Opinion

November 27, 2012 — The Pacific Fishery Management Council concluded that the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program must be created even if flawed because catch share programs are now the only politically correct approach to even well-managed fisheries. To that conclusion we say poppycock.

The following was submitted to Saving Seafood by Burt Parker and Chris Peterson of Pacific Dawn LLC, Dennis Rydman of Ocean Gold Seafoods, Joe Hamm who operates the CHELLISA, and Pierre Marchand of Jesse’s Ilwaco Fish Company. The writers are from Washington state. 

As long-time fishing and processing participants in the Pacific whiting fishery on the West Coast, we won a federal lawsuit challenging the initial allocation of Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQ) in the Pacific Groundfish IFQ Program approved by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 2010. Fearing a dismantling of the entire IFQ Program, even though Pacific whiting is only one of the 90 or so groundfish species covered by the Program, the supporters of catch share reorganization of our nation’s fisheries, in particular zealous environmental groups with close ties to the leadership of NOAA, have responded to our lawsuit with open hostility and spin doctoring about the merits of our complaints. The Federal Court ordered NOAA to reconsider the IFQ allocation only in the Pacific whiting fishery shoreside and mothership sectors and that process is still underway.

In our lawsuit, we pointed out several inconvenient truths about the way in which the Pacific whiting fishing and processing IFQs were initially distributed. The first inconvenient truth is that the allocation was purely political and was made primarily to gain support of those who wanted to retire from the fishery holding IFQ to lease or sell to active participants. Thus, the IFQ allocation approved by NOAA, illegally according to the Federal Judge, did not go to the most dependent fishing and processing operations based on their recent history and actual participation in the fishery. Instead, the allocation was based on history years that ended almost a decade ago (2003 for harvesters; 2004 for processors). Moreover, between 21 and 39 permit holders were given IFQ who have not made any landings at all in the fishery for over seven years or more (as of 2010). We are aware of no other IFQ programs in which such ancient history is used and no present participation requirement applies. In addition, the Pacific whiting fishery, after 2004, changed dramatically from a surimi fishery to one primarily for block and head/gut products operating more off Washington State than Oregon.  As a result, those of us still heavily active in catching, processing and marketing Pacific whiting around the world had to lease IFQ from these non-participants (who also have far less recent history) in order to harvest and process anything near our recent historical levels in 2011 and into the future.

The second inconvenient truth is that the Pacific whiting fishery, after being listed as overfished in 2002-2004, had by 2010 become the model of good management, earning the right to use the Marine Stewardship Council sustainability logo. The coast-wise Pacific whiting harvest quotas have never been exceeded since 2001. And it does not appear that this fishery, separately managed from other Pacific 
Groundfish, has been overcapitalized for some time. But Pacific whiting was lumped into the overall Pacific Groundfish IFQ Program, with little attention to its quite different biological condition or business structure in 2010.

The third inconvenient truth is that studies of earlier IFQ Programs, in particular the British Columbia halibut fishery, have concluded that IFQ Programs that do not consider the cost of leasing going forward have shown very little improvement in efficiency. E. Pinkerton and D. Edwards, writing in the journal MARINE POLICY (Vol. 33 at 707-713; 2009), concluded that the hoped for economic efficiencies do not result when active participants have to pay large leasing costs to quota owners. This very problem was noted in the Environmental Defense Fund’s Catch Share Design Manual, but that organization remains ideologically committed to creating catch share programs, even if they are flawed. The authors of the MARINE POLICY article concluded that assumptions about the economic efficiency of catch share programs, “as well as other assumptions underpinning the indiscriminate promotion of [IFQs], do not apply in the British Columbia halibut fishery.”  They called these hidden costs of leasing IFQs ”the elephant in the room.”  This elephant is now rearing its ugly head in the Pacific whiting fishery because of the poorly conceived initial allocation of IFQ approved by NOAA in 2010.

