Opinion

Enough of the "listening." Enough of the rhetoric. Enough of the declarations that yet another private meeting is "a good first step". It is long past time for officials at NOAA to end the talking and listening, and actually do something about it.

Rogue agents need to be fired. Fishermen need to be compensated for disproportionate fines. Those already driven out of business by unfair sanctions should be compensated as well.

It was more than a year ago that NOAA head Jane Lubchenco acknowledged at her confirmation hearings that NOAA's enforcement agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, had lost the respect of the industry, and that its regional offices had a "seriously dysfunctional relationship" with the New England ground-fishing industry.

It was more than a year ago that she promised to repair that relationship. And now, it's been three months since a scathing preliminary report by U.S. Commerce Department Inspector General Todd Zinser confirmed complaints by fishermen and by the Gloucester Seafood Display Auction that NOAA enforcement agents had abused their authority with vindictive and disproportionate enforcement against the Gloucester and New England fleets and others in the Northeast.

In the wake of that audit, Dale J. Jones, chief of the federal government's ocean police force, was removed. But Lubchenco still won't even say if he was fired, allowed to retire or is still working in another capacity for NOAA.

His temporary replacement is Alan Risenhoover, a man with no law enforcement experience. And Risenhoover, in town Monday for a private meeting with Mayor Carolyn Kirk, state Sen. Bruce Tarr, R-Gloucester and other officials and attorneys, emerged from the closed-door talks to say the meeting was "a good first step" in healing the relationship between the fishermen and their regulators.

First step? What more do fishery officials need to take action? This sounds like a doctor who keeps telling the patient, "I feel your pain," but refuses to provide any remedy for it — and really won't even acknowledge clear remedies exist.

Mayor Kirk said she was pleased that, while she and others delivered a "very unpleasant message" to Risenhoover, he "seemed to listen with an open mind."

The truth is, she should not have been pleased — no one from Gloucester or New England should be.

At this point, feel-good visits such as this simply amount to more stalling.

Read the complete editorial at the Gloucester Daily Times.

 

 

 

 

 

Everyone involved in the fishing industry is talking about the government's push toward catch-shares for fishery management. Thirteen fisheries in the U.S. operate under catch share plans. The big three are Alaska halibut and sablefish, which began in 1995, and Bering Sea crab in 2005.  As a 32-year crab fisherman in the Bering Sea, these are some of my observations.

The slower pace of crab-catch share fisheries has made them much safer. From 1991-2005, 26 vessels sank in the Bering Sea and 77 crabbers died – 50 times the U.S. worker fatality rate. Since 2005, there has been one death and no vessels have sunk. The slower pace also means we can soak our gear longer, and be more careful with handling and sorting the crab. Fewer pots are being used, meaning less impact on the sea floor and a doubling of crab caught per pot. This smaller, more efficient fleet has reduced our carbon footprint by 50 percent.

Before catch shares, 200 boats would race out, hope to fill up one time and it was over. That meant crab-codependent communities like St. Paul were being left behind. The catch-share program has built in regional protection so dependent communities receive their historical landings. Now boats can make multiple trips to St. Paul or Dutch Harbor, while still fishing on very low crab quotas. Five years into the program, we find it helps us to work more cooperatively with processors and managers to prosecute the Bering Sea crab fisheries.
It's true that crab-catch shares caused the loss of many low paying, part-time jobs when the fleet downsized. But those were hardly "jobs" when you consider low crab quotas meant fishing lasted for a few days a year. None of us could count on this "race for crab" system to support our boats and families. Absent the race for crab, fishing seasons have lengthened to several months. Crew jobs are more stable and higher paying, averaging from $45,000 to $85,000. Overall, the catch share program has resulted in a more professional crew.

Read the complete editorial at Juneau Empire.

 

 

 

 

 

The race for fish under the old management programs had resulted in ridiculously short seasons: 24 hour openers for halibut, 2 day openers for king crab and 5 days for snow crab. We were losing vessels and crewmen every year, our product quality was terrible, and sustainable resource management goals were practically impossible to meet.

Saving Seafood received the following letter to the editor from Edward Poulsen.  Mr. Poulsen is Executive Director of the Inter-Cooperative Exchange Policy Advocacy Committee (ICEPAC) which states that it represents approximately 70% of the harvesters that fish crab in the Bering Sea.  ICEPAC says they are "grateful to the US Congress, North Pacific Fishery Management Council, National Marine Fisheries Service and Alaska Department of Fish and Game for our catch share program which has allowed for our industry to stabilize privately instead of relying on government bailouts."

