishermen. The severity of the potential consequences demand that every possible step is taken to ensure that the data used to set catch limits is as robust and accurate as possible, with buy-in from the people whose livelihoods are most impacted by the results. This new assessment is essential for getting fishermen to trust and support in the outcome and should be completed before draconian management measures are taken.
 
As you know, I have long urged NMFS to improve the quantity and quality of its stock assessments and to take steps to collaborate with local stakeholders. This GOM cod situation is further proof that the entire research and data process needs to be completely overhauled. Therefore, in conjunction with the new assessment for GOM cod, I ask that you undertake an end to end review of the stock assessment process that includes the analysis and recommendations of outside parties. It is my hope that with the help and participation of industry leaders and the Massachusetts Marine Fishery Institute, a nationally and internationally recognized educational center of excellence and leader on fisheries management issues, and the sustainability of our oceans, NOAA can ensure that we are using the best available data and science in making these decisions that can have such an enormous impact on the economic wellbeing of fishermen and our coastal communities.
 
Finally, while the new assessment and review are being done, I urge you to take action to maintain the sustainability of the fishery and the GOM cod stock. As we work to ensure the sustainability of the fishery, we must also take steps to assist our fishermen who may have to deal with the economic effects of any future significant reduction in catch limits. We must work together to begin developing an economic assistance package to assist our fishermen and fishing communities if there is a significant change in the existing catch limits on Gulf of Maine cod. I would emphasize that any decisions to reduce catch limits to the levels being contemplated if the science turns out to be accurate, need to be made simultaneously with an economic assistance plan embraced by the Administration even if the burden of funding it rightly falls on the Congress. This too needs to be a highly collaborative effort. No one has a greater interest in the sustainability of the cod stocks than Massachusetts fishermen – but Massachusetts fishermen also need to have confidence that the Administration cares equally about the sustainability of their incomes and livelihoods.
 
As you know, the Department of Commerce has a long history of providing assistance to fishermen who have been affected when catches for key fisheries are dramatically reduced both in New England and across the United States. For example, In June 1999, the Department of Commerce provided $5 million in disaster relief to compensate fishermen who suffered economic harm during a series of closures of inshore fishing grounds, designed to protect dwindling Gulf of Maine cod stocks. In March 1994, the Department of Commerce provided $30 million in emergency funding to provide assistance to the Northeast fishing industry and to communities affected by the collapse of the Northeast commercial fisheries.  In August 1995, the Department of Commerce provided $25 million in disaster assistance to expand and extend a commercial vessel and permit buyout program to help commercial fishermen that sustained losses from the collapse of the groundfish fishery in the Northeast.
 
Again, I appreciate your early efforts to keep Massachusetts fishermen informed on this developing cod issue. The potential severity of this situation demands we work together to ensure the sustainability of the resource and the financial stability of the fishing industry. It is up to all of us to make smart decisions in the present to support fishing and guarantee it has a strong future.
 
Thank you in advance for your consideration of our request.
 
Sincerely,
 
                                  
John F. Kerry
United States Senator 

 

Read the complete press release from Senator John Kerry

 

 

 

 

 

A Bloomberg/Businessweek article by Brendan Borrell subtitled "How a small town in Massachusetts destroyed a decade of law enforcement" accuses Gloucester and Massachusetts politicians of severely compromising NOAA's enforcement powers in fisheries.

WASHINGTON, DC — While much of the article is accurate, a Saving Seafood analysis found that it overlooks and minimizes many violations and abuses committed by Charles Juliand and the Office of Law Enforcement (OLE), and minimizes the significance of findings by Inspector General Todd Zinser and Special Master Charles Swartwood.  It also ignored the widespread abuse of the Asset Forfeiture Fund found by the Inspector General.
 
NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco and NMFS chief Eric Schwaab considered many of the problems found the problems uncovered by the Inspector General to be significant enough to take significant organizational actions to correct them.  Commerce Secretary Gary Locke found the issued uncovered by the Special Master to be warrant an apology and a return of fines. 
 
The story, and the Saving Seafood analysis are available here

 

 

 

 

 

WASHINGTON – 18 signers of the "industry letter" sent to Congress on November 14th say "it has become clear that some ENGOs,  members of industry, and  members of the press have misinterpreted the letter's intent."

 The fishermen stated "the letter was not meant to champion a national catch share agenda, and it is simply wrong for anyone to suggest that it does."
 
