Management & Regulation

So why the brouhaha over catch shares? Well, what I have described is a best-case scenario. Often these systems come with more questions than answers: First and foremost is the dilemma of initial allocation. How do you decide who gets how many fish?

Typically, initial allocation is based in some form on a permit-holder’s catch history. But for what period of time? How do managers weigh the needs of commercial fishermen versus recreational fishermen?

And what about fishermen who trade efficiency for more environmentally friendly gear and a higher-value product? If they caught less historically in order to sell a better product at a premium, how do you account for that in an allocation battle?

What about tangentially related fisheries? In the northeast scallop fishery, for example, yellowtail flounder isn’t the target fish but is sometimes caught in scallop dredges. So the scallop fishery needs a separate allocation for their unintended harvest—called “bycatch”—of flounder. How much should they get?

There are also concerns about consolidation. Should there be caps on the percentage of fish one fisherman can control? Will nonfishing entities such as  banks be allowed by the regulations to purchase a quota and lease it out it to the highest bidder? And what about the needs of fishing communities? In such a limited access system what happens if fishermen decide to take advantage of economies of scale and concentrate effort in large ports to the detriment of smaller coastal towns?

To an extent, these questions can and must be addressed by the Fishery Management Councils tasked with developing and approving fishery management plans. But these decisions inevitably result in winners and losers. And those who end up with the short end of the stick look for remediation any way they can, particularly when our science-based management system is struggling to support management. Those who lose call their elected representatives. And this brings us back to Congress.

Congress has typically stayed out of decisions about management in particular  fisheries, leaving that task to the regional Fishery Management councils, as the Magnuson-Stevens Act stipulates. But the inclusion of the Jones Amendment is troubling because it sets the precedent that Congress is willing to legislate what methods of fishery management are available to the councils.

The Jones Amendment will expire along with the rest of the spending bill on September 30 of this year. But once policy riders are enacted they have a way of sticking around. The moratorium on new offshore oil and gas drilling that was allowed by Congress to expire in 2008, for example, had been in place for 26 years.

While catch share management is not a panacea that will save every fishery, it has been proven in some case to be a valuable tool that works for fishermen and fish populations. According to NOAA’s statistics, in 1994, the year before the Alaska halibut catch share system was put in place, the harvest was worth $93 million. This is about $133 million when adjusted for inflation to 2008, by which time the value had increased to $217 million while the overall amount of fish caught was effectively equal. This is likely one reason why Pacific fisheries are not covered by the Jones Amendment’s prohibition on catch share approvals. West Coast fishermen have seen the value a well-designed, well-executed catch share system can provide to their industry and their communities.

Read this story from The Center for American Progress.

 

 

 

 

 

The Fishermen's Marketing Association, United Catcher Boats, and the Pacific Whiting Conservation Cooperative, all West Coast groups unaffected by the Jones Amendment, issued a letter saying that the law sets a "dangerous precedent," and called eastern lawmakers out-of-touch.

A letter from New Bedford Mayor Scott Lang and Gloucester Mayor Carolyn Kirk, the nations largest and oldest fishing port, respectively, to all 100 Senators outlined the reason that east coast lawmakers supported the amendment.

Read the letter from the 2 Mayors to the 100 Senators.

In many parts of the U.S., commercial fisheries are headed for the rocks. For those of us in the industry, the refrains are familiar: over-capitalization, overfishing, irrational top-down management schemes.

When fishermen in "dire straits" come together with fishery managers to hammer out solutions, they need to have every option available, including quota-based catch share systems. Although no two catch share programs are the same, and quotas are certainly not a fix in every fishery, they are one proven model for building both economic and environmental sustainability. Commercial fishermen and fishery managers need a full toolbox when they design the systems that make sense in their regional fisheries.

We learned last week that the recent federal budget compromise includes an amendment authored by Representative Walter Jones of North Carolina to prohibit regional fishery managers from developing or implementing catch share programs in the New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions. This is Congressional overreach at its worst. It is one thing to oppose catch share programs; it is quite another to not allow fishermen to move forward with one, even when they support it.

Thanks to the decisive action of West Coast and Alaska lawmakers, Pacific and North Pacific fishermen are exempted from this amendment's immediate effects. It is a mystery to us, however, why other members of Congress would vote to take such valuable tools away from fishermen and their fishery management councils. Perhaps they are under the impression that narrowing management options will somehow preserve fishing jobs, or discourage fleet consolidation. We respectfully suggest that they are mistaken. It is current approaches to fishery management that have led many commercial fisheries and fishing communities to the brink of economic collapse. Supporters of the Jones amendment are under-informed as to the diversity and real-world challenges of America's fishing fleets.

Here on the West Coast, it is tempting to shrug our shoulders and write off this amendment as an isolated action supported by out-of-touch lawmakers – but this amendment sets a potentially dangerous precedent. It will not streamline fishery management, or strengthen fishing communities. What it will do instead is tie the hands of fishermen as they attempt to steer clear of the rocks and develop future-focused management programs.