April 23, 2010

The recent Catch Shares controversy stirred up by letters from Kodiak and King Cove, Alaska are based on strong opinion but not supported by the facts. Alaska’s halibut and crab catch share programs were developed specifically to address those fisheries when they were near collapse. The race for fish under the old management programs had resulted in ridiculously short seasons: 24 hour openers for halibut, 2 day openers for king crab and 5 days for snow crab. We were losing vessels and crewmen every year, our product quality was terrible, and sustainable resource management goals were practically impossible to meet.

 Since implementation of these two programs, the loss of vessels and crewmen’s lives has been halted and a significant measure of economic stability has been restored to every sector — including our fishing communities.

 This isn’t just my opinion. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council conducts program reviews on a regular basis, and socio-economic analysis is a major aspect of those reviews, given Alaska’s dependence on the fisheries. There has also been a steady stream of program reviews by independent third parties — including two analyses of impacts from the crab program by a widely known University of Alaska seafood industry economist — on Kodiak and the Aleutians East Borough (where King Cove is located). In the case of the crab program, these studies all show that Kodiak and King Cove continue to receive their historic share of the landings (as guaranteed under the program), and that even after the necessary fleet consolidation, the Kodiak fleet is now harvesting a greater percentage of the TAC than they ever did during the derby fisheries.

 Kodiak’s own 2010 Economic Profile, funded by the City and Borough of Kodiak, finds that “… Total retail sales within the city have increased more than 79% since 1994 (not adjusted for inflation). There is a close correlation between retail sales and the strength of local fisheries.” It is also difficult to understand how a community such as Kodiak can claim to be devastated by the halibut program when Kodiak has ranked in the top two ports for halibut IFQ landings each year since implementation of the catch share program in 1995. (Emphasis added).

Edward Poulsen

 

 

 

 

 

This is a personal statement of fact concerning one small fishing business, comprised of one vessel, with one Multi-Species groundfish license. This is a local New England small business that employs 5 fishermen and supports 5 families with eight children.  My wife and I have our life savings and retirement invested in it.

Our 73 foot ground-fishing vessel was acquired in July of 2005.  This vessel was an upgrade from a smaller vessel which, although well found and stout, was too small to safely fish offshore in the North Atlantic, full time, year ‘round.
           
The new vessel’s hull and basic machinery were sound but neglected, and were in need of rehabilitation; so from July of 2005 through October of 2006 the vessel was laid up and totally refitted, deck, superstructure, electrical and machinery, were rebuilt or replaced.  The dates of lay up are significant because during the period that NOAA decreed as the “qualification period” for the allocation of catch shares, i.e. the fishing years 1996 through 2006, the only fishing trips that occurred under my ownership of this vessel in that period were initial “shakedown” trips.  These trips were made solely for the purpose of ascertaining the repairs and upgrades that were still needed, and not aimed at accumulating large catches.   Most such trips were local and for non-groundfish species.
           
In other words, the fish poundage allocation this vessel was assigned by NOAA was based solely on the catch history of the previous owner.  I purchased the vessel when the “currency” for fishing allocation was in the form of Days-At-Sea; this license had the maximum days allowed at the time.  The rules changed recently from the “effort control” of days-at-sea to basing allocation on the total accumulated poundage of catch per license, per species, during the 1996-2006 fishing years period, and then measuring this poundage against the total poundage per species landed by all boats in that period.
           
The previous owner of my boat and license fished three boats concurrently, so my vessel was fished only a portion of the available time, and not always for groundfish, but also for Squid, Whiting, Scup, and Fluke, species that are not counted as groundfish and would not figure into in my current catch share allocation for groundfish.
           
The result is that my vessel was allocated a very small percentage of the significant groundfish species, approximately 5% of the amount of fish that we have landed per year over the last 4 years under the days-at-sea system, and a catch amount which is necessary for this operation to remain viable.  In all likelihood our survival will be a matter of months under the current allocations for the catch share scheme.
           
The New England Fisheries Management Council’s own figures show that New England groundfish are 80% rebuilt, 15 of the 19 species are completely rebuilt and overfishing is not occurring.  The other 20% or 4 stocks are on the rise and are on schedule to achieve healthy numbers.  Only 25% to 40% of the amounts of fish declared by government scientists available to be safely harvested have been landed in recent fishing years.  Due to overly cautious and inflexible regulations we are being prevented by NOAA/NMFS from harvesting even the sanctioned yearly allocations; and this is why fish landings are down; it is not for a lack of fish swimming in the ocean.  Overfishing is not occurring in New England; the fish stocks are healthy.  After 20years of sacrifice and fleet downsizing, the fish are back in force.  
           