The letter was submitted to Saving Seafood by Mr. Frank Patania who signed the orginal letter. The text of the letter follows: 

 
In the weeks since the "industry letter" (dated November 14th) was sent to the New England Congressional delegation, it has become clear that some ENGOs, some members of industry, and some members of the press have misinterpreted the letter's intent.
Therefore, we are writing today to clarify the reason we were and remain compelled to support the industry letter. 
 
First, the letter was not meant to champion a national catch share agenda, and it is simply wrong for anyone to suggest that it does. Furthermore, the fishermen who signed the letter are dozens of active fishermen who are pro catch share, anti catch share, and everything in between. 
 
Here is what we do share in common – a financial dependence on the groundfish resource, and a full understanding that the only available alternative to the sector management system – that is low allocations of days at sea, differential days at sea counting, gear restricted areas, no access to rolling closures, and very low trip limits -would bankrupt us all. 
 
Since sector management of New England groundfish was implemented in May, 2010 we have focused on making the system work. That has been no easy task.
Our letter is a plea by a diverse cross-section of the active fleet for regulatory stability.
Until there is a change in the law, and/or relaxation of rebuilding requirements, sector management is what we have. 
 
Our letter is a respectful request to lawmakers to be mindful of the realities associated with the groundfish fishery and an appeal to those lawmakers to work collaboratively with us, our industry associations, and the New England Fishery Management Council to improve the existing system and to hold off on any radical changes until the majority of the active groundfish fishermen advise otherwise. 
 
Sincerely, 
 
Frank Patania – Boston, MA 
 
Louis Williams – Gloucester, MA 
 
Gus Sanfillippo – Gloucester, MA 
 
Dennis Robillard – Eliot, ME 
 
Matthew Carter – Gloucester, MA 
 
Terry Alexander – Portland, ME 
 
Russell Sherman – Gloucester, MA 
 
Carlos Alberto – New Bedford, MA 
 
Michael Russo – Provincetown, MA 
 
Tory Bramante – Boston, MA 
 
Michael Leary – Gloucester, MA 
 
Carlos Raphael – New Bedford, MA 
 
Antonio Caneira – New Bedford, MA 
 
Al Cottone – Gloucester, MA 
 
Christopher Brown – Point Judith, RI 
 
Joseph Orlando – Gloucester, MA 
 
William McCann – Wareham, MA 
 
Michael Walsh – Boston, MA
 

NEWTON, MA – Congressman Barney Frank, who has been a longtime high-profile advocate for the fishing industry today announced that he will not run for Congress in the 2012 election.

Frank began his political career in 1967 as the Executive Assistant to Mayor Kevin White of Boston.  In 1971, he served as the Administrative Assistant to Congressman Michael Harrington of Massachusetts.  In 1992, he was elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives – he held that seat for eight years.  In 1980, he ran successfully to succeed Father Robert Drinan as Representative of the Fourth Congressional District of Massachusetts, a seat he has held, throughout the various redistricting of that district, for more than 30 years.  In 2007, Frank became Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.  He serves as Ranking Member (the senior Democrat) of the Committee today.
 
Frank's press conference at 1:00 pm today was aired live on C-SPAN 3 and on WCVB Channel 5.  Audio of the press conference and the Q&A will be available this afternoon.
 
Congressman Frank will hold a press availability for the Washington press corps tomorrow (Tuesday), at 10:30 am.  More details will be released later today.
 
Mr. Frank's written statement follows:
 
 
I will not be a candidate for reelection to the House of Representatives in 2012.
 
I began to think about retirement last year, as we were completing passage of the financial reform bill. I have enjoyed-indeed been enormously honored-by the chance to represent others in Congress and the State Legislature, but there are other things I hope to do before my career ends. Specifically, I have for several years been thinking about writing, and while there are people who are able to combine serious writing with full-time jobs, my susceptibility to distraction when faced with a blank screen makes that impossible.
 
In 2010, after the bill was signed into law, I had tentatively decided to make this my last term. The end of next year will mark 40 years during which time I have held elected office and a period of 45 years since I first went to work in government full time as an aide to Mayor Kevin White in late 1967.
 
But with the election of a conservative majority in the House, I decided that my commitment to the public policies for which I have fought for 45 years required me to run for one more term. I was-and am-concerned about right-wing assaults on the financial reform bill, especially since we are now in a very critical period when the bill is in the process of implementation. In addition, recognizing that there is a need for us to do long-term deficit reduction, I was-and am-determined to do everything possible to make sure that substantial reduction in our excessive overseas military commitments forms a significant part of the savings over the next 10 years.
 
But, my concern for these two issues today cuts very much in the opposite direction-namely, in favor of forgoing a year-long full-time election campaign and instead focusing the next year on those two issues in Congress.
 
