Opinion

There is a growing chorus of federal lawmakers joining Tierney, Brown, Frank and others in calling for Lubchenco's ouster. And that can't come too soon.

For all the issues now swirling around NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco, perhaps the most serious and longstanding is her now clearly documented penchant for stretching the truth and tailoring supposed "facts" to meet her job-killing fishery agenda.

That may have never been more obvious than her often absurd testimony before U.S. Sens. John Kerry and Scott Brown, Congressmen John Tierney, Barney Frank and William Keating and others in a hearing earlier this month at the State House.

And local nonprofit groups Cape Ann Fresh Catch and the Gloucester Fishermen's Wives Association deserve credit for pointing out Lubchenco's efforts at revising history — just as she chooses to ignore the myriad facts noting the disastrous economic harm her and the Environmental Defense Fund's beloved catch share management policies have caused to fishermen and their families in Gloucester and elsewhere.

In her testimony — and before leaving the Senate panel hearing for what she obviously viewed as a higher-priority appointment, a meeting with The Boston Globe's editorial board — Lubchenco cited the Cape Ann Fresh Catch program to illustrate how "New England fishermen are beginning to realize new entrepreneurial opportunities under sector management."

Read the complete editorial from The Gloucester Times

 

 

 

 

 

 

The big "appointment" that cried out for NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco to leave a Boston U.S. Senate subcommittee meeting pulled together by U.S. John Kerry prior to hearing the important testimony of perhaps the nation's most acclaimed marine scientist wasn't a high-level policy meeting in D.C.

It wasn't even a meeting of NOAA and Commerce officials to assess her embarrassing hearing testimony about waiting for Gov. Patrick to produce even more data showing the economic hardship her job-gutting catch share policies is having on Gloucester, New Bedford and other ports.

Lubchenco and her little entourage, as Times writer Richard Gaines confirmed last week, left the hearing prior to hearing out UMass-Dartmouth professor Brian Rothschild so she could meet with the editorial board of The Boston Globe, no doubt trying to lobby paper's support.

We've long noted Lubchenco's clear contempt for Congress in dealing with fisheries issues — even beyond her policy push to steer more quota and control of fishermen's catch into the hands of large-scale, corporate interests while driving the small family fishing businesses the way of the family farm.

Read the complete editorial from the Gloucester Times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Driftnets sound relatively harmless as a fishing method. But as any marine biologist will tell you, this gear threatens ocean wildlife. At its November meeting, however, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) could take steps to enforce current international prohibitions on the usage of this damaging practice.

Held on the sea’s surface or just below with floating devices, driftnets can be miles long. Depending on the size of the mesh, they can entangle anything that happens to swim nearby, including sea turtles, whales, swordfish, and tuna.

Most countries recognized that driftnets harm too many marine species (PDF) to remain an acceptable form of fishing. The United Nations banned them on the high seas in 1993, and the European Union followed suit in 2002. In 2003, ICCAT prohibited the use of driftnets to catch tuna and swordfish. Yet an active, illegal driftnet fishery still exists in the Mediterranean, with Italy having one of the largest fleets.

Read the complete opinion piece from PEW.

 

 

 

 

 

Finally the federal government is stepping in to protect one of the East Coast's most important fisheries, that of the Atlantic menhaden.

Most anglers in the New York area refer to this oily fish as bunker and it is not only widely used as bait, but it is an important bait fish, the source of food for many species, including striped bass, along the coast.

Their numbers have dwindled considerably over the past 10 years because of the fish being used for a number of products — from dietary use to pet food.

The commercial operation is Omega Protein, based in Houston, and operates a reducing plant in Reedville, Va., which is also the base for its fleet of 10 ships and eight spotter planes. Menhaden, travelling in huge schools, are located by the planes, and then a pair of netting ships deploys purse nets that capture as much as 50,000 pounds at a time to be transferred into factory ships.