 A major restructuring of the fisheries, such as imposing the catch share/sector regime, is completely unnecessary.  Testimony from the majority of fisheries participants, living under catch shares for at least 5 years or more, shows that such a system is counter- productive for the fish stocks and irreversibly destructive to the well being of the fishermen and their communities.  Most yearly Total Allowable Catches have diminished under catch shares, consequently fleets have been devastated, jobs lost, and fishing communities and infrastructure gone forever.
           
The majority of local fishing operations are in similar straits to mine; some are in worse predicaments; and some have already disappeared.  The implementation of the Amendment 16 catch share/sector scheme must be stopped before the few remaining boats like mine are gone; and we lose this entire industry, and with it we lose a vital source of healthy food.   

 

Dick Grachek is a retired fisherman and is owner of the F/V Anne Kathryn out of Stonington, Connecticut and Point Judith, Rhode Island.  The vessel's captain is Joe Mattera.

 

 

 

 

 

When might such a forum might be held? How about right after Cohen and Juliand are sent packing like their mentor and former national police chief Dale Jones? Or perhaps after the agency reimburses fishermen and waterfront businesses excessively penalized by Cohen's and Juliand's heavy-handed tactics? The leaders of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have a poor track record when it comes to simply ignoring the concerns of local fishermen and even to their elected representatives, from the local to the federal level. But they apparently heard the hue and cry after Gloucester Mayor Carolyn Kirk and others urged a boycott of a ludicrous NOAA law enforcement forum that had been set for Monday, since it was due to involve both a federal fishery enforcement agent and a NOAA prosecutor whose actions were among those at the center of a federal investigation. NOAA announced Wednesday that the forum had been postponed, and would be rescheduled "to a date and format to be worked out with (Kirk)."   [read the editorial in full in the Gloucester Daily Times]            

Lubchenco  and her colleagues must deliver answers to the questions about Jones' status now. To do otherwise proves that Lubchenco holds Congress, the fishing industry and the American people in the same contempt as Jones. And it's time Congress held her accountable as well.

It's been two weeks since Dale J. Jones, police chief for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, was reportedly ousted from his post.

But since then, there has not been a word from NOAA head Jane Lubchenco about his status. In fact, it is not even official that he has been dismissed.

That lack of transparency has become characteristic of Lubchenco's administration. But it is not acceptable. Such stonewalling smacks more of the days of President Nixon than President Obama's promise of open government.

Indeed, the only indication that Jones may be out came April 8, when Eric Schwaab, chosen in February by Lubchenco to lead the National Marine Fisheries Service, issued a statement that said nothing about Jones — it did not even mention him — but announced that Alan Risenhoover, who has no law enforcement experience, would be taking the post temporarily.

Has Jones been fired? Suspended? Allowed to "retire"? Is he still on the payroll? If so, in what capacity?

Those are all very legitimate questions to which fishermen long abused at the hands of Jones and Gloucester-based henchmen Andrew Cohen and Chuck Juliand are entitled to answers. Indeed, all American taxpayers who may well be still paying Jones and his jack-booted comrades have every right to know if that's the case.

Yet, there have been no answers from Lubchenco. 

Read the editorial in full at The Gloucester Daily Times.

 

 

 

 

 

There are ways the "new" NOAA of Lubchenco, Schwaab, and interim police chief Alan Risenhoover could make this forum valuable. That's to drop Cohen from the program, and announce to fishermen that he, Juliand and other enforcement thugs tied to this agency's shameful legacy are out the door — without honor.

Then, they could add a truly meaningful workshop: One that tells fishermen wrongly driven to bankruptcy or out of business how to sign up to recoup their money, especially from NOAA's Asset Forfeiture Fund.

According to the agenda for the big "NOAA Fisheries Service Enforcement Forum" — set for a week from tonight at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration building in Gloucester's Blackburn Industrial Park — the three-hour program will include a presentation by Gloucester-based Agent-in-Charge Andy Cohen on "the agents' role in the fishery enforcement process and communicating with fishing industry members."

That sounds interesting, but only if Cohen and his heavy-handed sidekick, Chuck Juliand, address the real issues at hand, like:

Justification for their agents' wrongfully entering a local business — the Gloucester Seafood Display Auction — without any authorization, as outlined in a 2006 Gloucester Police report.

Sending two armed agents to "visit" another Gloucester waterfront businessman, Intershell's Monte Rome, in late February 2010 to "ask" about his testimony on behalf the auction in a pending court trial.

