Federal regulators voted last night to impose tough new restrictions on the commercial longline fishing fleet in the Gulf of Mexico in an attempt to protect marine turtles.
The new fishery-management plan would close certain areas, restrict fishing to boats that have brought in large catches in the past and reduce the number of hooks that can be used during fishing trips.
Commercial fishing representatives said the changes would cut the longline fleet in half.
The state of Oregon and its allies in a lawsuit over the future of Northwest salmon don’t like how the Obama administration is handling the issue.
In papers filed in federal court, the state, environmental groups and the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho say they’ve been effectively shut out of the administration’s deliberations over how to run the region’s network of big, power-generating dams without pushing salmon closer to extinction.
The criticism comes from some of the same people who not long ago were applauding the Obama team’s entry in the decades-long and multi-billion dollar conundrum surrounding the imperiled and iconic fish.
Commercial fishermen here have less than one month to decide if they will jump ship and plunge into the unknown — if they will abandon the so-called “common pool,” in which fishermen are regulated by how many days they spend at sea, and instead sign on to one of 17 inchoate “sectors” set up under a new rule known as Amendment 16.
For some, staying in the common pool is indeed comparable to clinging to a sinking ship — in recent years Provincetown fishermen have seen their allowable days-at-sea cut in half, their catch limits whittled to fractions of what they once were, making it nearly impossible for them to make a living. But details of the new brand of management that proposes to put fishermen into localized sectors, each of which is given a total allowable catch to parcel out to its members in “catch shares,” are so murky right now that fishermen are reluctant to buy into to it. The deadline by which they must join a sector is Sept. 1.
“I sympathize with those fishermen who thought they would like to get into sectors, because they have nothing they can grab hold of to explain to them what is going to happen to them. If I was in their shoes I would be very wary and uncertain,” said David Pierce, deputy director of the state Div. of Marine Fisheries.
Fewer and fewer locals and tourists are shelling out for lobster dinners this summer, according to local lobstermen.
“Lobster is a happy food,” said Laddie Dexter, a 70-year-old lobsterman who works out of Marshfield’s Green Harbor. “It is a celebration food. Very few people eat it twice a week, or even once a month.”
The American lobster is thriving off the Gulf of Maine and down through much of the Massachusetts coastline, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. But many of New England’s lobster fishermen are suffering the financial consequences of an overall low demand for the crustaceans.
Loggerhead turtles, long the most abundant U.S. marine turtle, are at risk of vanishing off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, according to a new federal report.
The report comes as federal fisheries managers weigh a plan for the Gulf of Mexico aimed at reducing the number of sea turtles that die from accidental captures in fishing gear.
The federal government placed a temporary moratorium on longline fishing in the gulf last April in an attempt to aid the turtle. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council — comprising state and federal officials, commercial and recreational fishers and academics — is expected to vote today on a new plan that could allow the return of some longline fishers, but with more stringent restrictions on when and where they can work.
Nils Stolpe’s "Another Perspective" (Saving Seafood August 3, 2009) did a good job of illustrating the subtle and not so subtle differences in spin that have been applied to reporting on fishery conservation.
Of course, like any opinion column, “Another Perspective” puts its own spin on the news. There are two assertions in the same sentence in the August 3rd column that are misleading and I would characterize at least one of them as false. The sentence at issue is:
"Need I mention that catch shares, in essence a system of privatization of our fisheries, are at the foundation of the fisheries management revolution that the Pew campaign has been fomenting?"
The fact is that most of our fisheries have already been privatized through the adoption of limited license systems over the last thirty years. The implication that privatization is a bad thing that ought to be opposed is also worth questioning.
Is it realistic to argue that the highly profitable limited access sea scallop fishery is not privatized, even in the absence of a formal catch share system? Would anyone in the industry argue to undo the limited access system in the sea scallop fishery?
I would argue that a formal system of catch shares in the sea scallop fishery would actually create the potential for broader ownership. It is not practical for crewmen or other citizens to own a piece of the scallop fishery under the present system – one must buy a very expensive boat and permit. (Imagine if one could only buy land in farm-size quantities.) Catch shares would make the rights (privileges) to the fishery divisible, making them more accessible to more individuals. Catch shares don’t require a limit on the number of boats, meaning that people in other fisheries could buy scallop quota and combine it wither their other fishing activities. In that way, catch shares could restore the flexibility that our fisheries lost when they went to limited licenses.
The groundfish fishery was privatized with Amendment 5 in 1994. The radical element in Amendment 16 is not the privatization of the groundfish fishery – that has already occurred — but the shift from days-at-sea to pounds as the basis for allocation. Poundage allocations will make it possible for fishermen to put together the mix of species that they need while achieving conservation goals. A comprehensive system of catch shares would allow scallopers to buy yellowtail flounder quota so that they could access millions of dollars of sea scallops that are now left to die because the yellowtail limit closes the scallop fishery.