The Pacific Fishery Management Council just recently took a head-in-the-sand approach to the court-ordered reconsideration of the initial IFQ allocation by voting not to change the allocation methodology, hoping that padding and distorting the record will cover up the flaws we have pointed out. One Council member went so far as to admit that sticking with the original deal was essential because without it there would not have been any IFQ Program for Pacific Groundfish. Or, put another way, the Council concluded that IFQ Program must be created even if flawed because catch share programs are now the only politically correct approach to even well-managed fisheries. To that conclusion we say poppycock. Let’s get it right at the outset or we will all be having the same regrets as those in the British Columbia halibut fishery about the inefficiencies of their IFQ program.

The issue of reconsideration of the Pacific Whiting IFQ initial allocation is now up to NOAA, which must report to the Federal Court in April. We are deeply concerned that the agency will simply go with the flow and not have the courage to alter the allocation to make it reflect the current conditions in the fishery, to reward those with the greatest history (and the greatest dependency) with higher amounts of IFQ, and to create a requirement of present participation (one landing between 2003 and 2010) as a condition for receiving any IFQ. We believe the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires these alterations to the original IFQ allocation formula. The IFQ allocation should also respect the needs of the small fishing communities and businesses we represent.

We are joined in this letter by Joe Hamm who operates the CHELLISA and Pierre Marchand of Jesse’s Ilwaco Fish Company of Ilwaco, Washington.

Burt Parker and Chris Peterson, Pacific Dawn LLC of Seattle, Washington

Dennis Rydman, Ocean Gold Seafoods, Inc. of Westport, Washington

 

 

REEDVILLE, Va — November 25, 2012 — Atlantic menhaden, the product of the East Coast's largest fishery by weight, is a vital species to many Virginia communities. With a decision due from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission in December on new catch limits, the impact on Virginia watermen looms large.

Atlantic menhaden, the product of the East Coast's largest fishery by weight, is a vital species to many Virginia communities. It supplies both the reduction industry in Reedville and bait for fishing businesses statewide. With a decision due from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission in December on new catch limits, the impact on Virginia watermen looms large.

Environmental organizations, including local groups such as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, have taken this opportunity to push for sharp catch reductions. The CBF advocates an immediate 25 percent reduction in harvests, while Pew Environment is pushing for an even steeper 50 percent cut.

Adopting these or similar measures would devastate the fishery, disproportionately hurting Virginia watermen. Omega Protein's reduction facility is the economic lifeblood of Virginia's Northern Neck. We directly employ 250 people and indirectly employ hundreds more. Our facility annually produces some $88 million in economic output in a region where dependable, good-paying jobs are otherwise scarce.

But the impact of the cuts would extend far beyond Reedville: The menhaden bait fishery, which also operates extensively in the state, would have its harvests reduced, and the watermen who use that bait may see it become more scarce and expensive.

While the environmental advocacy community claims these precipitous cuts are necessary to conserve the resource, the truth is much more nuanced.

In 2010, an ASMFC stock assessment found that menhaden were experiencing overfishing, meaning that, in 2008 (the last year of the assessment) fishing exceeded the ASMFC's designated mortality limit. This triggered the management process culminating in this December's prospective catch limits.

But the recent history of the fishery has not been marked by a pattern of over-exploitation: In 2008 overfishing was slight (0.4 percent over the limit), and this was only the second time in the period from 1993 to 2008 where it had even occurred. The stock fared even better in measures of fecundity (the number of eggs produced). The assessment found the population was producing more than enough eggs to sustain itself, meaning it was not overfished.

 

Read the full op-ed at the Fredericksburg Freelance Star

 

 

November 19, 2012 — What does it take to launch a full-fledged congressional investigation, with subpoena power and criminal indictments, into this defiant and downright corrupt agency that continues to put fishing families out of work?