Last year, according to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), Omega Protein's Reedville fleet took an estimated 200,000 tons of menhaden, 80 percent of the catch along the Atlantic, operating largely in Virginia-controlled portions of Chesapeake Bay up to three miles offshore and limited portions of North Carolina. The other 20 percent was harvested for bait, primarily by fishermen from Maryland to Massachusetts.

"We have seen the stock drop precipitously. This has had a dramatic impact not only on the menhaden but on all the species that depend on menhaden as a forage species," said Tom Fote of the New Jersey Coast Anglers. "For the Atlantic Coast, menhaden is one of the most important species in the ocean.

"We all know when menhaden are abundant. Striped bass, bluefish, weakfish, tuna and others are caught around the menhaden schools. When the menhaden disappear from an area, all the species we target disappear with them."

Read the full article at the New York Post.

Analysis: While the article asserts that "their [menhaden's] numbers have dwindled in the past 10 years" and that "[commercial harvesters] have had free reign with no restriction on this stock for years," these statements are not reflected in the data gathered from the fishery. The most recent assessment of the fishery, produced by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), concluded that the stock was not overfished, and that overfishing had occured only once in 2008 on a marginal level. There is no indication in the last stock assesment that the population is at risk or that there is a consistent pattern of overfishing.

 

 

 

For hundreds of years, fueled by humans' rapacious appetite for fresh seafood and false notion that stocks were inexhaustible, fish and shellfish have been pulled out of bays and oceans at an unsustainable rate. Cod, striped bass, sturgeon, and oysters headline the list of species that at some point have been fished to near zero. Unless things change, and fast, add menhaden to that list.

A key food for rockfish, birds and sea mammals, menhaden are in trouble. The most recent stock assessment by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission revealed overfishing has occurred in 32 out of the last 54 years. Even scarier is that East Coast menhaden populations are estimate to be only 8 percent of its historical abundance. Today, one-fifth of the bunkers caught are used for bait by sport and commercial fishermen. The rest – about 150,000 tons – is caught by reduction fishery, run by Omega out of its Reedville plant. There, this key forage is cooked down into industrial oils for cosmetics and vitamins or ground into chicken feed or meal for farmed fish.

The fight to get the ASMFC's attention regarding menhaden's downward spiral goes back at least to the late 1990s. Although he wasn't quite the lone voice in the wilderness, Jim Price of the Chesapeake Bay Ecological Foundation didn't have a full chorus behind him when he expressed concerns that something was wrong with bay stripers and that perhaps a lack of menhaden in their diet might be a contributing factor. Early on, some scientists scoffed, but today his initial premise has proven to be spot on.

Virginia Institute of Marine Science researchers have since discovered that Mycobacterium shottsii, a new species of bacteria, is largely responsible for an outbreak among Chesapeake stripers causing lesions and early mortality. These findings only strengthen the argument that bay rockfish aren't getting nearly enough protein. Historically, rockfish primarily ate protein-rich menhaden. Today, bunker makes up less than 10 percent of bay stripers diet. That insufficient numbers of menhaden translates into a less-than-healthy rockfish population is a logical correlation.

In 2006, a bay-wide cap on the Chesapeake menhaden harvest went into effect with great fanfare and optimism. Part of that plan was to use LIDAR, the acronym for ''light detection and range'' in which pulses from a laser measure the properties of a target, to try and determine how many bunker were in the bay. But LIDAR didn't work; bay waters were too deep and particulate matter presumably skewed the laser's effectiveness.

Read the full article at The Capital.

Analysis: The article makes several misleading claims about the health of the menhaden fishery. While the article worries that menhaden are one of the species being fished at an "unsustainable" rate and that menhaden could soon be fished to "near zero" the recent history of the fishery does not provide any evidence of overfishing. The fishery is overseen by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC); in their last assessment of the fishery in 2010, the ASMFC concluded that menhaden are not overfished, and that overfishing had only occured once in the last ten years.