There is also the implication that The Pew Charitable Trusts have played a major supportive role in the evolution of our fisheries toward catch shares. The truth is that catch shares, in the form of individual transferable quotas (ITQs), were around well before the Pew Trusts became interested in fishery management.
The recently deceased fishery economist Francis Christy proposed individual fishermen’s shares in an Occasional Paper that was published by the Law of the Sea Institute at the University of Rhode Island in 1972. The first fisheries in the United States to be managed with ITQs were state fisheries in the Great Lakes. That happened in the mid and late 1970s. The commercial fishermen there saw ITQs as the only way to protect their industry from being regulated out of business by recreational fishing interests.
Fisheries around the U.S. and around the world were privatized one after the other with limited license systems beginning in the 1970s. (And this does not include the limited and transferable floating and staked fish trap sites that have existed in Rhode Island and Massachusetts since the 1800s.)
New Zealand, Iceland, Australia, and various other countries began a major conversion of their fisheries to ITQs in the 1980s and 90s. In many cases, fisheries switched from limited license and effort control systems to catch shares. Limited licenses privatized the fisheries, but they did not conserve the fish and they didn’t meet fishermen’s needs for flexibility.
The first federal fishery to adopt ITQs in the U.S. was the surf clam and ocean quahog fishery on the Atlantic coast. That was around 1990. Would anyone undo that system?
In 1995 the Alaskan halibut and sablefish fisheries were converted from wasteful and unsafe derby fishing to ITQs.
I am not aware of Pew involvement in any of those ITQ implementations.
During the late 1990s and early 2000s there was a raging national debate over individual transferable quotas. I was an ITQ advocate. Most of the people and organizations that were supported by The Pew Charitable Trusts were opposed to ITQs.
The Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association (CCCHFA) is often identified as a recipient of Pew and other charitable foundation funding. I don’t know the details of their funding, but I do know that CCCHFA opposed ITQs and supported the Congressional moratorium that was placed on ITQs in 1996 and lasted through 2002. When the CCCHFA finally realized that effective conservation requires both accountability and responsibility for the impact of one’s catch on the fish stock, they asked for a group catch share, now known as a "sector" in New England. By advocating group shares rather than individual shares, CCCHFA hoped to make catch shares more responsive to community concerns than would be the case if catch shares were thrown on a wide-open free market. I see the position of the CCCHFA as evolving toward a more flexible system, but still focused on fishing community concerns.
I was awarded a Pew Fellowship in Marine Conservation for my work on lobster conservation in 1998. My project had nothing to do with catch shares. In the years since, I haven’t found much enthusiasm for catch shares at meetings of the Pew Fellows. Pew Fellows have been involved in a wide range of marine conservation projects that focused on reefs, marine protected areas, fish and fishing communities. The only Pew Fellowship that focused on catch shares, to my recollection, was a comparison of the U.S. and Canadian sea scallop management systems that was done by economist Robert Repetto in 2000.
2008 was the first year that I sensed a widespread recognition of the importance of marine tenure systems (traditional fishing rights, territorial use rights in fisheries [TURFS], and catch shares) at the annual meeting of the Pew Fellows. Marine tenure systems give fishermen some assurance that their livelihood can’t be arbitrarily taken away from them. I was encouraged to see that shift in emphasis and I hope that it continues.
I believe that fishermen should be relieved if the Environment Group of The Pew Charitable Trusts is willing to consider catch shares as a viable conservation tool, rather than advocating the permanent closure of large areas to fishing. I’d be pleased to see more Pew folks advocating a combination of fishery conservation measures, rather than a single-minded focus on no-take marine reserves.
Nils is known to be very thorough and I am therefore surprised that his research would lead him to conclude that The Pew Charitable Trusts have supported the shift to catch shares that is taking place around the world. My experience tells me that many Pew folks have opposed rather than promoted that change. I would consider it good for the fishing industry if the Pew folks are becoming more receptive to catch shares.
Dick Allen is a former commercial fisherman who has been a representative of fishermen and an active participant in the fishery management system since 1972. He served on the New England Fishery Management Council from 1986-1995. Dick is currently working toward his Ph.D. in Environmental Sciences in the Department of Fisheries at the University of Rhode Island.He specializes in economically sensible approaches to fishery conservation.
This information sheet contains a brief overview of common pool measures as proposed in Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan, which was approved by the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) at its June 2009 meeting.
These measures will not be effective until NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) approves Amendment 16 and implements the approved measures through a final rule. This information sheet is advisory only, and is intended to provide information that may be applicable for permit holders deciding whether to participate in sectors or the common pool in fishing year 2010, should Amendment 16 be approved and implemented.
Amendment 16 proposes expanding sector management, as well as modifying management measures for non-sector (common pool) vessels. These measures are intended to rebuild overfished groundfish stocks consistent with applicable law, including the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Amendment 16, however, must first be reviewed and approved by NMFS to ensure that it complies with all applicable laws. Amendment 16, if approved, is scheduled to be effective May 1, 2010. A proposed rule soliciting public comment is anticipated to be published in December 2009.