A NOAA promotional video — showing, believe it or not, enforcement agents boarding boats to ensure that “level playing field” — hails them for knowing that “fair and effective enforcement is vital to managing our nation’s fisheries and integral to protecting marine resources and their habitats …” and even dare to suggest that “the vast majority of fishermen follow the rules and count on us for help.”

Since when did the federal government start producing such blatant works of fiction?

OK, we believe Bruce Buckson, NOAA’s second-year law enforcement director, would like to be able to tout his agency in that fashion. But the reality is, there remains no sign whatsoever that he or NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco have taken legitimate steps in addressing the heavy-handed tactics used by agents and prosecutors that led to the agency and its parent Commerce Department being cited by its own Inspector General, issuing a Cabinet-level apology to fishermen and doling out more than $600,000 in reparations for excessive enforcement in 2011.

For Buckson and NOAA in general to spend even a dime on this kind of bogus PR when they and the Commerce Department continue to refuse release of the so-called Swartwood II report – a 550-page follow-up report delving deeper into 66 additional cases of excessive NOAA enforcement — is beyond hypocritical. It has reached the point at which it must be considered a criminal obstruction of justice.

 

Read the full story at the Gloucester Times

 

 

November 17, 2012 — Members claim that when the Pacific Fishery Management Council voted last week to allow sardine fishing to continue in 2013, based on recommendations of their Scientific and Statistical Committee — a group of knowledgeable scientists who review all council actions to achieve best available science — a debate erupted (spurred largely by Oceana) about whether the sardine resource is in a state of collapse similar to what happened in the 1940s "Cannery Row" era.

But as usual, Oceana is attempting to obfuscate the truth to achieve its agenda of shutting down fishing.

The fact is there was no controversy among expert fisheries biologists over the setting of the 2013 sardine harvest limit, and the resource is not about to collapse. The controversy stemmed from the problem that the acoustic survey, one of three indices used to measure sardine abundance, estimated only 13,000 metric tons in the Pacific Northwest, during the same period the fishery was catching 50,000 metric tons, in the same general area and an aerial survey estimated 900,000 metric tons.

Because this was an "update" year, neither scientists nor the council had leeway to change the stock assessment, even though it likely underestimated the sardine population. In fact, scientists from around the globe have acknowledged that the West Coast sardine fishery is among the best managed in the world.

 

Read the full story at the Santa Cruz Sentinel

 

 

November 18, 2012 — The School for Marine Science and Technology (SMAST) at UMass Dartmouth is uniquely suited to provide this research. SMAST has an ideal location as well as a history of fostering positive collaboration between all fishing stakeholders.

The elections may be over, but the current Congress still has work to do.

On Sept. 13, 2012, acting U.S. Secretary of Commerce Rebecca Blank declared the Northeast's groundfish industry a federal disaster, opening the door for Congress to allocate funds for fishery disaster aid. Of course, any disaster relief should first address the needs of fishermen and their families. But the package currently being negotiated should also include funds to reinvigorate scientific research, which is essential to maximizing the economic benefits of tomorrow's fishing industry.

The fishing industry is important for Massachusetts, generating billions in economic activity annually. In New Bedford, the number one fishing port by value of catch in the United States and home to several major processors, the stakes are especially high. But the industry has been hurting for years and efforts to maximize productivity have been hampered by a lack of reliable scientific data.

We need reliable, independent science. And Massachusetts is best equipped to provide it.

When the federal government first began regulating America's coastal fisheries in 1976, with the passage of the predecessor to today's Magnuson-Stevens Act, the law was hailed for basing future fishing decisions on hard science. Scientific data, would inform the decisions of the regional fishing councils the law created, allowing the councils to carefully balance the interests of environmentalists and those of fishermen and their communities. Unfortunately, there was little scientific research about fishing available at the time, other than attempts to count how many of each species fishermen were landing. While Magnuson-Stevens has been amended several times in the intervening 36 years, most recently in 2007, scientific research that can help our fishing industry maximize opportunities remains limited.