Tommy Ancona, President
Fishermen's Marketing Association

Brent Paine, Executive Director
United Catcher Boats

Dan Waldeck, Executive Director
Pacific Whiting Conservation Cooperative

Read the release at West Coast Trawlers.

 

 

 

 

 

NOAA’s Fisheries Service is asking for public input as it starts the process of updating the national guidelines that promote the safety of commercial and recreational fishermen in federal waters.

These guidelines are used by federal fisheries managers as they draft fishing rules and regulations around the nation.

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act that guides fishing in federal waters, National Standard 10 states: “Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, promote the safety of human life at sea.”

The current National Standard 10 guidelines, which help fishery managers implement that standard, were drafted in 1998 and since then fishery management and analytical methods to evaluate safety have changed and improved. Through the revision of these guidelines, NOAA’s Fisheries Service intends to enhance consideration of safety issues in fisheries management. NOAA is therefore issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register. The notice describes issues related to safety of human life at sea that NOAA’s Fisheries Service is considering addressing in the guidelines. For example, guidance on how to analyze fatality statistics to identify and address hazards within a fishery could be added to the National Standard 10 guidelines.

Read the complete story from Fish News EU.

 

 

 

 

 

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) April 21, 2011 — The following response to the Gloucester Daily Times article "Catch limit 'increases' don't add up" has been received by Saving Seafood from NOAA Fisheries Northeast Regional Administrator Pat Kurkul:

We could focus on the combined quota totals, but total catch is more relevant to the health of the fishery, the fish stocks, and fishing communities. That’s why we are publicizing the increases in limits for twelve smaller stocks rather than the decreases in three relatively large ones—the two haddock stocks and pollock. The increases make it more likely that total catch in 2011 will be higher than in 2010, including that for pollock and haddock.

The fishery is not managed under a combined quota, but rather by quotas for each of 20 stocks. If a quota for a small stock is reached, it can restrain fishing for all other groundfish species. Because more of the smaller stocks can be taken in 2011, there will be more opportunity to catch these as well as other fish, like pollock and haddock.

The 2011 catch limits for haddock and pollock are lower than in 2010, but still three times higher than the 2010 actual catch so far from these stocks. The catch limits, although lower than in 2010, are not expected to be much of a barrier to higher catch in 2011.

It is true that catch limits for 2011 were initially set in 2010.  However, NOAA changed catch limits for several species during 2010, including that for Georges Bank yellowtail for 2011.  We hope publicizing the 2011 limits will help to mitigate any confusion about the limits for the upcoming year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As the first year of New England groundfishing in commodity-based catch share trading draws to a conclusion, the federal fisheries service has announced liberalized catch limits for many stocks in the second year under Amendment 16, which begins May 1.

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, slated for nomination to be ambassador to China, made the announcement of the increased catch limits Monday instead of NOAA chief administrator Jane Lubchenco, who has typically made similar announcements since the start of the Obama administration.

Locke who become a lightning rod for industry anger by rejecting pleas from Gov. Deval Patrick for higher catch limits in January, tis time described fishing as "vital to our coastal communities, their economies and the men and women who work on the water to bring heatlhy seafood to our tables."

He said catch limits on 12 of the 20 stocks in the groundfish complex would be higher in fishing year 2011 that begins 11 days from today.

Read the complete story at The Gloucester Times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEW BEDFORD — For those fishing boat owners who toughed out the first year of sector management and catch shares, NOAA's announcement Monday of increased allocations for 12 groundfish species for the year beginning May 1 was moderately good news.

But the allocations remain far below what is maximum sustainable yield, said Richard Canastra, owner of the New Bedford Seafood Display Auction.

"Increases definitely help, but I believe it's not to the level it should be. The industry is looking to obtain optimal yield, to be able to target more of the species," he said.

The Northeast fishing industry is coming nowhere near catching its total allowance because of complex rules that limit fishing activity to protect rebuilding stocks. Sector (cooperative) management and economic pressure was expected to improve targeting of species and, in some cases, it has. But not enough to make much of a difference in the end.

Read the complete story from The South Coast Today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The higher catch limits for the New England groundfish complex announced this week by U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke were actually set by the federal regional fishery management council in 2009 in the final construction of Amendment 16, the regulatory regimen.

And while the secretary was correct in noting that catch limits generally were being increased, catch limits on two major stocks — haddock and pollock — were severely reduced. So, the total allowable catch for the groundfishing fleet in all stocks will be lower by 9.1 percent in the fishing year that begins May 1, documents indicate.

The reduced catch limits were not mentioned by Locke in his prepared statement, nor did he note that the combined limit for all stocks would be lower.

While the reported increases were announced with a flourish, fishermen scoffed at the plan, saying the higher catch limits had long been a fait accompli and were largely irrelevant since the fleet has not come close to landing the slightly lesser catch limits for the fishing year ending April 30.

