November 4, 2013 — This morning, stakeholders met with Senator Begich of Alaska, Massachusetts Senators Warren and Markey, and other members of the New England congressional delegation for a listening session on fisheries. Panel members included a number of industry representatives, fishermen, scientists, and local stakeholders. The panel discussed topics ranging from the ten-year rebuilding requirements in the Magnuson-Stevens Act to the economic condition of the fleet to the development of electronic monitoring technologies.
Conservation Law Foundation’s Peter Shelley delivered this testimony:
I am going to paint a slightly different picture for you this morning. Nothing, however, in what I say should be understood to mean that we are insensitive to or minimize the many personal tragedies associated with the decades of groundfish overfishing.
The US fishing industry was born in New England over 400 years ago and today Massachusetts and Maine still rank as the second and third state in the nation in the dollar value of their landings. Fishing and the ocean have defined New England from its earliest times and all of us are proud of that tradition.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act is working in New England. Most of our fisheries are healthy and sustainable. From 1996 when the Sustainable Fisheries Act went into effect to 2011, gross boat revenues for all fish and shellfish landed in New England grew from $779 million to over $1.04 billion (2010 dollars).
Massachusetts fishermen increased their gross revenues from $316 million to $537 million. All the major ports in Massachusetts from New Bedford to Chatham-Provincetown to Gloucester have shared in these increased revenues. Those revenues multiply significantly once that seafood is landed.
Groundfish permit holders in New England have increased gross revenue from $226 million to $550 million. The accelerated groundfish fleet consolidation that occurred between 1995 and 2009 now appears to have slowed down.
There are also positive signs for some groundfish stocks, and a number of quotas increased last year. With continued rebuilding, these groundfish stocks should support new opportunities to grow and diversify fisheries in New England.
This is happening here because Congress took steps in 1996 and 2006 to force fisheries managers to prevent overfishing, to rebuild overfished stocks quickly, and to use science-based quota setting. Fishermen and fishing communities across New England paid a terrible price because those same actions were not taken earlier when the law allowed more “flexibility” in setting harvest levels.
There is adequate flexibility in the current law to allow the pursuit of more efficient and effective fisheries without compromising the need to rebuild and sustain healthy fish populations. I believe that much of the testimony this Subcommittee will hear across the country will show there is broad and diverse agreement on that.
Read the full story at the Conservation Law Foundation's TalkingFish.org