The claim that "menhaden are only at 8% of their historical abundance" is also misleading. Menhaden are currently fished to 8% of their Maximum Spawning Potential (MSP), which, rather than being a historical number as claimed in the article, is a population estimate of a theoretical unfished population. An 8% MSP is not unusual or a sign of an overfished population; menhaden have rarely exceeded 10% MSP in the past few decades, and the population hasin the past been able to rebuild itself at that level.

The article's assertion that a low menhaden population is responsible for mycobacteriosis in sea bass is not unanimously supported. The cause of mycobacteriosis in bass has likely more to do with environmental factors than to the presence of menhaden, such as the "thermal niche/oxygen squeeze" theory. Currently, large amounts of run-off in the Bay have created areas with low levels of oxygen, called hypoxia, in cold waters that bass traditionally inhabit. Because the waters that they are most suited to are uninhabitable, bass spend more time in warmer, shallower waters. The temperature of these waters are too high for the bass to feed properly, leading to a variety of health problems, including susceptibility to mycobacteriosis.

"We are no longer known as the fishing industry. We are now 'the regulated community'! What's next? The great unwashed?"

The New Bedford Standard-Times "Quotable Voice" selected three quotable quotes related to the recent U.S. Senate Commerce Oceans Subcommittee field hearing held on Beacon Hill.  The three quotes follow:

"We are no longer known as the fishing industry. We are now 'the regulated community'! What's next? The great unwashed?"

Fishing consultant Jim Kendall of New Bedford, reacting to the term used by Eric Schwaab, director of the National Marine Fisheries Service.

————

"I'd hoped that in her testimony, NOAA administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco would provide solid solutions and a clear vision for a better future for our fishing families. Instead, question after question … (was) answered evasively and with equivocation."

New Bedford Mayor Scott W. Lang, who is now calling for Lubchenco's resignation for her treatment of the fishing industry.

————-

"Just give a straight answer. It could be yes. It could be no. You don't have to hire someone to take the SAT for you."

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., a strong supporter of the fishing industry, reacting to NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco's responses to questions at a hearing Monday in Boston.

Read this and more from the Standard-Times.

 

 

 

 

A report by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) released Sept. 21 highlights results of the first year of the groundfish-sector management program in New England. The dramatic management shift appears to be helping the fishery turn the corner to a more economically and environmentally sustainable fishery.

With the first full fishing year of operation (May 2010 to April 2011) under sectors now complete, results of the program’s performance are encouraging. Sector fishermen stayed within their allowed catch levels, groundfish revenues were essentially stable, overall revenues were up, fishermen received higher prices for fish, and the amount of wasted fish dumped overboard was substantially reduced.

The report also highlights that the fishery still faces challenges, many of which are the continuation of historical trends. For example, the number of active groundfish vessels has been declining for over a decade. The 8 percent decline in the 2010 fishing year was similar to the decline from 2007 to 2009.

In May 2010, after two decades of challenging conditions, the New England groundfish fishery underwent a substantial management overhaul. At that time, fishermen were asked to choose between one of two fundamentally different systems: sector management, in which fishermen voluntarily formed fishing cooperatives, or “sectors,” and pledged to keep their catch within strict limits as required under the renewed federal fisheries law (the Magnuson-Stevens Act); or the “common pool,” a continuation of the days-at-sea and daily trip limits structure. All fishermen were placed under new, federally mandated Annual Catch Limits (ACLs), which had been previously slated to take effect in 2010.

More than half of the fishery’s permit holders — representing 98 percent of the fish harvested — chose to join sectors. In 2011, an additional 10 percent of permit holders joined the sector program, bringing the total number in the program to 836 permit holders, representing 98.8 percent of the fish harvested. Several hundred vessels remain in the “common pool” and fish under days-at-sea management.

So how has the new system fared?

Read the complete opinion piece from The Providence Journal

 

 

 

 

Monday’s Boston field hearing of the Senate Committee of Commerce, Science, and Transportation was good political theater.  Senator Kerry and Senator Begich from Alaska, chair of the Committee, tried their best to create a constructive and positive atmosphere for the important session.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to conclude that any serious solutions were advanced other than Senator Kerry’s announcement of his Fishery Research and Conservation Investment Act, which would channel scarce federal dollars to areas of research vital to Massachusetts fishermen. The tenor of most of the questioning, or grilling, of NOAA and NMFS seemed focused on advancing personal vendettas against Dr. Lubchenco or on scoring debating points than on working together.