Two factors lead me to this view. The newly configured district contains approximately 325,000 new constituents, many of them in a region of the state that is wholly new to me as a Member of Congress. A significant number of others are in the area along our east-west border with Rhode Island which I have not represented for 20 years. This means that running for reelection will require-appropriately in our democracy-a significant commitment of my time and energy, introducing myself to hundreds of thousands of new constituents, learning about the regional and local issues of concern to them and, not least importantly, raising an additional 1.5 to 2 million dollars.
 
This would compete with two other obligations which I neither want to nor can avoid. First, I will continue to represent hundreds of thousands of people in the current 4th District to whom I am committed as the person they voted for a year ago. I have acquired a strong attachment to many of the people and causes I have worked with here. The Congressional redistricting removes from the district I represent virtually the entire fishing industry of Southeastern Massachusetts. It very substantially reduces the number of Azorean-Americans I will represent, and again removes almost completely people of Cape Verdean ancestry. Introducing myself and learning about the new area while continuing to give the existing area the full representation it deserves would make demands of my time that would detract from my focus on the national issues.
 
There is another, equally important consequence of the fact that so many of the people in this district would be new constituents that help persuade me to announce my retirement. The obligation of a Member of Congress to work as an advocate for the people he represents on local and regional issues that require or involve Federal government response are of paramount importance. And I am proud of the work I have done in that regard for the people I have been privileged to represent over these years. But as in almost every case, where there were significant local or regional issues involving environmental matters, transportation matters, housing matters etc., it took more than two years to resolve them. The relevance is that running again for one more term, I would be asking 325,000 new constituents to give me the mandate to be their advocate with the federal government for only two years. Starting on a series of projects only to be passing them along in various stages of incompletion to a successor two years later is not a responsible way to act.
 
There is one other factor that influenced my decision as I went through this year. Our politics has evolved in a way that makes it harder to get anything done at the federal level. I believe that I have been effective as a Member of Congress working inside the process to influence public policy in the ways that I think are important. But I now believe that there is more to be done trying to change things from outside than by working within. I am announcing today my retirement from elected office after 40 years but not my retirement from public policy advocacy and given the nature of our current situation, in some ways I believe I may have more impact speaking, writing and in other ways advocating for the changes that I think are necessary than trying to bring them about inside our constricting political process.
 
In summary, I am required to choose. I have to choose between fulfilling my obligation as a ranking member of the Financial Services Committee on behalf of financial reform and my responsibility to continue to be a full representative of the people who voted for me in 2010, and on the other hand to engage in a full-fledged Congressional campaign in a district which is very different than the current one. I am also required to choose between concentrating my efforts on trying to change the political equation in the country over the next year and doing the best I can within the conflicts and restrictions of the current set of forces. Given this, I am going to do what Massachusetts politicians often do, quote a former President from Massachusetts, although not the one usually cited. I do not choose to run for reelection in 2012.

 

 

 

 

 

Outrage across the nation and around the Globe. That's the primary reaction to a story that broke earlier this week involving the forfeiture of an 881-pound tuna caught by a Massachusetts fisherman last week.

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) Nov. 23, 2011 — Outrage across the nation and around the Globe. That's the primary reaction to a story that broke earlier this week involving the forfeiture of an 881-pound tuna caught by a Massachusetts fisherman last week. It appears a vast majority of Americans – and a number of people globally —  share in Carlos Rafael's palpable sense of disappointment at having to give up a catch that could have yielded him half a million dollars.

Last week, Rafael made the catch of his life only to have to forfeit it to federal authorities on returning to shore. Rafael and his crew had been fishing for bottom-dwellers with nets; by law, fisherman can only take tuna with rod and reel.

The news broke on Monday. By Tuesday, the story had hit the AP wire and was headlining in papers from coast to coast, from the Boston Globe to the San Francisco Chronicle. It went overseas for appearances in the UK's Daily Mirror and the Emirates 24/7 in Dubai. It bounced through the blogosphere, from the Drudge Report and the Outdoor Life Magazine blog to online news venues like Yahoo!, where it was Tuesday's top story. As of Wednesday, a Google search with the fisherman's name and the word "tuna" generates more than 150,000 results.

And if gauging the reaction to the story is of any consequence, the public is outraged and ready for a regulatory "sea change."

"Sorry, Charlie… Another example of an entrepreneur– with legal permits, yet! — being deprived of his livelihood by the brain-dead Save The Anything crowd," writes David on the Monterey County (California) Herald website.