The following information regarding groundfish sectors has been distributed by NMFS northeast.
In the next few weeks, Multispecies Sectors will be finalizing their rosters for fishing year 2010. If you think you might be interested in joining a sector there are a few things you should know:
* Signing up for a sector, BEFORE SEPTEMBER 1, 2009 preserves your opportunity to be in a sector for fishing year 2010
* Sectors will be closing their rosters soon in order to complete their operations plan by the September 1, 2009 deadline, so if you think you might want to participate in a sector, please contact a sector representative (see below for sector contact information) to find out when their cut off date is for signing up
* Even if you sign up for a sector, federal regulations still allow you to opt out of the sector and join the common pool for fishing year 2010
* However, we recommend that you check with the sector representative about how the sector will handle withdrawals before May 1, 2010
GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector
Sector Manager: Eric Brazer
Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association
PO Box 2 North Chatham, MA 02650; 508-945-2432
GB Cod Hook Sector
Sector Manager: Eric Brazer
Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association
210-E Orleans Road, North Chatham, MA 02650; 508-945-2432
Tri-State Sector
Sector Representative: Cindy Smith
Gulf of Maine Research Institute
350 Commercial Street Portland, ME 04101; 207-228-1653
Sustainable Harvest Sector
Sector Membership Representative: Maggie Raymond, 207-384-4854
Port Clyde Community Groundfish Sector
Sector Representative: Jennifer Litteral
Island Institute
386 Main Street, P.O. Box 648, Rockland, ME 04841; 207-594-9209
NSC Sectors I-XIII
Sector Representative: Vito Giacalone
Northeast Seafood Coalition (NSC)
4 Parker St., Bank Building, Suite 102, Gloucester, MA 01930; 978-283-9992
Northeast Coastal Communities Sector
Sector Representative: Aaron Dority
Penobscot East Resource Center
43 School St., P.O. Box 27, Stonington, ME 04681; 207-367-2708
President Obama created an Interagency Task Force on Ocean Policy on June 12, 2009 "to better meet our Nation’s stewardship responsibilities for the oceans, coasts and Great Lakes." The Task Force has been instructed to provide recommendations in 90 days for the first three issue areas and 180 days for the last. To meet this time frame, the Task Force has been instructed to build upon the work of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission.
NOAA Fisheries Northeast has requested comments from "interested communities, governments, tribes, businesses, associations, non-governmental organizations and from the general public."
Readers are urged to read the president’s memo and the Pew Commission report and submit comments.
Citizens are advised by NOAA to "feel free to include information about the impact of significant emerging issues on your area of expertise or concern … on jobs and the economics of your business or activity; and any experience you have with current policies and programs—with an emphasis on specific suggestions for improvement where possible."
Please send your comments to the White House Task Force as requested. Please also send them to info@savingseafood.com so that excerpts can be compiled and published. Your comments should be signed, but names will be withheld upon request.
The text of the request from NOAA follows:
In order to better meet our Nation’s stewardship responsibilities for the oceans, coasts and Great Lakes, President Obama created an Interagency Task Force on Ocean Policy on June 12, 2009.
The Task Force is led by the Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality and the other members are composed of senior-level officials from the agencies, departments and offices on the existing Committee on Ocean Policy. The Task Force has been instructed to provide its recommendations in 90 days for the first three issue areas and 180 days for the last.
The Task Force seeks input on its work from interested communities, governments, tribes, businesses, associations, non-governmental organizations and from the general public. If you would like to provide comments, please click here.
We ask that you focus your comments on the issues set forth in the President’s Memorandum:
· National policy for oceans and for coastal and Great Lakes ecosystems;
· Ocean governance framework;
· Implementation Strategy to meet the objectives of the national policy; and
· Coastal and marine spatial planning.
In addition, please feel free to include information about the impact of significant emerging issues on your area of expertise or concern, like climate change or offshore renewable energy development; on jobs and the economics of your business or activity; and any experience you have with current policies and programs—with an emphasis on specific suggestions for improvement where possible.
Please note, that to meet the ambitious timeframe outlined in the President’s Memorandum, the Task Force will build upon the work of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission. These reports, appendices and the extensive public engagement and records will serve as important foundations for the work of the Ocean Policy Task Force. Thank you for your interest in the oceans and coasts.
The former front-runner to head the National Marine Fisheries Service has removed his name from consideration for the post as the appointment process drags on for a fifth month.
Arne Fuglvog of Alaska, a veteran commercial fisherman with extensive experience in quota-based fisheries management systems like the catch share plans being advanced across the country, cited the length of the process in a July 31 letter asking the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to take him out of the running for its NMFS job.
"Sadly, the process of considering candidates for this important position has simply taken much longer than I had anticipated and I am no longer able to remain as a candidate," Fuglvog wrote.
Read the complete story at The Gloucester Daily Times.
Earlier this year, over 40 New England industry members wrote a letter in support of Brian Rothschild of UMass for the same position.
Read letter from Rothschild supporters to Senators Kennedy and Kerry