Economic Impact

SEAFOOD.COM NEWS April 6, 2011- The following letter, from Brady Schofield, President of Norpel, to Mass. Governor Deval Patrick, announces the layoff of all employees and the tie up of their vessels due to the changing management positions on midwater trawling, which Schofield blames on inshore fishermen and environmentalists campaigning to drastically reduce herring allocations.

Governor Deval Patrick, Commonwealth of MA 
Mayor Scott Lang, City of New Bedford 
Ms. Patricia Kurkul, NMFS NERO Regional Director 

Dear Sirs and Madam, 

As President of NORPEL, I am writing today to tell you our company recently laid off all of its 120 employees, and tied our remaining vessels to the dock. NORPEL is in this precarious situation primarily due to a loss of fishing opportunities which have resulted from management actions taken by the NEFMC and supported by the State of Massachusetts and NMFS. 

Northern Pelagic Group LLC (NORPEL) was conceived by four individuals with extensive expertise in commercial fishing, processing and marketing, with a focus on the abundant Atlantic Sea Herring and Mackerel resources in the US North Atlantic Ocean. 

In 2002, we established our business in New Bedford and, with no state or federal or NGO money, constructed a state-of-the-art fish processing facility on Fish Island, where the former Lumber Yard adjacent to Maritime Terminal had for several years sat vacant. We re-located and retrofitted three fishing vessels in order to be capable of safely operating offshore in severe weather conditions, and which deliver food grade herring and mackerel in sophisticated Refrigerated Seawater (RSW) holds to our shore-based plant. 

At the time of our decision to invest in New Bedford, the Atlantic sea herring and mackerel fisheries were being accessed by foreign fleets through Joint Ventures approved by the US State Department. Biomass estimates by NMFS supported an expansion of the fisheries for each stock and domestic quotas were set at 350,000 mt. US landings at the time were nearly 100,000 mt for herring and less than 15,000 mt for mackerel. “Americanization” of the fisheries was promoted by the US Commerce Department Foreign Trade Office, NMFS NERO and the State of Massachusetts. Trade missions were being conducted by federal and state entities to help US producers develop foreign markets for export of US herring and mackerel. 

Since 2002, we have invested in excess of $20 million in the plant and vessels and employed 120 Massachusetts residents. We have spent more than $5 million annually on payroll, contractors, materials and supplies, lodging, fuel, and various goods and services. We have paid $millions in corporate income taxes to the Commonwealth. According to a study conducted by Maritime Terminals, every time NORPEL exported a load of frozen herring or mackerel to market, over $500,000.00 in economic activity is generated in the Port of New Bedford. We have taken the lead in cooperative research programs, supported federal and state fishery observer programs and served in a variety of advisory capacities. 

In spite of this track record, not once in the 9 years we have operated were we contacted by Governor Patrick, nor by NMFS NERO Regional Director Kurkul, to thank us for our contributions to the Commonwealth and the US and to see how the State of MA and federal government could support us. 

Prior to 2006, we were able to fish herring from June through November in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank. We would then focus on mackerel from January to April. That made for a viable business. 
However, starting as early as 2003, the tide turned against us in the regional management (political) arena, and the subsequent loss of fishing access has finally resulted in our decision to cease our operations. 

We can demonstrate these management actions are the direct result of the “Atlantic Herring Campaign” conceived, coordinated and funded by the nonprofit/non-taxpaying Pew Environment Group and their proxies at Chatham-based Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association (CCCHFA), Chatham-based Pew Herring Alliance and Chatham-based CHOIR Coalition. These are all related Chatham-based NGOs with a combined payroll in excess of $1.5 million but accounting for less than 2% of the groundfish landings in the Northeast. 

