Opinion

As a lead plaintiff in the second lawsuit filed to challenge the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) implementation of Amendment 16, I can’t help but fear that the agency might follow its previous inappropriate efforts to destroy evidence in a manner similar to that conducted by former Enforcement chief Dale Jones, who remains a NOAA employee.

Previous attempts by NOAA officials to destroy potentially incriminating documents are well established. There was a total disregard for the rule of law when 75 to 80 percent of the files in the office of disgraced law enforcement head Dale J. Jones, Jr. were shredded while he was under Federal investigation by Commerce Department Inspector General Todd Zinzer. As Zinzer wrote, "the shredding implicates that it was done to conceal information…"

Many of the same officials who ran the agency at that time remain.  They oversaw a culture that allowed such activity to occur. It only stands to reason that efforts might again be made by agency officials to hide any possible illegal coordination between the NOAA and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) with the non-governmental groups that have undue influence over the agency.

While we live in a nation that professes "equal justice under law" as is enscribed in stone on the ediface of the Supreme Court, there are actually two de facto sets of law in America, one for the public and another for the government. Thanks to US District Judge Rya W. Zobel’s decision not to allow discovery into the numerous behind-the-scenes contacts between NOAA, NMFS, and the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) with environmental groups, the public may never know how much influence these groups have had in the implementation of Amendment 16.

Unfortunately, this ruling has provided NOAA /NMFS and the NEFMC more time to also purge their records of any relevant information. It is also reasonable to expect that the special interest NGO’s have deleted and destroyed incriminating evidence by now since they were not required by law to retain it.

We need elected officials to demand the release of all the relevant contacts between the Federal Government and the NGOs regarding Catch Shares and Amendment 16. Whether by Congressional subpoena, FOIA or other means, this information needs to be brought to light.

It has now become clear that the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association (CCCHFA)  and its sector has profited by decisions made by the New England Managmennt Council which is chaired by the Hook Association's CEO, John Pappalardo.  Amendment 16 granted the CCHFA and the recreational-for-hire sector larger allocations that other sectors by allowing their use of more advantageous qualifying years.  Were these benefits accrued legitimately or by undue inflluence and insider trading?  The  only way to remove the appearance of illegality is for all contacts between NOAA, NEFMC, and environmental grouns such as Pew Environment, EDF and "fishermen's" organizations such as CCFHFA that accept NGO money tp be made public.

So far this year, CCHFA members have caught less then 5 percent of their fishery allocation, selling the rest to other sectors and pocketing the profits. One of the criticisms of Amendment 16 when it was being considered was a prediction that it would create rich armchair fishermen who no longer fish but instead profiteer off the hard work of others that must pay to acquire enough fish to survive. The actions of CCCHFA have shown that these predictions were accurate.  Quota rentals drive up the cost of doing business and reduce individual boat profit along with crewmember paychecks.

Another problem faced by the plaintiffs is the near-certainty that if the judge decides in our favor, NOAA/NMFS will certainly appeal the case to a higher court. While appeal is every plaintiff’s and defendant’s right, NOAA has a curious bias toward only appealing lawsuits against NMFS that they lose to fishing industry litigants.   When they lose to environmental groups, they seem to not have the same zeal for appeal.

Fairness and good sense demand that all these loose ends be fully and officially investigated so the truth come out once and for all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The NORPEL story is not only a story about how overregulation can make it impossible for a responsible business to operate. It also is a story about unintended consequences and about how much we still do not know about migratory fish and what affects their populations.

NORPEL's trawlers haul herring and mackerel, mid-ocean species that are caught and sold to mostly overseas buyers.

There are two problems.

Mackerel have been hard to find and so the catch has been down dramatically. Whether that is a result of overfishing, climate or migratory change, or normal population fluctuations is unclear and in need of further study.

Meanwhile, the herring haul has been closed down because even though there are plenty of herring, the trawlers hauling that species often catch haddock at the same time.