That's because there has not been adequate, sustained funding for independent research centers. At times of crisis, regulators and industry players search frantically for data. When the crisis passes, research dollars disappear. The most consistent research occurs at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)'s own National Marine Fisheries Service research facilities. But NOAA's research, which attempts to estimate the number of a particular species of fish in hundreds of square miles of ocean at a given time, yields broad ranges and approximations. In addition, thanks to years of mistrust between NOAA and the industry it regulates, NOAA's data is increasingly questioned by many in the industry. Determining the number, type and location of fish, their ability to replenish themselves and their interaction with other undersea life has proven unexpectedly difficult. Add the effects of global warming and other environmental changes, and NOAA faces an impossible task: to balance the interests of fish and fishermen in a rapidly changing environment using scientific evidence that is, by its own scientists' admission, often unspecific, unproven and unreliable. NOAA has been put in the position of acting not only as judge and jury, but as prosecution, defense and expert witness.

 

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard Times

 

 

November 12, 2012 — Hurricane Sandy’s terrible toll in lost lives and decimated communities is still being measured. But as we start to sort out the pieces, it’s also worth noting that the storm sent shockwaves through the mid-Atlantic region’s fishing industry.

Harbors and infrastructure were pummeled and in some cases destroyed along the New York and New Jersey coastlines, and the Garden State Seafood Association has already asked Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) to formally request a federal fisheries disaster declaration. 

In the aftermath of the storm, the link between our changing climate and increasingly extreme weather is coming into greater focus and being called out by an increasingly large caucus. (For more on the link between climate and extreme weather events in North America, see this new column by the Center for American Progress.) New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo was among the first to link Sandy’s fury to the “reality” of climate change. Bloomberg Businessweek ran a cover story under the banner headline, “It’s Global Warming, Stupid,” which called out the increasing spate of corporate voices accounting for climate change in their business models. And the magazine’s namesake, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, cited climate change as the tipping point that led to his much-ballyhooed endorsement of President Barack Obama for reelection.

Just as Sandy’s fury cannot be separated from the effects of global climate change, fishermen have already noticed the effects of global climate change on their work. As our last wild capture industry, fishing businesses are arguably more reliant on natural forces than any other profession. It’s a centuries-old vocation, inherently dependent on knowledge passed down from one generation to the next, so when species distribution patterns evolve, even subtle change becomes readily apparent.

As ocean waters have warmed, fishermen have been finding some species that their grandfathers and even their fathers never dreamed of seeing. A 2009 report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Northeast Fisheries Science Center found that about half of the species it studied were shifting their range further north or into deeper water in search of colder water, including Atlantic cod, haddock, and hake species—the keystones of New England’s iconic groundfishery. The commercial lobster fishery has all but disappeared in the waters of southern New England. And on the Pacific northwest, oyster farming is threatened by ocean acidification, a phenomenon caused by higher carbon concentrations in seawater.

In the Businessweek story, Eric Pooley, senior VP of the Environmental Defense Fund, adapted an old analogy first articulated by National Center for Atmospheric Research scientist Jerry Meehl. “We can’t say that steroids caused any one home run by Barry Bonds, but steroids sure helped him hit more and hit them farther,” Pooley said. “Now we have weather on steroids.”

A similar theory can be applied to climate change’s impact on fisheries. Not that ocean warming and acidification has led to fisheries on steroids—the general decline in world fish populations certainly counters that interpretation, and we should be careful not to blame climate for the decline in populations. Overfishing, coastal pollution, and habitat degradation are far and away the greater factors there. Rather, climate change is increasing the degree of difficulty fishermen and regulators face in rebuilding depleted fish stocks now that the overfishing has, at least in the United States, largely been ended. We can’t say climate change has prevented any one species from rebuilding, but climate change sure made it harder and take a lot longer.