I continue to be surprised by the claim—repeated several times at Monday’s hearing–that the Amendment 16 sector program has produced a “massive” redistribution of fish revenues with the top 20% of the boats in the sector fleet making 80% of the revenues now, up significantly from their alleged 67% share in 2009.

The facts at this time just don’t seem to back up this claim. First of all, a relatively small group of fishermen have been landing the bulk of the groundfish in New England for more than a decade and likely well before that. Second, NOAA’s data from the 2010-11 fishing year suggests that sectors may have been more equitable in their distributional effects in 2010 than prior programs were.

Read the complete article from Talking Fish

 

 

 

 

To U.S. Sen John Kerry, the wide gap in testimony between NOAA Chief Jane Lubchenco and those she's hurting on the front lines of the fishing industry is "very frustrating."

Thankfully, others on Monday's U.S. Senate Commerce subcommittee panel who heard Lubchenco's insulting comments and actions were not as prone to mincing words.

Congressmen Barney Frank reiterated his and Sen. Scott Brown's earlier assessment that Lubchenco's actions and policies toward the fishing industry are downright "hostile." Congressman John Tierney noted that the only practical way to carry out the urgent change in culture needed within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is "a change in leadership." And Brown pegged Lubchenco's comment that there a "light at the end of the tunnel" for NOAA's relationship with the industry for exactly what it was — "the political 'hoojie woojie,'" even if no one knows quite what that means.

By all counts, much of Monday's hearing showed Lubchenco for what she is — a tunnel-visioned pseudo-scientist who has eyes and ears only for her own catch share agenda, ignorant or uncaring about the documented fact that it is destroying small, independent fishing businesses and killing waterfront jobs.

And there is no other way to view her all-too-predictable exit prior to hearing important testimony from acclaimed UMass-Dartmouth marine scientist Brian Rothschild — bolting for a meeting that NOAA officials still refuse to identify.

Lubchenco's actions Monday prove once and for all she has no respect for the industry she and her rogue colleagues regulate, no respect for legitimate science that doesn't fit her and her corporate-backed nonprofit allies' agenda, and no respect for the senators and congressmen who heard all sides of the issue Monday.

Read the complete editorial from The Gloucester Times

 

 

 

 

 

To agency chief Jane Lubchenco and others inside the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, how or whether they discipline employees — and how they arrived at those decisions — is obviously nobody's business.

And they are dead wrong.

The fact is, Lubchenco's and NOAA's seeming refusal to seemingly take any significant action against those enforcement agent and prosecutors cited by federal investigators for excessive and wrongful tactics against fishermen and waterfront businesses like the Gloucester Seafood Display Auction is very much the public's business.

To keep people like ousted NOAA police chief Dale Jones, who employed virtually no oversight over a multi-million fund built on the backs of fishermen's fines and forfeitures, is an affront not only to fishermen, but to every American taxpayer and to the state and federal lawmakers calling for answers.

In that vein, state Attorney General Martha Coakley has every right to demand — not request, demand — NOAA turn over all documents showing the decision-making that went into keeping the likes of Jones, former Gloucester-based agent Andy Cohen, chief counsel Lois Schiffer and prosecutors Deirdre Casey, Chuck Juliand and Mitch MacDonald on the taxpayers' payroll.

Indeed, Coakley would be justified in warning that a continued refusal to do would be tantamount to an obstruction of justice on a par with Jones' infamous document-shredding party that was carried out as the Commerce Department's Inspector General's Office was diving deep into a probe of the level of wrongdoing that has come to define NOAA's entire, corrupt enforcement organization.

Only time will tell when or even whether NOAA will answer Coakley's demands.

Read the complete editorial from The Gloucester Times