Since 2003, according to the public record, CCCHFA has received millions of dollars from Pew Charitable Trusts (and other Foundations) to conduct the “Atlantic Herring Campaign”, designed, according to the Pew and CCCHFA websites to: “Eliminate, or severely restrict the Midwater trawl fishery for Atlantic herring”. This is part of a larger “Forage Fish Campaign” coordinated and funded by Pew Environment Group which includes direct payments to Universities, SSC members and other newly conceived NGOs. It is critical to understand that ecosystem “forage” needs are considered in the federal herring and mackerel fishery FMPs and are deducted “off the top” before any allocations to the domestic commercial fishery are made. 

Nonetheless, with this funding and resulting media machine, CCCHFA secured voting positions and a hugely disproportionate political influence in the region's fisheries management arena, given their paltry landings and minimal economic contribution to the Commonwealth. 

Appointments such as these are made at the direction of the Governor, with approval by the Secretary of Commerce (ultimately acting at the direction of the President). The Governor's policy is carried out by his Director of Marine Fisheries which also has a seat on the NEFMC and ASMFC. 

…

We have been on the record repeatedly about this issue of special interest group empowerments by the State of MA, and the corrosive effect on our ability to operate a viable business. I wrote to Governor Patrick as recently as October 2010 about our needs in this respect. However, my letter was never answered. This is my last attempt to notify you of the damage – economic and societal — being done to the local and regional economies, and residents of the Commonwealth by these special interest groups. Beware the Regional Seafood Association provisions in Magnuson, which are the next tool these special interests will use to disenfranchise the remaining fishing businesses in New England. 

Sincerely, 

Brady Schofield 
President NORPEL 

SEAFOOD.COM NEWS is a subscription website.  This article is reproduced with permission.

 

 

 

 

 

Trawling company Northern Pelagic Group (NORPEL) has suddenly shut down its plant on Fish Island saying it can no longer make profits due to extreme fishery management regulation. It has laid off 119 of its 120 employees and quit operating its two boats.

The New Bedford-based company fishes for herring and mackerel and is one of the largest open-sea operators in the country.

It is an example of the plight of New England fishers, which has led to a year of lobbying efforts in the country’s capital, meetings, lawsuits and hearings that have generally proved futile.

"The Department of Marine Fisheries in Massachusetts and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) encouraged investment in herring and mackerel," said Eoin Rochford, operations manager and the only remaining employee, reports South Coast Today. "The boys put up their money and, once it was invested, they turned the tables on them."

Although the next fishing season will launch soon – on 1 May — Rochford was unable to say if the plant could operate again soon or later in the future.

Read the complete story from FIS Worldnews.

 

 

 

 

 

Trying to sell institutional investors on the merits of the Obama administration’s plan to convert the nation’s fisheries into commodity markets capable of yielding windfall profits, an Environmental Defense Fund vice president described the industry before “catch shares” as a human wasteland.  Such a world, David Festa, told investors at the Milken Institute Global Conference in 2009, was governed by ever-greater effort controls  limiting the amount of time fishermen are allowed on the water; with constraints on fishing time, comes social decay, he explained.  “That means all you have is itinerant labor that bounces around from job to job,” Festa said. “It’s unskilled, it’s unprofessional, it’s low paid, there’s high drug use, it’s a rough life.”  The Obama administration, which adopted EDF’s catch share mantra and made it U.S. policy, distanced itself Monday from Festa and his opinions.

Reaction from Gloucester and New Bedford, the original twin capitals of the East Coast fishing industry — now struggling with economic dislocation associated with the catch shares system imposed last May on the  groundfishery — was fierce and angry.

“I used to have great admiration for the mission of EDF, but more and more I see that this is just another brand of greed thinly disguised as environmentalism,” Mayor Carolyn Kirk said Monday. “And they don’t know the first thing about Gloucester fishermen.”

“Fishermen are not a disposable commodity,” said New Bedford Mayor Scott Lang. He described Festa’s comments as “disgraceful.”

“It shows real lack of appreciation of all the heritage and all sacrifices that have been made in all the port cities,” Lang added. “Those people (EDF) have lost their way and basically see conservation as a way to the money. People in the industry as treated as collateral damage.”