Even better, maybe Cohen — especially in the wake of a scathing Inspector General's report about excessive Northeast fishery fines and penalties — can explain his thuggish bid to sock a New Jersey family with fine of $270,000 — $10,000 per page — for routine reporting violations, only to have his proposed "penalty" scoffed at and reduced to a fraction, even by a judge within the Coast Guard's usually-rigged administrative law system.

Best of all, Cohen and Juliand — who told the Times he certainly "plans to be there" — should try to explain how they still have jobs now that their supervisor and mentor, NOAA national enforcement chief Dale Jones, has apparently been sacked. The IG's report, among other things, found Jones misused an $8.4 million fund built on the fines and penalties paid by fishermen, created a culture that has treated fishermen like criminals. And Cohen and Juliand are indeed poster boys for that culture.

Read the complete story at The Gloucester Daily Times.

 

 

 

 

 

Dale J. Jones, police chief for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, appears to have been fired.  But based on what NOAA head Jane Lubchenco and various congressmen know about his actions in recent months, he deserves a much harsher punishment than simply losing his job.

The chairman of a U.S. House oversight subcommittee revealed this week that Jones had reportedly shredded 75 percent of the material in his files last November — during the final stages of an active national investigation into claims that his agents had been both vindictive and unfair in their enforcement of commercial fishing regulations in the New England region.

That information came in a letter from Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, chairman of the House Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to Lois Schiffer, new general counsel for NOAA, and Barbara Fredericks, assistant general counsel for the Commerce Department.

Read the complete story at The Gloucester Daily Times.

 

 

 

 

 

The public has a right to see the review by the inspector general of the shredding of documents by Dale Jones. Members of the Massachusetts delegation have requested the review, but so far, NOAA has not cooperated.

While NOAA took a positive step by showing its document-shredding enforcement chief the door, the matter is not resolved.

The public has a right to see the latest review by the Commerce Department's inspector general of the shredding of documents by Dale Jones, the ousted enforcement chief.

Expected to come as an addendum to the earlier IG's report implicating Jones, the review cannot be released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration without a congressional request. Members of the Massachusetts delegation have made the request, but so far, NOAA has not cooperated.

The agency certainly has no ethical choice but to release the review of Jones' conduct. The review should delve more deeply into the outrageous finding in the earlier report that, during a federal investigation into his treatment of northeastern fishermen, Jones shredded documents.

What were those documents? Were they incriminating? Did they illustrate his intent? Did they prove a cover-up of what was behind all those steep fines? We can only hope the IG's review answers some of those questions.

Read the Standard-Times' Editorial.

NOTE: The Standard-Times is a subscription site.  Unregistered visitors are able to read three stories per month, and registered visitors may view ten.  For unlimited access, please follow the subscription instructions on the site. 

 

 

 

 

 

It's bad enough we've been paying this ocean police commandant to treat fishermen like criminals and drive small businesses and businessmen right out of the industry. Now, NOAA leaders won't tell us if we're still paying him or not.

Nothing screams "corruption" and "coverup" like a good ol' governmental document-shredding party.

So when the Department of Commerce's Inspector General last month added accusations of shredding to the already-documented mismanagement of an $8.4 million penalty fund and the grossly inequitable fines thrust upon Gloucester, New England and Northeast fishermen, it was obvious that Dale Jones, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's law enforcement chief, had to go.

But when Jones' long-overdue ouster came last Thursday at the hands of NOAA chief administrator Jane Lubchenco and her National Marine Fisheries caddy, Eric Schwaab, there was barely a sigh of relief from a fishing industry abused far too long by Jones and his rogue agency's thugs, especially out of NOAA enforcement's Northeast regional offices in Gloucester.

That's because Lubchenco's and NMFS chief Schwaab's handling of all this has raised even more questions rather than providing answers. The fact that NOAA "leadership" spent Friday stonewalling any release of information on Jones' exit — or any other disciplinary actions against NOAA policing agents — is an insult to Congressmen John Tierney and Barney Frank and U.S. Sen. John Kerry, let alone to every American taxpayer.

Claiming protections under federal privacy statutes, NOAA's chiefs declined to immediately give Kerry and other lawmakers the latest report from Inspector General Todd Zinser outlining his findings regarding the Jones document-shredding allegations. Plus, Lubchenco and Schwaab have refused to make public whether Jones is suspended, fired, placed on paid or unpaid leave, or even facing criminal charges, as he no doubt should.

Read the complete editorial at The Gloucester Times.