On News.Gather, Angela M writes: "This is ridiculous… And I would like to know who is going to profit from this if him and his crew do not. This is when I feel that our represenatives [sic] and government have failed us."

Others poked fun at the regulation that a huge fish should be caught by rod-and-reel, "Sweet, I wanna catch one with a harpoon like I'm freaking Captain Ahab." Wrote Colhandlukeri on Reuters.

On Fox, retfed observed that the trouble began when Mr. Rafael told the truth about what happened. "Any wagers on how many honest fisherman from now on are going to tell the Feds what they want to hear?     Well as an old fictional ship captain once said; 'The floggings will continue until morale improves'! "

 
On the San Francisco Chronicle site, AmericanDad made an observation embodied the sentiments of many others the spirit of the law should be enforced but this hard line enforcement of the letter of the law might be going too far, "He was fishing for bottom stuff and a tuna got snared. If he were net fishing for tuna, then bust him. A fluke? Let him have his fish."

And the comments are not just from Americans. On Yahoo!, LANA writes: "your government is being unfair to people .. those men work hard for that money to feel their family . government need to give back the money to them .your government is sick."
With national television producers clamoring to schedule time for his story, the tale remains a news sensation."

 "I got people calling from Ontario, Canada, who want to interview me," says Rafael. "Fox News, CBS, CNN … Everybody wants the tuna story … and I want to forget about it."
While Rafael, who operates 15 commercial groundfish boats, had been paying to renew various tuna permits over the past four years, he never caught one and, he says he was unaware of the rod-and-reel rule.

"To catch a fish like this is like one in a million," says Rafael. "It's like winning the lottery."

But even if he did have to relinquish the biggest catch of his career, his bragging rights have gone from friends and family around the Thanksgiving table to the world stage.  

 

 
Journalists interested in interviewing Mr. Rafael should call 508-995-8989
 

 
 
Sign up for daily news updates from Saving Seafood.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since the Dr. Rothschild op-ed appeared in August, Saving Seafood has conducted an in-depth analysis of this rift, interviewing parties in the Scientific, Regulatory, Environmental and Industry communities. 

WASHINGTON — Nov. 22, 2011 —  Late last summer, in an opinion piece published in the New Bedford Standard-Times (“Your View: Fish, the intent of Congress and jobs,” Aug. 10, 2011), Dr. Brian Rothschild of the University of Massachusetts School for Marine Science and Technology called for a wholesale revamp of what he called the “broken and dysfunctional” U.S. groundfish regulatory system. Responses to the article, by Acting Chairman of the New England Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC), C.M. “Rip” Cunningham, Jr., and Ken Stump, Policy Director of Marine Fish Conservation Network, have highlighted on the competing business, scientific, ideological and regulatory interests in the debate over regional fisheries management.

The initial op-ed by Dr. Rothschild and the responses to it from the Council Acting Chairman and members of the environmental community laid out in clear terms the deep disagreements between those who think the current regulatory and rulemaking system is productive and those who find it disfuctional and in need of deep reform or replacement.

Since the Rothschild op-ed appeared in August, Saving Seafood has conducted an in-depth analysis of this rift, interviewing (or at least getting emailed responses to questions from those who refused interviews) the parties who commented, and others in the Scientific, Regulatory, Environmental and Industry communities.

Rothschild argues that the northeast fishery management regime is damaging the industry while ignoring the agency’s Congressional mandate to fully involve fishermen in the regulatory decision-making process.  He says they have failed to craft rules using the best science by having,  “no master plan to improve communications, revise data collection, conduct cooperative research, and achieve optimum yield.”

Originally billed by NOAA as a means to end overfishing while rebuilding fisheries and fishing communities, the “catch share” system imposed in New England, known as “sectors”, has come under fire by both the commercial fishing industry and elected officials.

Although few fishermen are asking for a return to the previous days-at-sea system, many argue that the current system was rushed into place under pressure from environmental groups who pushed an agenda that resonated ideologically with Federal officials responsible for overseeing rule-making.  They argue that irrational zeal for catch share implementation caused the system to be enacted before appropriate well-designed protections for fishing communities and small operators were fully developed.

The negative impact of the sector form of catch shares management on the New England industry and communities since its 2010 implementation has made headlines across the region. Massachusetts lawmakers, mayors of industry-reliant communities and Governor Deval Patrick made a well-publicized but unsuccessful legal challenge and petition to the Department of Commerce for relief. This resulted in what many viewed as a languid-at-best response from regulators.