In an e-mail to the Times Monday, Festa said his comments were “a statement about the conditions that can exist when fisheries are not managed in a way that works for fishermen.”  EDF President Fred Krupp agreed

“Regulations have historically been stacked against fishermen,” said Krupp, who heads the $200 million nonprofit that preaches a faith in markets and partners Wall Street investment bankers and energy conglomerates, “EDF works with fishermen to find solutions that will help make fishing a stable, successful livelihood.”

But the Department of Commerce, which has stood by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric’s Administration’s push for catch shares, took steps Monday to keep Festa and his views at arm’s length.

“David Festa does not work for or speak for the administration,” said Shannon Gilson, spokeswoman for Commerce Secretary Gary Locke.

Lang and Kirk have made their cities lead plaintiffs in a landmark suit now before a U.S. District Court judge in Boston that challenges the constitutionality and legality of the catch share-based regulatory regimen written to govern the groundfishery. Lang brings the Mayor’s Oceans and Fisheries Council to Washington D.C.for an educational and informational meeting in the U.S. Capitol today to challenge what he calls “biased rule-making, not based on the best science, which has caused economic harm to fishermen from Maine to North Carolina.”

Read the complete story from The Gloucester Times.

Read a transcript of the Milken Institute Global Conference 2009 panel on Innovative Funding for Sustainable Fisheries and Oceans.

Listen to the Milken Institute Global Conference 2009 panel on Innovative Funding for Sustainable Fisheries and Oceans.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

               

 

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) April 4, 2011 – Environmental Defense Fund consultant and former Rhode Island fisherman Richard B. Allen has written to both Rhode Island Senators in advance of New Bedford, Massachusetts Mayor Scott Lang's fisheries meeting with in Washington Tuesday claiming that, "Mayor Lang's crusade is emotionally and politically attractive, but it is short on facts and logic."

Mayor Carolyn Kirk of Gloucester, New England's oldest port and  #11 in the nation, will join Lang, of the nation’s top fishing port and the largest in New England, for Tuesday's meeting at the U.S. Capitol. It will be attended by at least 35 industry representatives and several Members of Congress and the Senate.

In advance of the meeting, Gloucester ’s Mayor Kirk was blunt in her outright dismissal of Allen’s claims for a lack of economic damage, citing his work for environmental interests with a long demonstrated opposition to the economic concerns of fisheries.

“Follow the money,” she told Saving Seafood. “How is this gentleman funded?”

In a copy of the letter obtained by Saving Seafood, Allen argues that claims of harm are undercut by data showing that New Bedford and Massachusetts have, “done quite well under Amendment 16.”  He writes that ground fish landings are up 116% and revenue is up 129% for May 1,2010 through January 31, 2011 in New Bedford when compared to the same period in 2009, prior to the regulations taking effect. In addition he says that revenue per time at sea has increased “significantly”, arguing that this indicates a rise in revenue as production costs declined.

He also attacks the economic impact report submitted to Commerce Secretary Gary Locke by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick for failing to consider possible increases in one catch area for individual fisherman who catch multiple species, arguing that only decreases were counted.

Dan Georgianna, the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth’s Economics Department Chair who helped write Governor Patrick’s report, took strong issue with Allen’s analysis that sectors are proving economically effective and a boom to New Bedford, noting a lack of data showing profits are higher or that local economies are better off with the sectors regulations. He countered that local businesses are saying the exact opposite.

“There is virtually no data that supports most of his claims, especially about the success of sectors,” Georgianna said via email. “The bottom line here is that New England groundfish landings are down 15% from last year, revenues are slightly higher only because prices have risen substantially. The large difference between quota allocation and landings remain probably due to the small quotas for "choke" species.”

In an interview with Saving Seafood, Allen acknowledged the limited data about the economic impact of Amendment 16, noting that this limits claims made by all sides of the debate. He also cites the need for longer-term economic analysis as driving his overarching argument for giving more time to measure the impact of the regulations versus shorter-time industry concerns that being recognized by local and state-level critics.

“I’m maintaining that we have to look at longer period of time,” Allen told Saving Seafood about claims of economic harm.  “How about comparing 2010 to the last ten, fifteen years or more?”