 

Read the full story on Think Progress 

 

 

Novermber 7, 2012 — Conservation of our marine resources is essential. But good conservation is based on sound science and strikes a balance between the concerns of environmentalists and the needs of fishermen whose livelihoods are at stake. Taking drastic action on inconclusive evidence helps neither the fish nor the fishermen.

__________________________________

The following op-ed ran in the Standard-Times in New Bedford, Massachusetts.  The various scientific documents cited by the authors are listed in a bibliography at the foot of the text to which the documents are linked in their entirety.

Throughout the text, links inserted by Saving Seafood take the reader to PDF images of the specific pages of the documents referenced.

__________________________________

 

BOSTON (The Standard-Times) Nov. 7, 2012 — As the product of the largest fishery by weight on the East Coast, Atlantic menhaden is a vital species to a broad swath of hard-working communities, from Chesapeake watermen working in the reduction industry, to New England lobstermen using the fish for bait. With the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission poised to place new harvest caps on the fishery this December, the implications will be felt coastwide.

Environmental organizations, like the Pew Environment Group, have taken this opportunity to push for sharp catch reductions. Writing in a recent petition drive that "the best scientific information available shows that menhaden are in severe decline and that catch should immediately be reduced by half," Pew is pushing for the harshest of a suite of measures being considered by the ASMFC. However, the truth is much more nuanced than the environmental advocacy community has otherwise claimed.

In 2010, an ASMFC stock assessment found that menhaden were experiencing overfishing, meaning that, in 2008 (the last year of the assessment) fishing exceeded the ASMFC's designated mortality limit. This triggered the management process culminating in this December's prospective catch limits. But the recent history of the fishery has not been marked by a pattern of over-exploitation: In 2008 overfishing was slight (.4 percent over the limit), and was only the second time in the period from 1993-2008 where it had even occurred. The stock fared even better in measures of fecundity (the number of eggs produced). The assessment found the population was producing more than enough eggs to sustain itself, meaning it was not overfished.

Further complicating the management process is the 2012 assessment. While it concluded that overfishing was still occurring but that the population was not overfished, the assessment was regarded by the ASMFC's Menhaden Technical Committee as severely flawed, especially its pessimistic estimations of menhaden biomass and fishing mortality. The committee found that these flaws were so bad that the assessment was unfit for management advice. As a result, officials at the ASMFC are now expected to regulate a fishery whose exact status is uncertain, and where the last reliable data comes from 2008.

What is certain is that adopting the maximalist position put forth by some environmental groups, and cutting harvests by 50 percent, would have a devastating impact on the fishery. The Virginia-based reduction fishery is the lifeblood of Virginia's Northern Neck, directly employing 300 people, and indirectly employing hundreds more. It annually produces an estimated $80 million in economic output in a region where dependable, good-paying jobs are otherwise scarce. But menhaden's value extends far beyond the Chesapeake's waters: fisheries up and down the East Coast, including marquee New England fisheries like lobster, rely on menhaden for bait, which has the potential to become more scarce and more expensive in the face of draconian harvest cuts.

Louis Silvestro is vice president and Adam Holbrook is plant manager at Channel Fish Co. of Boston.

 

Read the op-ed at the New Bedford Standard Times

 

Works Cited

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, “Stock Assessment Report No. 10-02 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Atlantic Menhaden Stock Assessment and Review Panel Reports,” 2010

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, "2012 Atlantic Menhaden Stock Assessment Update," 2012

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, “Menhaden SAS/TC Conference Call 5/29/12,” 2012

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, “Atlantic Menhaden Stock Assessment Subcommittee Conference Call Summary," June 15, 2012

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, “Atlantic Menhaden Technical Committee Meeting Summary 6/25/2012,” 2012

Kirkley, James E. “An Assessment of the Social and Economic Importance of Menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) (Latrobe, 1802) In Chesapeake Bay Region,” 2011

 

 

November 6, 2012 — [Fisheries matters] "aren’t local concerns particular to this state’s two great fishing ports, New Bedford and Gloucester. They are national concerns…"

UMass is not simply involved in marine science here in Gloucester. My trip also took me to New Bedford, to the School for Marine Science and Technology at UMass Dartmouth, and there I heard the same concerns for the future of the fishing industry that I heard in Hodgkins Cove – and witnessed the same commitment by UMass scientists to find answers.