 Rothschild gave additional voice to those feelings by detailing what he called NOAA’s “disregard of the economic and social impact of fisheries management”, their willingness to “unfairly” allocate fish to some sectors to the disadvantage of others, and their ignoring valid scientific findings and suppressing debate over fish stock levels. Specifically, he cites NMFS data showing that 100,000 tons of fish per year valued at an estimated $300 million to the industry, and $1.2 billion to the economy could have been caught sustainably but were not landed as a result of the current management plan.

  “We’re leaving $300 million worth of fish in the ocean every year because the agency isn’t willing to come up with a scheme to help industry catch those fish,” Rothschild told Saving Seafood. “You’re not talking about a trivial amount of fish. You are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of fish, and those translate into jobs.”

  With courts required to defer to the agency’s economic and scientific findings in legal challenges, he says that the entire system has proven to be inconsistent with Congressional intent in the Magnuson-Stevens Act and subsequent revisions like Amendment 16.  He has called for  a Congressionally-chartered committee to reform the entire system.

 However, top-ranking NEFMC officials have disputed the economic analysis presented in Rothschild’s article. In an opinion piece published a few days later in the same newspaper (Your view: Fishery Management Council shows record of creditable work, August 17, 2010), Acting Director Cunningham  responded to Rothschild's argument that officials are ignoring the economic impact of regulations on the industry.  Cunningham claimed that the fisheries management system has “directly” benefitted New England fishermen not only with increased stocks but also with a tripling of sea scallop fleet revenues from about $120 million in 1994 to over $450 million in 2010.

Critics argued that this analysis is a version of the proverbial ‘mixing apples and oranges’ as Rothschild’s criticisms were aimed at the sector catch share system for groundfish and sea scallops remain managed under a days-at-sea program.

  A highly critical report produced by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center for NOAA about the current management system’s impact on New England fisheries undermines claims of any short-term economic gains for the industry as a whole, buttressing Rothschild’s regulatory critique. The findings show that landings and revenues across the groundfishing fleet in the northeast are down from May 2010 to April 2011 in the first year of the catch shares program.

  NFSC researchers found that active vessels were down 17 percent in the 2010 fishing cycle from 2007. In addition, there were 48 percent fewer groundfish trips and 33 percent fewer days absent on trips. Compiled by Preston Pate and SRA-Touchstone Consulting Group, and requested by NEFMC Chairman John Pappalardo in December 2009, the researchers note that the economic result has been a decline in fishing industry jobs.

  Cunningham pointed to the NEFMC reaction to the study as an example of the council’s responsiveness to the fact “that the groundfish industry is adjusting to a new catch shares harvesting strategy”, adding that they planned workshops and developed an action plan to address the report’s findings.  Nevertheless, the report is not flattering to its subject.

  “Fisheries management in New England is beset with problems and challenges that are characteristic of fisheries management in general, but may be even more acute in this area now due to concurrently changing factors of law, management programs, and economics,” wrote the authors.

  Overall, Cunningham’s primary defense of federal regulators centers on the fact that stocks are rising for many species. As key signs of regulatory accomplishment, he points to the rebuilding of Georges Bank stocks of Haddock, Redfish, and Winter Flounder. He referenced the sustainable management of the Monkfish and Herring fisheries , which are no longer overfished. And he cited success in Gulf of Maine Cod, though controversial recent stock assessments have called that into question.

In response to Saving Seafood’s e-mailed questions, Cunningham noted that he never claimed, “that all stocks within the Council’s jurisdiction have been rebuilt” nor that the relatively new sector management program is responsible for stock rebuilding successes.

  “Most fishery scientists and managers in this region believe that the improvements in stock status that we are seeing today are a result of the controls the Council placed on the groundfish fishery,” he wrote.

  He also defended the science used to justify those restrictions, arguing that NOAA’s NFSC, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Maine/New Hampshire inshore trawl survey, and SMAST Dartmouth, along with catch and landings reports submitted by fishermen and fish dealers, are all used in establishing NMFS policies.

  Similarly, Marine Fish Conservation Network Policy Director Ken Stump pointed primarily to stock rebuilding to defend the current system in an August 23 posting on the Conservation Law Foundation’s Talking Fish blog. In a much more virulent attack on Rothschild, he argues the facts don’t bear out Rothschild’s “jeremiad” and “exaggerated portrayal” of federal regulators that “lacks only horns and a tail to be complete.”

   “The number of stocks experiencing overfishing is sharply down; catch limits are in place; a number of previously overfished species are rebounding; and fishing revenues and allowable catch limits on healthy stocks are going up,” wrote Stump

  While overfishing is generally recognized as having declined and many stocks are up, allowable catch limit levels tell only part of the story of how federal regulations impact New England fisherman.