“I’m (also) making another one (argument) that it depends if you are looking at an individual fishing business or whether you are looking at the local economy,” he said.

One of the major issues pointed to by Lang and other critics of the NOAA regulations to demonstrate their negative impact on local fisheries is the number of once operating boats that are now idle because fisherman found it more financially beneficial to sell their lease quotas to other, typically larger commercial fishing operations. Allen claims in his letter that press reports blaming this on Amendment 16 are misleading and inaccurate, citing data from an unknown source:

“In fact, however, the MA report states that ‘The number of
inactive vessels in 2010 increased by 17 vessels over the average number of inactive for the first five months of the fishing year from 2005 through
2009’,” he wrote. “What the report does not tell the reader is that the number of MA groundfish vessels that called in on a groundfish DAS declined from 385 in 2005 to 266 in 2009, an average decline of 30 boats per year. If there were 17 more inactive groundfish boats in 2010 compared to 2009, that would represent a slowing of the decline compared to the previous management system.”

Emily F. Keiley of UMass Dartmouth's School of Marine Science and Technology said that Allen’s claims about the slowing of the decline in inactive vessels “is simply not true.” Citing National Marine Fisheries Service data supplied by local fishermen through December 2010  and made available to the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Keiley says that the total revenue data shows there were 218 inactive commercial fishing boats in 2009 and one more total inactive in 2008. The number of inactive vessels in 2010 was 243.

“Of the 500 vessels that qualify for sectors, 99 are not fishing for ground fish, 27 not fishing at all,” Keiley told Saving Seafood. “I just went through the data again and in 2005, of the 500 vessels we have data for, 227 were inactive (the most until 2010) – In fact more vessels fished in 2006, 2007 (223 vessels), and even more were active in 2008.”

Allen argues more broadly that it is improper to even consider leasing in economic impact estimates for the regulations because it does not truly function as a cost of doing business but part of the impact towards greater efficiency that catch shares can provide the industry if properly implemented. He notes in the letter that if somebody was doing well under the old system, their catch history was sufficient to get as much allocation as they were catching in 2009.

“Leasing is just a different distribution of the problem,” said Allen. “It’s a natural thing to be upset about it. The lease cost of the individual fisherman may appear to him that he’s taking in less money but from the standpoint of the economy of New Bedford, the economy of Massachusetts, lease costs do not reduce economic benefit to the fisherman, in fact they probably produce more economic benefit for the local economy,”

Allen and his critics do agree on a few things, including the fact that no one can yet fully understands the economic impacts of Amendment 16. It’s also certainly a matter of perspective in ways as to what the total impact has been. If the response to his letter is any indication, there is also an unavoidable emotional component to the economic issue for local and state fishery interests.

“We can tell you people are not fishing and people are losing their jobs,” Kristin Decas, executive director of the New Bedford Harbor Development Commission, told Saving Seafood. “He’s arguing for consolidation. We can tell you we don’t want to see consolidation, we want to see a lot of people going to work.”

In his letter and subsequent interview, Allen argues that the efficiencies provided by consolidation under Amendment 16 will benefit the industry as whole and fishery economies in the long run. Citing past National Marine Fisheries Service research on the impact of external costs like fuel and insurance that economic benefits of which he argued tend to go to interests outside of a given state or locality, he said that leases will help ensure a greater level of revenue be spent locally. He also noted that Gov. Patrick and the critical mayors have yet to indicate how any further government assistance would be spent.

“That’s just fundamental economic theory,” he said before acknowledging the “transitional costs” to local economies from increased efficiency. “It’s a downside to becoming more efficient. Again, the mayor and the governor are arguing about the economy of the city and the states and they have not said how they are going to use any assistance to help people that are being harmed in the transition.”

