Law

The U.S. Department of Commerce has formally announced a series of steps that will allow the alleged victims of excessive fisheries law enforcement actions a new recourse for appeal. 

Speaking in teleconference from Washington this afternoon,  Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Jane Lubchenco also announced plans to undertake a deeper probe into the scandalized fund of fines paid to NOAA by fishermen, most notably in Glocuester and around New England.

Among the concessions from NOAA and the Commerce Department are authorizing and funding a forensic audit of NOAA's Asset Forfeiture Fund back to 2004, that's with eye toward determining how NOAA's office of law enforcement and its litigation team worked through close to $50 million in fines paid by fishermen and the industry.

Read the complete story from the Gloucester Times.

 

 

 

 

 

BOSTON — The legal dispute over catch shares and fishing industry sectors reached a federal courtroom Tuesday, with Judge Rya Zobel making it clear she is considering an order putting the new system to a referendum, as New Bedford and Gloucester have asked.

Four lawyers representing New Bedford, Gloucester and other fishing interests squared off against eight U.S. government attorneys while National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration general counsel Lois Schiffer watched grimly from the audience of about 50 people.

As the strictly timed 90-minute hearing progressed, Zobel gradually steered it away from arguments over declining or rebuilding fish stocks or the cost of sector management. Instead, the legal wrangling centered largely on the issue of whether the new system is one of quotas, which would require that it be put to a referendum.

Stephen Ouellette, the Gloucester attorney speaking for the plaintiffs, was asked by Zobel, "Could a remand be limited to a referendum?" — a question that quickly overshadowed much of the discussion about other aspects of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The fishing ports claim the NOAA evaded Magnuson's requirement for a referendum by using semantic tricks, and that catch shares and sectors are actually quotas in thin disguise.

Read the complete story from The South Coast Today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Their protests rejected or ignored by the New England Fishery Management Council, spurned by the parent federal fisheries service and stonewalled by the head of NOAA and Secretary of Commerce, a broad-based coalition of commercial fishing interests organized from Gloucester and New Bedford get to voice their grievances to a federal judge Tuesday.

The long-building lawsuit brought by Gloucester, New Bedford and a number of fishing interests against the federal government alleges that regulatory Amendment 16, whose catch share management system transformed the groundfishery into a virtual commodities market nearly a year ago, is essentially illegal and unconstitutional.

The change, which encourages the buying, selling and trading of fishermen's allotted catch for various fish stocks, has come at the cost of owner-operator fishing businesses and fleet diversity, while consolidating more resources in the hands of larger boats and corporations, according to a University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth study commissioned by Gov. Deval Patrick.

Oral arguments in the suit are scheduled for 2 p.m. Tuesday in the Boston courtroom of U.S. District Judge Rya Zobel.

Read the complete story in the Gloucester Times

 

 

 

NEW BEDFORD — March 14, 2011 – After 10 months of filing cross-motions and writing memoranda, attorneys in the city's lawsuit against the U.S. commerce secretary over fishing regulations will go into a Boston courtroom Tuesday.

U.S. District Court Judge Rya Zobel will hear arguments from both sides asking for summary judgment in the case, with the U.S. government asking that the case be thrown out, and the cities of New Bedford and Gloucester asking that Amendment 16 to the Magnuson-Stevens Act be compelled to comply with the requirements of the law.

That would include a proper analysis of the effects of management changes on port communities, along with a better system of allocating fish.

"'The repercussions would be severe.' That's no analysis at all," said Pamela Lafreniere, who represents New Bedford in the case. Gloucester attorney Stephen Ouellette will make the actual presentation on Tuesday.

There is also a question of whether the fishery should have voted in a referendum before Amendment 16 was put into place.

Amendment 16, imposed as of May 1, radically changed the way groundfishing is regulated in the Northeast. Gone was the "days at sea" system of restricting fishing effort (with the exception of a handful of boats). New was the "sector management" system and catch shares — along with allocations so low that half the fleet had to stop fishing.

Catch shares and sectors, as predicted, delivered a body blow to the fishing ports, with some boats (the top 10 percent) doing well at the expense of the rest, according to data examined by UMass Dartmouth.

Months of political pressure and appeals for relief have been met with total rejection by Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and everyone in his department. Gov. Deval Patrick appealed to President Obama for his intervention, but after six weeks, there has been no response — at least, none that has been made public. Patrick did not return calls seeking comment for this report.

Read the complete story in the Standard-Times

 

 

 

PORTLAND, Ore.—A class-action lawsuit against one of the country's largest seafood processors has taken a hit, after a judge said the plaintiffs failed to show the company used its enormous market share to suppress prices paid to fisherman.

In fact, U.S. District Court Judge Owen Panner said in a ruling Tuesday, the evidence indicates Pacific Seafood has expanded the market for whiting, and that fishermen have been getting better prices as a result.

Prices paid to fishermen are at the heart of the lawsuit filed by two southern Oregon commercial fishermen against the seafood giant, The Oregonian reports.

The suit accuses Pacific Seafood of using that market share and coordination with other processors to drive down prices paid to fishermen. Such practices would violate federal anti-trust laws.

Pacific Seafood has denied the allegation. A trial is scheduled to begin in February 2012.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEW BEDFORD — The New England Fishery Management Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service "lost their way" when they wrote Amendment 16 to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, U.S. reps. Barney Frank and John Tierney told a federal court judge Tuesday.

The congressmen, both D-Mass., filed their amicus (friend of the court) brief in the lawsuit to block Amendment 16, brought by New Bedford and Gloucester and a host of fishing industry interests.