These aren’t local concerns particular to this state’s two great fishing ports, New Bedford and Gloucester. They are national concerns that recently led President Obama to declare the industry here a disaster.

With a possible infusion of millions in disaster aid to New England to help fishing families and to enable us to better understand and mitigate what is happening in our fishery, I am proud that UMass – in Dartmouth and in Gloucester – is at the forefront of finding solutions. Clearly, given the importance of the fishing industry and the alarming rate of fish stock decline, there needs to be more funding to push this important research and work, and UMass is prepared to help put a shoulder to the wheel to be sure those funds are directed where they need to go.

What I saw at the marine station in Gloucester and at UMass Dartmouth’s School of Marine Science and Technology bore out a Vermont congressman’s hopes for a public education system dedicated to higher education that furthered both the individual and the public good.

 

Read the full story in the Gloucester Times 

 

 

November 2, 2012 — As ocean waters have warmed, fishermen have been finding some species that their grandfathers and even their fathers never dreamed of seeing. A 2009 report by the NOAA’s Northeast Fisheries Science Center found that about half of the species it studied were shifting their range further north or into deeper water in search of colder water, including Atlantic cod, haddock, and hake species.

Hurricane Sandy’s terrible toll in lost lives and decimated communities is still being measured. But as we start to sort out the pieces, it’s also worth noting that the storm sent shockwaves through the mid-Atlantic region’s fishing industry. Harbors and infrastructure were pummeled and in some cases destroyed along the New York and New Jersey coastlines, and the Garden State Seafood Association has already asked Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) to formally request a federal fisheries disaster declaration.

In the aftermath of the storm, the link between our changing climate and increasingly extreme weather is coming into greater focus and being called out by an increasingly large caucus. (For more on the link between climate and extreme weather events in North America, see this new column by the Center for American Progress.) New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo was among the first to link Sandy’s fury to the “reality” of climate change. Bloomberg Businessweek ran a cover story under the banner headline, “It’s Global Warming, Stupid,” which called out the increasing spate of corporate voices accounting for climate change in their business models. And the magazine’s namesake, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, cited climate change as the tipping point that led to his much-ballyhooed endorsement of President Barack Obama for reelection.

Just as Sandy’s fury cannot be separated from the effects of global climate change, fishermen have already noticed the effects of global climate change on their work. As our last wild capture industry, fishing businesses are arguably more reliant on natural forces than any other profession. It’s a centuries-old vocation, inherently dependent on knowledge passed down from one generation to the next, so when species distribution patterns evolve, even subtle change becomes readily apparent.

 

Read the full story on the Center for American Progress

 

 

 

 

November 2, 2012 — Former New Bedford mayor John K. Bullard is being called a heartless porpoise killer and a pushover, or worse, for the fishing industry.

And it's not just anyone doing the accusing. It is a pair of prominent marine scientists, one of whom Bullard says he considers a friend from his earlier days at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

It's not just anywhere that they're complaining, either. It is in a blunt commentary on the high-traffic National Geographic website.

"Bullard just gave those fishermen a free pass to ignore the law for another four months," fumed Carl Safina of the Blue Ocean Institute in a sizzling commentary titled "As Fisheries Service Dithers, New England Porpoises Drown."

He and co-author Andrew Read, professor of marine biology at Duke University (who has worked with New England fishermen and administrators on harbor porpoise avoidance for years), describe Bullard as a capitulator and vow to boycott future meetings of the NOAA panel that has been working on the porpoise issue.

What's next, holding their breath till they turn blue?

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard Times

Read a Saving Seafood special report on the harbor porpoise issue from earlier this year here