When asked about his motivation for sending the letter, Allen – who owns a commercial industry consultancy that includes the Environmental Defense Fund among its clients, is a former Marine Fellow for the Pew Charitable Trusts (http://www.pewenvironment.org/research-programs/marine-fellow/id/8589940671), was a member of the New England Fisheries Management Council 1986-1995, and ran his own lobster vessel –  said he sent it as a personal attempt to provide background information for his own congressional delegation.

“It just seems to me that what Mayor Lang and his group are putting out doesn’t really tell the whole story,” said Allen, arguing that he’s always been
“troubled” by the number of fisheries representatives that he claims do a “disservice” to the industry because they fail to understand the economics and dynamics that determine the fate of fisheries.

“People don’t recognize the history of fisheries and actually don’t recognize what would really create a viable fishery,” he said. “It has been a problem for a lot of years.”

Allen further argues that Lang and other critics don’t “know what they want” instead of catch shares, offering no competing plans.

“They are just trying to stir things up and be popular because everyone who attacks the government is popular,” said Allen. “It’s very disturbing to me having tried to improve the status of the fishing industry for the last 40 years to see people coming at it this way.”

Despite his being driven by a self-professed higher cause, Kristin Decas, executive director of the New Bedford Harbor Development Commission made it clear that Allen’s description of Mayor Lang and the broader sector concerns he, Mayor Kirk, and Govenor Patrick are presenting reflect the real-world impact on everyday businessman and families.

“The Mayor is not on some emotional tirade,” Decas told Saving Seafood. “He’s campaigned for a very authentic issue that needs to be addressed. That need has been recognized by the scientists and the Mayor’s Oceans and Fisheries Council. NMFS doesn’t have the (total economic impact ) data. How can this guy have the data?”

 # # #

Text of Mr. Allen’s letter:

Dear Senators Reed & Whitehouse:
 
It is my understanding that New Bedford Mayor Lang and his fishery advisors
will be holding a meeting in the U.S. Capitol in the near future. As a Rhode
Island fisherman who has been deeply involved in the fishery management
process since 1972, I would like to offer the following background
information concerning the current situation in the New England groundfish
fishery.
 
Mayor Lang and Massachusetts Governor Patrick have claimed that Amendment 16
to the Fishery Management Plan for Northeast Groundfish has harmed New
Bedford and/or Massachusetts economically. The available data suggests that
New Bedford and Massachusetts have done quite well under Amendment 16. New
Bedford groundfish landings are up 116% and revenue is up 129% for May 1,
2010 through January 31, 2011 compared to the same period last year, before
Amendment 16 went into effect. The data also shows that revenue per time at
sea is up significantly, indicating that production costs are down while
revenues are up.
 
Some opponents of catch shares claim that lease costs reduce the benefits of
increased revenues. Lease costs arise from agreements between willing buyers
and willing sellers who recognize the "gains from trade;" both parties
expect to be better off or they wouldn't do the deal. From a community
perspective, if fish can be caught with less expense by one boat rather than
two, more revenue will stay in the local economy than would be the case if
the boats spent more on fuel, insurance, and other inputs. That's because a
big chunk of those expenses would accrue to vendors outside the local
economy, possibly outside the country. Higher revenues with lower production
costs make more of a contribution to the local economy. Lease costs are more
likely to increase than decrease the contribution of the fisheries to the
economy of New Bedford because they indicate that more fishery profits are
staying in the local economy.
 
Massachusetts has been the recipient of multiple fishery assistance payments
dating back to 1791, when a delegation of Marblehead vessel owners convinced
the First Congress of the United States to enact a subsidy for the New
England groundfish fleet. In 2008 Massachusetts simply divided the
assistance money in proportion to the days-at-sea allocated to the
groundfish permit holders. This approach helped the larger operators more
than the smaller operators. Massachusetts now admits that the larger
operators have fared well under Amendment 16, but have not explained how
financial assistance would be used to benefit those most in need.
 