  SMAST’s Emily F. Keiley, who works with Rothschild, told Saving Seafood that although the framework for setting the catch limits changed in 2010 and is not directly comparable with the previous system, the current Annual Catch Limit (ACL) restrictions on the level of allowable landings and the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) limits under the previous management regime serve essentially the same purpose — limiting potential landings. This is important because although landings are up as a percentage of the allowable catch, the overall level of fish being caught in New England fell dramatically in the first year of catch shares.

  According to NMFS data, in 2010, 34.4 percent of the allowable commercial landings (95,165 tons) of the Northeast multispecies potential catch was caught resulting in 32,764.6 landed tons. Viewed by percentage, this is a seeming increase over the levels seen in previous years. But the total catch limit today is much lower than the 144,353 tonnes allowed in 2009 or the 172,302 tonnes allowed in 2008.

  In 2008, only 25 % of the TAC was landed, but since the overall limit was over 76,000 tons higher, the resulting 43,652 landed tons is a lower percentage of the limit but is still over 10,000 tons more than what was caught in 2010. So while landings may be up as a percentage-wise, the actual numbers tell a much different story. This underscores Rothschild’s contention that that a substantial portion of the allowed catch goes uncaught despite being allowable under sustainability limits.

  The unanswered question is why aren’t commercial fishermen landing more? For Rothschild and other industry critics, the documented toll that federal regulations are having on the industry is the inescapable culprit. Fewer boats and fishermen mean less fish caught overall.

  However, the main focus of Stump and his fellow defenders of federal fishing regulation remains the environmental aspect of NOAA’s mandate. In a response to Saving Seafood’s e-mailed questions, he acknowledged that the new catch-share regime central to Rothschild’s critique cannot be pointed to as the main driver of fisheries management success claims, nor that “current management has been an unqualified success.”

  “I merely noted that the region’s prospects are beginning to look brighter after many years in the wilderness and that the measures in Amendment 16 should be given a chance to work,” wrote Stump. “We await confirmation from new stock assessment updates, but there is every reason to believe that the new system of enforceable ACLs accountability measures will be an effective tool for preventing overfishing, as in other regions where catch limits have been employed as a central management tool (e.g., Alaska, West Coast).”

  Neither defenders of the current regulatory regime nor Rothschild address long-standing complaints from NOAA critics that the role of nature on stock rebuilding is an often-ignored aspect of fisheries management.

  When asked about the issue, Cunningham said there is an undeniable role of nature in rebuilding stocks, as seen in the case of Georges Bank Haddock.

  “If you are asking whether I believe that good fisheries management can help rebuild stocks, the simple answer is yes,” wrote Cunningham. “Does it always work the way managers hope it will, no. And of course, natural and sometimes random recruitment events can impact populations dramatically.”

  But he added that, while not perfect, the science provided by NOAA fish population dynamics specialists gives a “strong indication of where a stock is headed.”

  For his part, Stump was more severe in dismissing criticism of NOAA science, despite acknowledging NMFS evidence that fish populations don’t always increase in the manner expected when fishing is restricted. He noted a recent study of Canada’s Scotian Shelf published by Nature online in July (Transient dynamics of an altered large marine ecosystem, September 2011). The study hypothesizes that after regional fishing controls were implemented in the early 1990s an initial 900% increase in forage fish and a subsequent massive decline occurred when foraging species outstripped their food source of younger and smaller but traditionally dominant species.

Cod stocks have been rebuilt to around 34% of the level that was typical in the 1980s, and haddock now exceeds historical levels. He said the study demonstrates the “profound unintended consequences” of overfishing that can take decades from which to recover.

  “If some people, including Rothschild, want to re-litigate 50 years of fishery science by denying that control of fishing mortality has any effect on fish populations, go right ahead,” Stump wrote. “The rest of us will acknowledge that fisheries science is necessarily imprecise and imperfect, but that is hardly reason to throw out the science. The fact that other factors extrinsic to fishing mortality, such as climate, food web dynamics, habitat quality, also play a part in the dynamics of fish populations is surely reason to exercise caution in setting catch limits, not to abandon catch limits as a failure.”

  When asked about Rothschild’s critique about the inability of judges to address legal challenges to the current fisheries management regime and the science used to back regulations, Stump was similarly dismissive and charged Rothschild with playing politics. He noted that the legal system is not designed to “manage the fisheries or decide whose science is right” but added that there have been successful court challenges in the past.