And when the overly restrictive bycatch limit on haddock, whose stocks also are abundant, is reached, entire stretches of the Georges Bank and Gulf of Maine are shut down.

NORPEL cannot process or sell fish it cannot catch or keep.

The company, the city and advocates for the fishing industry have pushed the New England Fisheries Management Council to loosen the limits on the haddock bycatch, but as is often the case with fisheries regulators, imminent economic disaster in fishing communities is often not enough to move them.

By now, everyone knows that federal fisheries law establishes that the economic impact on fishing communities is as important as environmental impact in the establishment and enforcement of fishing rules and regulations. To date, however, the big environmental lobbies have wielded their influence over policy setters far more successfully than the commercial fishing industry or fishing communities like New Bedford and Gloucester.

That is the primary argument included in a federal lawsuit on the matter, and we are confident that the industry ultimately will prevail in the courts.

In the meantime, however, it would be an act of good faith for the management council to move quickly on a loosening of the senselessly restrictive haddock bycatch limit — and to commission research into what has happened to mackerel stocks.

Read the complete editorial from the Standard Times.

 

 

 

 

 

As the problem of overfishing recedes it is replaced by a new dilemma…regulators must now turn their attention to ensuring restrictions go as far as they possibly can to ensure fishermen are capable of catching the fish the law allows.

Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.
— National Standard (1) of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

As the problem of overfishing recedes, however, it is replaced by a new dilemma. Recall the words of National Standard (1) requiring both prevention of overfishing and achievement of the optimum yield. As the first goal is achieved, regulators must now turn their attention to the second by ensuring restrictions go as far as they possibly can to ensure fishermen are capable of catching the fish the law allows them to harvest.

New England groundfishermen caught barely a quarter of the total amount of fish they were legally able to harvest in 2008. A back-of-the-envelope calculation based on the value of fish actually brought to market means catching all the fish to which they were entitled would have equated to roughly an additional $300 million in value. At the same time, in 2009, the United States imported $13.1 billion worth of seafood or 84 percent of the total amount we consume—in nearly all cases from countries with less stringent environmental safeguards.

This year’s early data shows that sector management has made some improvement in this area. But still, as of March 26, with just over a month left in the fishing year that ends on April 30, the only stock even close to its allowable harvest for the year was Gulf of Maine cod. Fishermen in sectors have caught about 80 percent of their allowable amount, according to NMFS’s own data. Meanwhile, they have caught just 17 percent of their Georges Bank haddock—the single stock that accounts for more than half of the total available groundfish catch.

Fishermen have a legitimate beef when they complain that regulations are preventing them from catching fish that scientists say they should be able to catch. The law is clear on this point: Regulators must act as swiftly and decisively now to help fishermen catch more of the fish they are allowed to land as they did to impose restrictions when harvest levels were too high.

Sector management, like many fishery management plans, is a work in progress, and by allowing fishermen to trade their quota among groups, the hope is it will allow harvest of more of the healthier fish populations. As it evolves, it will be critical for regulators, industry members, and other stakeholders to understand that failure to strive for optimum yield from our fisheries is failure to adhere to the law. At a time when our economy is struggling to rebound, and every job is counted, regulators must minimize the waste in our system and stop leaving money at the bottom of the ocean.

Read the complete opinion piece from American Progress.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would be difficult to explain to somebody in Egypt, say, who was waiting for the frozen herring to arrive on the ship from New Bedford that it wasn’t coming any more even thought the herring stocks are not depleted.

The fishermen can’t catch them because of haddock? he asks. Is haddock depleted?. Well no, there are tons and tons of haddock out there that won’t even get caught, you explain. Now he’s puzzled. And he is not the only one. This is a strange way to manage fish stocks, he might say. If Norpel closes it not only means a fish plant and the jobs, it is also trade and commerce within the port as these freighters were bringing cargo in and finding another right here, carrying herring and mackerel to countries where people still eat these species and are glad to get them.

See this blog at The South Coast Today.

 

 

 

 

 

I was stunned to learn that the administration's FY 2012 budget would eliminate the NIOSH fishing safety program—a cut which would save the federal government at most a few hundred thousand dollars.