The economic analysis that MA submitted to the Secretary of Commerce
presented calculations of economic loss as a result of the Amendment 16
allocations, but failed to consider the economic gains, either at the
individual fisherman level or at the state level. A fisherman whose
allocation of cod was lower than his recent landings might have had an
allocation of haddock that was higher than his recent landings. Only the
decrease was counted. For the NE fleet as a whole, we know that the total FY
2010 commercial annual catch limits were about 120 million lb higher than
2009 groundfish landings. That means that someone received allocations
valued at $148 million more than 2009 landings, using the $1.23 average
price from the MA report.
 
The press reports lead one to believe that large numbers of boats were idled
by Amendment 16. In fact, however, the MA report states that "The number of
inactive vessels in 2010 increased by 17 vessels over the average number of
inactive for the first five months of the fishing year from 2005 through
2009." What the report does not tell the reader is that the number of MA
groundfish vessels that called in on a groundfish DAS declined from 385 in
2005 to 266 in 2009, an average decline of 30 boats per year. If there were
17 more inactive groundfish boats in 2010 compared to 2009, that would
represent a slowing of the decline compared to the previous management
system.
 
Claims concerning the concentration of groundfish landings among a small
number of vessels ignore the historic concentration of landings that has
been evident in the groundfish fishery for decades. Like many other
activities, the groundfish fishery tends to follow the 80:20 rule, which
says that 80% of the production will likely come from 20% of the boats. That
is not a new phenomenon that results from Amendment 16, but it has been cast
as such.
 
With regard to the status of smaller boats compared to larger boats, it is
important to recognize that the offshore stocks of Georges Bank haddock and
Gulf of Maine redfish have shown the most rapid rebuilding. That means that
the greatest opportunity for increases in landings will be available to
larger, offshore boats that can access those stocks. In contrast, the stocks
available to smaller, inshore boats have been slower to rebuild relative to
the number of boats fishing for them. That fact has limited the expansion
opportunities available to the inshore fleet. Future years will likely see
increases in the allowable catch for inshore stocks, but it is not yet clear
whether the current fishing capacity of the inshore fleet still exceeds the
productivity of inshore stocks.
 
There is no question that the costs associated with sector management could
be a problem for fishermen in the future. The fishery management council
needs to look at ways to reduce the costs and the intrusiveness of
groundfish monitoring programs, especially for smaller boats. To date,
however, increased costs have been largely subsidized by NMFS.
 
It is also clear that many of the sector costs are the result of decisions
by the sector organizers and leadership and are not inherent in the
management system. Sectors could streamline their operations and reduce
costs.
 
The bottom line that many critics fail to recognize is that the sector
system gave fishermen greater authority to self-manage the groundfish
fishery. Fishermen have been asking for more involvement in the management
system since the beginning of federal fisheries management in 1977. To the
extent that the sector system is not working the way fishermen want it to,
they have the power to change it because the sector members can change many
of the management rules on their own. They can also develop and implement
more cost efficient procedures for monitoring and reporting catches.
 
Fishery representatives who object to catch shares and sector management
seem to be saying that they would rather have the government tell them how,
when and where to fish than to take the responsibility to manage their own
catches. Progressive fishermen in RI and MA have shown that sector
management can produce real benefits in terms of increased profitability and
reduced discards. The critics of catch shares have no viable alternative to
suggest.
 
I don't agree with all of the decisions that have been made by the New
England Fishery Management Council or by the National Marine Fisheries
Service. I have no doubt that there will always be new and improved science
that can be applied to the determination of annual catch limits. I am
equally certain that catch shares give fishermen the best opportunity to
adjust to changing resource conditions, whether real or perceived.
 
Mayor Lang's crusade is emotionally and politically attractive, but it is
short on facts and logic.
 
I hope that this information is helpful to you.
 
Sincerely, Richard B. Allen

From the City of Morro Bay, California: We are providing these comments to update you on the formation of a Community Fishing Association (CFA) called the Central Coast Community Quota Bank or CQB in Morro Bay, and provide information on how this bank will work to achieve the community objectives established in the Magnuson Stevens Act. We strongly request that you continue development of safe harbor provisions for the CFA's to hold quota in excess of individual accumulation limits.