  “Unfortunately, people like Rothschild seem infected by the Tea Party mentality of the times, which takes a knee-jerk position against anything that reeks of ‘big government’.” wrote Stump. “Rothschild’s attacks on the Northeast Fisheries Science Center are clearly designed to curry political favor with disaffected fishermen in the region, but Rothschild’s attacks on NFSC science fail because he is not credible in saying that the system ignores science or uses bad science. The problem is not the courts or the way the judicial system rules on matters of fisheries, since I don’t think we want the courts running our fisheries; the problem is that Brian Rothschild’s arguments are not credible.”

   When asked about NOAA science, Cunningham cited the agency’s sponsoring of peer-reviewed studies and other research, as well as a 2010 U.S. Inspector General’s finding that “decision-making is well-supported by the information we receive” in countering Rothschild’s claims about problems.

But neither he nor Stump address Rothschild’s primary point that commercial fisherman are not landing all of the fish that could be removed sustainably under the existing catch limits.

  When asked about his broader reform recommendation, Rothschild said that fishing regulators have to be forced to recognize science that they may not like and realize their decisions’ effect on not only the fishery’s environmental well being, but also the overall state of the industry.

  “If you read the law, the law doesn’t say, ‘Let’s rebuild the stocks and walk away,’ said Rothschild.  It isn’t, ‘Let’s stop overfishing.’  It’s let’s collect economic data; let’s involve fishermen in what we are doing; let’s develop management strategies that take into account the sustainability of the fish and those that harvest the resources.  This is my reading of National Standard 1, the law of the land.”

WASHINGTON – Massachusetts Congressmen Ed Markey and Barney Frank directed questions to the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission in the wake of a recent Boston Globe investigation into the mislabeling of seafood.

According to the Congressmen, "Mislabeling … results in consumers' unknowingly eating imported species offish, which directly undermines our localfishermenwho provide fresh, safe, and sustainable seafood. Americans enjoy eating domestic seafood because they can have great confidence in its quality and sustainable catch practices. The practice of deceptive mislabeling is not only attack on consumers, but also the American seafood industry that employs hundreds of thousands of Americans. While there are multiple U.S. laws that aim to ensure that seafood is caught in a sustainable and responsible manner, many market-driven conservation efforts depend on consumers' ability to make informed choices to buy particular species or fish harvested using sustainable fishing practices. This effort becomes nearly impossible when fish are mislabeled and undermines the work and incomes of law-abiding fishermen.Advertising and selling seafood that is mislabeled is not only dishonest, and potentially dangerous, but also would likely be deemed as "unfair and deceptive acts or practices" under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA)"

Read the letter from Congressmen Markey and Frank

 

 

 

 

 

GLOUCESTER, Mass. (Gloucester Times) Nov. 1, 2011– Fishermen suing the Ciulla family, their real estate LLC and defunct fish auction in federal court in an alleged fraud and racketeering scheme to skim proceeds from fish sales have asked U.S. Bankruptcy Court to lift the automatic stay on actions to allow the plaintiffs to undertake discovery.

And a series of affidavits lay out how the alleged scam was discovered late last year.
 
According to affidavits, Hesse, a ground fisherman and member of the board of the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association, obtained evidence in November 2010 that the auction was paying fishermen less than the sale price, minus the 7 cents a pound off loading fee in a conversation with Kim Marden, owner of Capt. Marden's, a frequent buyer at the Ciullas auction.

When Marden mentioned he'd bid successfully at the previous day's action on fish landed by Hesse, "I inquired as to the purchase price for the major species we had landed," Hesse said in his affidavit.

"I recorded the values he stated (large haddock $2.53, large cod $2.26, market cod $2.06) for later comparison with the settlement I received from the auction," he said. "Kim reminded me that the prices he quoted included the 10 cents per pound Marden's paid as a feet to the auction, so my prices would be commensurately less."

"I was upset when I received my settlement via U.S. Main almost three weeks later to find the prices listed as follows: large haddock $2.19 to $2.29, large cod $1.94 and market cod, $1.76," Hesse said in his affidavit – adding that when he asked auction President Larry Ciulla about the discrepancies, "he said he would look into it and passed it off as a misunderstanding regarding 'buyer's fees' or buyer's premium' in the auction's nomenclature."

Hesse went on to recount how he asked a local dealer, Maguro America, to monitor and record our auction prices at a subsequent auction on Dec. 13, 2010, "and the eventual settlement was exactly in line with the auction result, minus the 10 cent (per pound) buyer fee."

"On the basis of this curious result and a longstanding dissatisfaction with the lack of transparency at the auction, I approached Marden's with the days of server trips taken in 2009 and 2010 to see if they had bought my fish at the action on any of those dates," Hesse said in his affidavit.