SEAFOOD.COM NEWS by Gunnar Knapp (Opinion) April 6, 2011- For most Americans, the “Deadliest Catch” is a TV show. For me, the real deadliest catch is an ongoing human tragedy of loss and grief, of hundreds of commercial fishermen who have died across America since I began studying fishing safety twenty-five years ago, and calculated some of the first statistics to show just how deadly the commercial fishing industry is. 

But things are getting better. There are more news stories in Alaska and other fishing states about heroic Coast Guard rescues of fishermen in survival suits and life rafts. There are fewer stories about abandoned searches for boats that disappeared with all hands lost, and the anguish of their families, friends and communities. Annual deaths in Alaskan commercial fishing are down from 35 per year in the early 1990s to about 12 per year from 2007-2009—which still leaves fishing as one of the most dangerous industries in Alaska and the country.

Things are getting better because the fishing industry and the government have been working together to make fishing safer. Many things have made a difference, such as laws requiring boats to fishing to carry immersion suits, life rafts, and EPIRBS; marine safety training; augmentations to the US Coast Guard's search and rescue infrastructure and staffing; and changes in the management regulations for some fisheries.

An important part of what has made a difference is the NIOSH Commercial Fishing Safety Research Program, a small program within the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Over the past twenty years, the NIOSH fishing safety program has worked systematically to understand fishing safety problems—what makes the difference between people dying and surviving—and to find practical ways of making fishing safer. It has funded safety training programs for fishermen. It has developed an emergency stop switch for the hydraulic winch-driven gear that has entangled and killed and injured so many fishermen. It has made the case for cost-effective safety regulations that make sense for different fisheries and different kinds of boats. 

So I was stunned to learn that the administration's FY 2012 budget would eliminate the NIOSH fishing safety program—a cut which would save the federal government at most a few hundred thousand dollars. Unbelievably, the stated rationale was a review of NIOSH programs by a National Academy of Sciences panel which had specifically praised the fishing safety program as an “exemplary” program which had “executed its research according to how an ideal program would operate.” (Members of the panel have since written to Congress protesting the misunderstanding of their review and misuse of its conclusions.)

People who understand what is at stake, like the United Fishermen of Alaska, the Coast Guard's Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Commission, and Alaska's Congressional delegation are doing what they can to argue against cutting this NIOSH fishing safety program. I hope they will be heard. 

I'm an economist. I recognize the importance of getting federal spending in line with revenues. But we're not going to get there by blindly slashing some of the most important things the federal government does—which account for only a tiny fraction of what we're spending—because we're in a rush to cut and we can't face up to the real issues of how much health care and defense we want and how we're going to pay for it.

I know deficits can drag this country down. So the president and the Democrats and Republicans in Congress should start talking seriously about real solutions to the deficit. What will really drag this country down, and a lot faster, is giving up believing we can do better as a country and thoughtlessly cutting programs which work. Like the NIOSH Commercial Fishing Safety Research program.

Gunnar Knapp is a Professor of Economics at the University of Alaska Anchorage Institute of Social and Economic Research. In the 1980s he estimated fatality rates in Alaska's commercial fishing industry and served on the National Research Council's Committee on Fishing Vessel Safety. He has done some research for and received some funding from the NIOSH fishing safety program.

This opinion piece originally ran in SeafoodNews.com, a subscription service.  It is reproduced with permission.

 

 

 

 

It's essential that any added allocation be funneled to the struggling small, independent boats — not the big-boat business of Maine, or the Cape Cod Hook Fishermen's Association, which have already gotten more than their share through the New England Council's shaky actions in the past.

And it's equally vital that any new research efforts not be run through NOAA or groups tied to its catch share puppeteer, the Environmental Defense Fund. For any research to have credibility, it has to include significant input from the likes of Brian Rothschild's acclaimed UMass-Dartmouth marine science program and representatives of at least the ports of Gloucester and New Bedford.