Read the complete story from The Gloucester Times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maine's bluefin tuna fishermen are expected to show up in force to protest new federal quotas on the fishery at a public hearing in Portland April 25.

The hearing, from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Holiday Inn by the Bay at 88 Spring St., is seeking comments on the most stringent catch limits the National Marine Fisheries Service has ever proposed for the large fish. The season opens June 1.

New England fishermen are protesting new rules they say are unfair to those who use sustainable fishing methods, such as rod and reel and harpoons, and favor the fishermen who use 30- to 40-mile longlines, which result in the discarding of tens of metric tons of dead bluefin tuna annually.

The New England fishermen have been joined by the Pew Environment Group in their protest.

Read the complete story from The Portland Press Herald.

 

 

 

 

 

 

To some, sector management, with its emphasis on dividing up fish stocks and handing shares over to individual fishermen, was akin to fencing off the open range.

"I bent over backwards to get comments out of the audience," recalled Pappalardo, who also serves as the Chief Executive Officer for the Chatham-based Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association.

But the fight never materialized and the measure passed 14-1. Even the allocation method, the most controversial element of the new regulations, which dictated how the fish would be divided among fishermen, passed by a lopsided margin, 12 for, 4 against and 1 abstention.

Consensus proved fleeting. Once the fishing season began in May, problems and discontent, particularly with the allocation of quota, surfaced.

"It's extremely complex and over-engineered, not fully vetted and developed prior to the race to implement it," said Eric Anderson, a former New England council member who represents 25 New Hampshire and Massachusetts fishing vessels.

Council member David Preble of Rhode Island agreed the process was somewhat rushed because they were under a court-imposed deadline to rebuild fish stocks by 2014. While some other proposals seemed promising, only sector management had a track record of ending overfishing and restoring fish stocks in that restrictive time frame, Preble said.

While critics grabbed the spotlight and waxed loud and long about the new management system, many fishermen from Maine to New Jersey found it to be far better than the previous regulations to the point where they are looking forward to the beginning of the new fishing year next month.

"From my perspective, this is a hell of a lot better than it was before and we're still working on ways to improve it," said Eric Brazer, sector manager for the Georges Bank Fixed Gear Sector.

Opponents took their fight all the way to Washington demanding the removal of the new National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Director Jane Lubchenco, an outspoken advocate of this management tool, a repeal of the regulations, and more federal aid.

Conspiracy theories flourished, including claims Pappalardo was guilty of insider deals to protect the Chatham fleet, a charge he and others on the Council deny.

Read the complete story from The Cape Cod Times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's almost been a year since sector management became the method that controls 95 percent of the New England groundfish quota. The management system's critics are adamant that it is destroying the fishing industry.

"It's working the way (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Administrator Jane) Lubchenco and others wanted it to work by forcing two-thirds of fishermen out of business, and makes the other one-third look like they are succeeding," said Jim Kendall, a former fisherman and president of New Bedford Seafood Consulting. Nearly 70 percent of the New Bedford groundfish fleet is tied up, not fishing, he said.

The issue gained national attention when NOAA, under the newly-appointed Lubchenco, pushed for the expansion of catch-share programs nationwide. Acting on a groundswell of protests from disaffected fishermen, the U.S. House of Representatives, in a bill co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, recently voted to cut NOAA's funding for promoting these programs. An amended bill that prohibits initiating any new catch-share programs before Sept. 30 awaits President Barack Obama's signature.

But for Hesse and other Cape fishermen who pioneered sector management and formed the region's first sector more than six years ago, the experience has been positive. They counsel patience.

"The first year is the worst year," advised Chatham fisherman John Our, who has four years of sector experience. "I thought, 'What have I gotten myself into?'"

"We weren't under the gun, and we worked the kinks out of it," Chatham fisherman Greg Walinski said.

Under a congressional mandate, as well as a 2004 court-ordered deadline to end overfishing and rebuild depleted fish stocks by 2014, New England fishery regulators and the National Marine Fisheries Service made it increasingly harder over the past decade for fishermen to catch fish based on the theory that reduced landings would leave enough fish to spawn and rebuild decimated populations.

They were attempting to close the spigot on landings using regulations that required less-efficient fishing gear and closed large tracts of ocean to fishing. But the most onerous method was known as Days-At-Sea, which reduced the number of fishing days each succeeding year. As combined measures failed to rein in overfishing, those fishing days dropped to just a fraction of what they had been. By 2009, most fishermen had 40 or less days of fishing per year and faced another big reduction in 2010.

This, along with severe limitations on what could be caught each day, had a withering effect on the New England fishing fleet, and the number of active groundfish fishermen in New England plunged by 60 percent over the past decade. On the Cape and Islands, that number dropped from 252 in 2001 to just 58 last year. In the New Bedford-Fairhaven area, there were 232 active fishermen in 2001 and just 111 in 2009. That all happened before the implementation of sector management.

Read the complete story from The Cape Cod Times.