As you know we have been working with the PFMC, NMFS, local fishermen and NGO's to track the trawl sector conversion to Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) and attempt to support the adjustments that will be necessary to anchor historical trawl groundfish landings in smaller coastal communities such as ours, while working to improve sustainability of the fishery as a whole.

Read the comments from the City of Morro Bay.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Washington, DC (MMD Newswire) March 31, 2011 — The U.S. Commerce Department announced today that economic development assessment teams will deploy next month to conduct a two-day analysis of six Northeast fishing communities. The teams will visit Portland, Maine, Seabrook, N.H., New Bedford, Mass., Gloucester, Mass., Point Judith, R.I., and Montauk, N.Y. The assessment teams will conduct meetings with local leaders to help identify economic development challenges and opportunities facing local industries and communities.

"The Department of Commerce is committed to supporting a vibrant and profitable fishing industry in the United States. The assessment teams will help communities identify and begin to address the economic difficulties they are facing," Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said. "We know that by rebuilding stocks, we will improve economic conditions for fishermen and coastal communities, but we recognize that transition is difficult. We are committed to help identify proactive solutions during these challenging economic times."

"Supporting fishermen and fishing communities with economic assessment and planning assistance is a top priority for the Department of Commerce and the administration," said Brian McGowan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development. "The Northeast economic development assessment teams will play an important role in providing technical expertise to local leaders as they develop strategies to increase economic and job opportunities."

Read the complete story from MMD Newswire.

 

 

 

 

NEW BEDFORD — Without mentioning catch shares or sector management, the U.S. Commerce Department announced today that it is deploying “economic assessment teams” to six Northeast fishing ports “to identify economic challenges and opportunities facing local industries and communities.”

Gloucester Mayor Carolyn Kirk told The Standard-Times that she’s pleased with the news, especially because the EPA will be one of the parties involved.

“It’s a serious attempt to help distressed communities such as Gloucester,” she said, “I especially like the fact that they’re taking a holistic view and will include other federal agencies such as EPA. That’s a huge deal for us in Gloucester.”

The two-day visits, modeled after efforts in the Gulf Coast following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, will be to the ports of Portland, Maine; Seabrook, N.H.; New Bedford; Gloucester; Point Judith, R.I.; and Montauk, N.Y. Kirk said she was told the target dates are late April or early May.

Read the complete story from The South Coast Today.

 

 

 

 

 

NEW BEDFORD, Mass.—The U.S. Commerce Department said Wednesday that it's sending experts to six Northeast ports in April to identify the financial fallout caused by federal fishing rules.

The "economic development assessment teams" will conduct two-day evaluations in New Bedford and Gloucester, Mass.; Portland, Maine; Seabrook, N.H.; Point Judith, R.I. and Montauk, N.Y.

The teams will meet with local officials and fishing industry workers about the economic effects of falling fishing revenues, caused by cuts in catch limits that aim to rebuild fish stocks.

"We know that by rebuilding stocks, we will improve economic conditions for fishermen and coastal communities, but we recognize that transition is difficult," Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said in a statement. "We are committed to help identify proactive solutions during these challenging economic times."

Read the complete story by The AP at The Boston Globe.

 

 

 

 

 

Gloucester and the other key commercial fishing ports of New England, struggling under the new groundfishing regimen, have been notified today they're being targeted by the U.S. Department of Commerce for special economic development assistance.

"Economic development assessment teams will deploy next month to conduct a two-day analysis of six Northeast fishing communities," the department said in an announcement posted on the agency's website just after noon.

In addition to Gloucester, the department is targeting New Bedford, Portland, Maine, Seabrook, N.H., Point Judith, R.I. and Montauk, N.Y., saying all would be served by the special teams that will conduct meetings with local leaders to help identify economic development challenges and opportunities facing local industries and communities.

Read the complete story from The Gloucester Times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHATHAM, Mass. – March 13, 2010 – The Georges Bank Cod Fixed Gear Sector released a statement regarding the leasing of quota by its members.

The Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association (CCCHFA) website describes the  Georges Bank Cod Fixed Gear Sector  as a "pioneer of the sector system."  According to the CCCHFA, "the Hook Association established its first 'harvesting cooperative' for fishermen using hook gear in 2004. A second Hook-sponsored sector, comprised of fishermen using both hooks and gillnets, was approved in 2006. This year, the two groups combined to form the Georges Bank Fixed Gear Sector."

The Georges Bank Cod Fixed Gear Sector is participating in the ongoing lawsuit against the Federal Government by the cities of New Bedford and Gloucester, the top fishing port in New England and the oldest port in New England, through the filing of an amicus brief arguing against the two cities.  The brief was prepared with legal counsel provided by EarthJustice of Washington, DC.

Like many small businesses that must maximize the limited resources available to them, the local Cape Cod fishing fleet has had to diversify to survive.  Over 50 of Cape Cod’s small-boat, owner-operator fishing businesses were able to optimize their ‘catch portfolios’ this year through trades and leases afforded by the sector management system.

Members of the Georges Bank Cod Fixed Gear Sector, along with the 15 other active sectors in New England, are actively working together to adjust and adapt their business plans to minimize risk.  The goal?  To find the right combination of quotas that best fit their individual business plans.  Sector management allows the sector as a whole as well as individual fisherman to optimize their ‘portfolio’ of quotas while also providing flexibility each year to adapt to the economic and ecological challenges their fishing communities face.

“It’s simple.  We leased out some quota we couldn’t catch, and leased in quota that we could,” says Fixed Gear Sector Member John Our.  “Nobody else in the Sector needed it this year.  Next year may be different.  So why would we strand this quota inside the Fixed Gear Sector when it could provide fishermen in other sectors the opportunity to make a profit now?”

Cape Cod fishermen have made great strides this year toward becoming more efficient and profitable fishing businesses under new sector rules.  The trading and leasing of groundfish quotas was integral to this success since it allowed fishermen within and between sectors the opportunity to piece together the amount and types of quotas they needed to run a successful fishing business.  Since these leases are annual and not permanent, sector management allowed sector members to trade for quota that fit their business plans as they evolved throughout the year.  At the same time, they are able to maintain flexibility to adapt to changing conditions in future years.  As the status of marine resources change, so can fishermen’s business plans.

One of the unforeseen events Fixed Gear Sector fishermen had to respond to this year was a lack of codfish during what is normally a productive summer and fall.  “We had no inshore cod fishery this year to speak of.  I had to turn to fishing for dogfish and bluefish,” stressed Fixed Gear Sector handline fisherman Ted Ligenza.  Other Fixed Gear Sector fishermen confirmed this sentiment, and pointed out that the substantial abundance of skates and dogfish had “overrun” traditional codfishing grounds off Cape Cod.  According to Fixed Gear Sector Member Eric Hesse, “being able to catch several species means less risk than going ‘all-in’ on one species.”

As a result, local fishermen did what they do best – they found a way to make it work.  Many Fixed Gear Sector Members diversified their businesses and turned to catching spiny dogfish, landing 1.2 Million pounds of this overabundant species.  Others focused their efforts on catching nearly 400,000 pounds of monkfish and 2.5 Million pounds of skates.  Fixed Gear Sector Members also landed 250,000 pounds of lobster; 71,000 pounds of scallops; 150,000 pounds of tuna; and 75,000 pounds of striped bass and bluefish.  The Fixed Gear Sector sailed over 1,750 sector trips between May 1, 2010 and March 1, 2011, and caught over 2.1 Million pounds of groundfish; over 50% of which was harvested by hook-and-line.  In total, over 50 active fishing vessels landed over 6.6 Million pounds of commercially-important seafood.

Fixed Gear Sector fishermen already have their eye towards the upcoming fishing year, which starts on May 1, 2011.  As they look forward to improving environmental and economic conditions, Fixed Gear Sector Member Bob St. Pierre summed it up by saying “I’m going to go where the opportunity is, and I’m looking forward to a good year.”