They say regulators "failed to achieve the balanced regulation required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, constraining the operation of the groundfish fishery at the unnecessary expense of participants and dependent communities."

The brief spells out Frank's central role in writing the 2006 Magnuson Reauthorization Act, pitting his interpretation of that act against that of the Commerce Department and the Conservation Law Foundation, which intervened as a co-defendant.

The brief suggests regulators were more concerned about the fish than the fishermen. "The goal of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is not to 'protect' fishery resources from use but rather to maximize food production — to achieve the 'full utilization' of fishery resources — as long as that is done within acceptable biological limits," they wrote.

Amendment 16 violates National Standard No. 1 of the Magnuson Act, wrote the congressmen, because it disregards the problems fishermen are having with catching their allowable amounts.

"Management measures are condemned under National Standard No. 1 if they are 'too restrictive' as well as 'not rigorous enough,'" said their memo. "The allocation of 'choke stocks,' e.g. pollock, yellowtail flounder, winter flounder, is so conservative that it will impede fishermen's ability to harvest the species for which they have a substantial allocation."

Read the complete story from The South Coast Today.

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

The Fixed Gear Sector is one of two experimental sectors (cooperatives) formed on the Cape, the other being the now-dormant Hook Sector. The cities argue that the close relationship with NOAA policymakers gave the Cape sectors an insider's advantage. "These experimental sectors, unlike the plaintiffs, have been given a direct role in policymaking," the cities wrote in a memo to the court.

The city cited an e-mail from the sector's policy analyst to NOAA indicating a direct role in formulating the language of Amendment 16, which established catch shares and sector management in the Northeast.

"Thus the beneficiary of a proposed regulation was allowed to craft the very regulation from which it stood to benefit," the cities argued.

"This e-mail demonstrated the ongoing relationship between the defendants and the Fixed Gear and Hook Sectors — a relationship from which plaintiffs were excluded, that gave these sectors special access to the decision-makers and the ability to effect regulatory change that benefited them.

Read the complete story from The South Coast Today.

 

 

 

 

 

FAIRHAVEN — Student Council members from Hastings Middle School made a pitch before selectmen Feb. 14 to support a seafood dinner they're holding as a fundraiser for local fishermen. The selectmen all promised to come.

The seafood fundraiser will take place on Friday, March 11, from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. in the school cafeteria. All proceeds will go directly to American Seafood Defense Fund, New Bedford Harbor Development Commission.

Three council members told selectmen they were aware of the hardships fishermen face from fishing in the winter, dealing with regulations and the rising cost of fuel. They said they want to contribute money to help fishermen fight regulations and to help their families.

"That's quite an endeavor you're doing," said Select Board Chairman Charles Murphy Sr. After promising to attend, he said they were wise to hold the event on a Friday because, "Fish is very popular on Fridays." The board then voted 3-0 to support the endeavor.

Read the complete story from The South Coast Today.

 

 

 

 

 

With a court date looming, federal officials relented on their demand that an environmental group pay $16,000 for access to government research and records related to sea turtle deaths caused by commercial fishing.

Oceana, an international environmental advocacy group, filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Marine Fisheries Service last year, seeking e-mails, correspondence and scientific data produced by the government.

The two agencies refused to comply unless Oceana paid $16,000 in copying and search fees. In part, the agencies argued that Oceana had not fully distributed all of the information it had received in an earlier FOIA request.

Oceana sued, charging that the agencies were violating federal laws that require the release of public records.

On Monday, NOAA lawyers informed Oceana that the fee would be waived, according to the environmental group.

Read the complete story from Alabama Live.

 

 

 

 

 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's budget seeks $1 million to fight lawsuits filed to block or limit catch share regimens. Multiple lawsuits are already pending in U.S. District Courts, including one filed by the cities of Gloucester and New Bedford in Boston.

Meanwhile, seven senators and representatives joined U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., Wednesday in signing a letter telling Commerce Secretary Gary Locke to abandon the catch share campaign which "does not have broad based support from the fishing industry" because of harm it has already done.

One of the signers of the Hagen letter, Congressman Walter Jones, R-N.C., also announced the filing of a federal budget amendment that would bar further spending on any new catch shares programs.

Jones' amendment would "prohibit NOAA from spending any money on the development and approval of new catch share programs in fisheries under the jurisdiction of the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management."

Despite widespread industry opposition, the $907.8 million budget proposal for the National Marine Fisheries Service proposes shifting money from fisheries research and management and cooperative research programs to increase catch share spending by $36.6 million.

The consumer group Food and Water Watch, which has been a fierce critic of catch shares, praised the effort to fight the catch share management schemes.

"A wildly unpopular management tool, catch shares re-distribute access to fish, usually from smaller scale fishermen to larger, more industrialized operations," said Wenonah Hauter, the organization's executive director. "Catch shares have been proven to decrease job opportunities and wages for workers, skew fisheries toward industrial production, and devastate the socio-economic well-being of coastal and fishing communities.

"We congratulate these legislators for supporting U.S. fishermen in their desperate battle to hold on to their jobs and stop the privatization of fisheries," Hauter said in the prepared statement.

Food and Water Watch has produced search showing that catch share programs have eliminated about two thirds of the jobs in fisheries subjected to the system which tends to consolidate equity into the largest hands at the expense of small businesses.

The Recreational Fishing Alliance, which organized last year's national protest against federal fisheries policies, has announced a faxing campaign to Congress to put the brakes on catch share conversions.

Read the complete story from The Gloucester Times.