"They provided me with sales results for the catch they purchased, and in all cases during the period the same 10 cents per pound was charged to Marden's. After deducting this 10 cent fee, I found that the sales price reported on my settlements had been reduced by an additional six to 32 cents per pound on every trip throughout the period, in addition to stated fees for vessel off-loading and auction sales."

The affidavits of Sanfilippo, who captains the Lilly Jean, and Vitale, who captains the Angela Rose, recount similar stories that roughly parallel the affidavits of Hesse and Walinski, who is also a member of the board of the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association.

Sanfilippo and Vitale's statements each recounted getting reports from a fish buyer showing what the buyer paid for some of the catches on three different days. Each fisherman wrote that he "was basically lucky to stumble upon the reports," which contained evidence that the auction was shortchanging them.

Sanfilippo figured he had been shorted by about 5 percent or about $30,000 since 2005, while Vitale figured his business had been shorted by about 6 percent – or $10,000 – since then.

Read the complete story by Richard Gaines in The Gloucester Times

 

 

 

 

 

The following was released by NOAA today:

WASHINGTON – Oct. 26, 2011 — NOAA has taken emergency action to increase the amount of skate that fishermen can land this year from 31 million to 48 million pounds, based on new scientific information showing an increase in the overall skate population. The 56-percent quota increase takes effect immediately, and remains in effect through the end of the current fishing season, which ends on April 30, 2012.

"We recognize that these are difficult economic times for many fishermen and are working hard to increase fishing opportunity wherever possible," said Eric Schwaab, assistant NOAA administrator for NOAA's Fisheries Service. "The quota increase will boost revenues for many fishermen and related fishing businesses, while maintaining our responsibility to important conservation objectives."

At its June meeting, the New England Fishery Management Council reviewed updated 2008-2010 trawl survey data from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, which shows significant improvements in the overall skate population. They also looked at NOAA-funded research on the survival of discarded skates, conducted by the New England Aquarium and University of New England, which found that fewer skates die after they are thrown overboard than previously assumed. Based this, the council asked NOAA to implement emergency measures to increase the skate quota.

The bulk of the skate catch occurs incidentally in the groundfish, monkfish and scallop fisheries. Skate wings are typically kept and sold as food. Skates are also harvested for bait for the American lobster fishery.

The quota for the skate wing fishery, which receives 66.5 percent of the annual allocation, will increase from 20 million pounds to 32 million pounds for the current fishing year ending in April 2012. The skate bait fishery, which is allocated the remaining 33.5 percent, will see a 6 million pound increase in their original allocation.

Increasing the quota and maintaining skate possession limits at current levels should extend fishing opportunities throughout the entire fishing year, and allow fishermen to retain more skates when both price and demand for skate wings are better later in the season.

Possession limits are unchanged. Seven species of skate are managed as part of the skate complex including barndoor, thorny, smooth, winter, little, clearnose and rosette. However, possession of barndoor, thorny, and smooth skates remains prohibited because stocks are still rebuilding from previously depleted levels.

 

 

 

 

 

Senator John Kerry today announced that U.S. Department of Commerce Secretary John Bryson will travel to Massachusetts to hear directly from the state's fishermen.

Secretary Bryson originally committed to join Kerry in the state during Bryson's confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, where Kerry serves as a senior member.
 
"On his first day in office after his confirmation, Secretary Bryson reiterated his commitment to me at our meeting and at his hearing to come to Massachusetts right away, hear from our fishermen, and follow up with me," said Sen. Kerry.  "The Secretary assured me that he will be joining me in Massachusetts as soon as he deals with some immediate obligations in China and other international economic commitments that will have him on the road non-stop throughout November.  We are finalizing a date for a visit in early December.  Obviously had his confirmation — which passed by an overwhelmingly bipartisan margin — not been held up so long, I'm confident we'd already have gotten this Massachusetts trip under our belt.  Until the visit in December, I'm going to continue working every day in close contact with the Administration on outstanding requests I've pressed in the past year and particularly following our field hearing in Boston. I think I'm making headway.  Priority number one is the disaster declaration but every piece matters.  I'll stay at it, and I think the Secretary's visit can be constructive."
 
Following the field hearing Senator Kerry chaired in Boston on the state of the fishing industry earlier this month, the Senator sent a letter to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association Administer Dr. Jane Lubchenco urging detailed, specific actions to keep Massachusetts fishermen in business and ensure the short- and long-term health of this critical local economy.  

Read the Senator's letter to Dr. Jane Lubchenco