Kerry's assessment that discussion has come a long way is worth noting, and he deserves immense credibility for taking a greater leadership role on these issues.

But the bottom line is turning these positive discussions into action — the kind of truly independent action fishermen have been owed for a very long time.

Read the complete opinion piece from The Gloucester Times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A team of economists from the University of Maryland, working with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, has devised an intriguing program to use $3.5 million in federal funds to buy back and retire seldom-used commercial crabbing licenses that have been issued to watermen working the Chesapeake Bay. The state has tried this before, with at best modest success, but this time they may have a better idea.

The objective of the buyback is to reduce pressure on the crab population and to enable DNR officials to get an accurate count of the number of active commercial crabbers working the bay. Although the targets for the buyback program are people who don't use their licenses very often, an unknown number of them will make use of them in any given year, and DNR wants to remove that unpredictability from their calculations on how to manage the crab harvest. Better numbers would result in better policy, or so the theory goes.

When the state tried a buyback two years ago, it asked watermen to name their own price. It didn't work so well; one waterman offered to sell his for $425 million. The state tried again by offering $2,260 for the holders of "limited crab catcher" licenses and did modestly better. This time, the state is going after a higher class of licensees, and it's trying a more sophisticated theory of "crabonomics."

Read the complete opinion piece from The Baltimore Sun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

We all know we are a distressed community, and it's good to know that Washington, D.C. knows it, too.

The U.S. commerce secretary's office in Washington, D.C., contacted me the day before they made the announcement and explained the program. A couple of things jumped right out at me during the discussion.

First, they set specific criteria and ran each community through a formula to determine hardship. Gloucester passed this test with flying colors. We came out as a distressed community, and therefore qualified for the program. We all know we are a distressed community, and it's good to know that Washington, D.C., knows it, too.

Second, they will be taking a wholistic view of our local economy. The assistance is not limited to the fishing industry.

Read the complete opinion piece from The Gloucester Times.

 

 

 

 

 

So the U.S. Department of Commerce, still headed by Secretary Gary Locke, though his name was oddly absent Wednesday's announcement, has finally recognized that economic hardships faced by Gloucester's and New England's small independent fishing businesses, and the communities whose economies they support, have been brought on in large part by our own federal government's fisheries policies.

And to make amends, the fishing ports of Gloucester, New Bedford; Portland, Maine; Seabrook, N.H.; Point Judith, R.I.; and Montauk, Long Island, will now be getting immediate special attention and assistance.

"Economic development assessment teams will deploy next month to conduct a two-day analysis of six Northeast fishing communities," the department said in an announcement posted on the agency's website just after noon. And that, indeed, is good news.

But before anyone follows up our opening hallelujah with glowing hosannas for Locke and his Commerce colleagues, consider that no one has yet attached any dollar figure that might be used to mitigate the department's — and its National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's — beatdown of the industry through both its conversion to the catch shares management system and overly tight catch limits.

Read the complete editorial from The Gloucester Times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fishing leaders are  right in expressing their outrage over hundreds of millions of dollars being steered away from marketing the U.S. seafood industry, as directed by the 1954 Saltonstall-Kennedy Act, and largely plugged into the operations, research and facilities kitties of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Yes, the past mishandling of these millions — raised each year through the tariffs paid by foreign exporters who continue to flood the U.S. seafood market — indeed demands a federal accounting probe, as Jones suggests.

But it should also trigger an immediate NOAA budget freeze — not only on the allocation of any new NOAA funds budgeted for future and bogus catch share programs, as a budget amendment that passed the U.S. House last month would require, but also for the agency's full fiscal 2012 spending plan, with money from the tariffs pulled out and re-directed to fisheries support and marketing as required.

How far afield has the industry's money gone? Consider that, in fiscal 2010, the Department of Commerce should have been mandated under the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act and its amendments to spend $68 million on "fishing industry projects" from some $113.4 million in tariffs paid to U.S. Customs Service on imported seafood.

Read the complete editorial by The Gloucester Times.