Saving Seafood

Goethel: An optimistic fisherman’s view on the death of the Chevron Deference

July 2, 2024 — My name is David Goethel. I am a 55-year-plus commercial fisherman, research biologist, and former fishery manager. As the author of “Endangered Species/ Chronicles of A New England Fisherman,” I discuss these topics and a lawsuit I filed in 2015 with the legal group Cause of Action over the legal concept known as Chevron Deference.

Most people believe Congress writes laws, the Executive Branch carries out those laws, and the Judicial Branch interprets and clarifies whether aspects of those laws are Constitutional and correctly applied. It turns out that under a doctrine called “Chevron Deference,” the regulatory bureaucracy can deem a law unclear or ambiguous and create any regulation the agency decides it needs to carry out its bureaucratic function.

Read the full article at Seacoastonline

Don Cuddy: Proposed Magnuson Stevens changes are reasonable

April 2, 2018 — I am wondering how much commercial fishermen know about acting? At a guess I’d say probably as much, or as little, as most actors know about commercial fishing, even award-winning ones. This thought arose following the recent appearance in these pages of an opinion piece on fishery management by a member of the acting profession in an attempt to wield political influence.

The thespian in question is also an Oceana board member, a well-funded environmental group antithetical to America’s oldest industry. This group has been known to advance claims which fail to resonate with real scientists. One particularly misleading report ‘Wasted Catch,’ launched by Oceana on a credulous public in 2014, drew a letter of censure from all eight of our nation’s regional Fishery Management Councils. Among other things the letter stated:

“While we acknowledge that there are no laws requiring Oceana reports to accurately represent the best available scientific information or to undergo peer review, to do so would be in the best interest of all involved parties. This is why we suggest that you retract the report until it is reviewed and corrected.” http://www.mafmc.org/newsfeed/wasted-catch

The Magnuson Stevens Act which governs fisheries in federal waters requires reauthorization and it is currently under review. Changes proposed in a bill now before Congress were denounced by this Oceana advocate as “counter factual, anti-science, anti-conservation.”

The frothy plea to our congressman is for maintenance of the status quo in fishery management. And the argument carries weight because it comes from a well-known actor? Well sir, Nature isn’t listening. And the modest proposals in H.R 200, intended to remove some of the onerous provisions burdening our fishermen, have generated a predictable response from environmentalists who dismiss realities which do not fit their agenda. Change is needed.

The act as written, for example, calls for rebuilding all stocks to maximum sustainable yield simultaneously and imposes timeline to achieve that. I called my friend Dave Goethel for his take on that. “That ignores Nature. It’s a biological impossibility,” he said. “Something will always be overfished. The reason haddock are up and cod are down now is because they occupy the same ecological niche.”

Dave is a working commercial fisherman with a degree in marine biology who served two terms on the New England Fishery Management Council. He doesn’t act but he has been fishing for 50 years. Fishermen, he said, are simply hoping to introduce a little flexibility on these rigid rebuilding timelines which were imposed more or less arbitrarily when the act was written.

Read the full opinion piece at the New Bedford Standard-Times

 

Fishermen look to replace human monitors with cameras

April 4, 2016 — The program, slated to begin next month, will include about 20 boats, roughly 10 percent of the region’s active groundfishing fleet, and will require fishermen to use sophisticated software, maintain cameras through the harsh conditions at sea, and submit to constant electronic scrutiny.

That has made some fishermen, who say their boats are like homes, uneasy.

They worry about losing their privacy and whether the footage could become public.

“Our bathrooms are buckets out on deck. I do not want some person counting how much toilet paper I use when I go to the head,” said David Goethel, who fishes cod out of Hampton, N.H.

Goethel sued NOAA last year for requiring fishermen to assume the costs of the observer program, which he said were too expensive and would put many of his colleagues out of business. The agency had previously covered the costs, but officials said they could no longer afford to subsidize the $3 million program.

See the full story at the Boston Globe

REP. FRANK GUINTA: Federal regulations are sinking New Hampshire’s historic fishing industry

March 21, 2016 — On New Hampshire’s Seacoast, Granite State fishermen tell the tale of an out-of-control federal agency more dangerous than any sea monster.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration severely limits their catch of ground fish, flounder and cod that dwell in the Gulf of Maine. International competitors face fewer rules and supply most U.S. seafood.

Dave Goethel of the Yankee Fishermen’s Cooperative in Seabrook estimates that NOAA, which manages U.S. fisheries and the president’s climate change agenda, has reduced his catch by 95 percent.

He tells me many of his friends have quit or taken early retirement. Young Granite Staters interested in maritime careers no longer consider our state’s 400-year-old tradition.

What seaman nowadays would brave such treacherous regulatory waters?

On March 1, NOAA implemented fees around New England that will hit New Hampshire fishermen, mostly small boat operators, hardest. Only a few remain on the United States’ shortest coastline.

In her explanation to me, the agency’s chief administrator, Kathryn Sullivan, estimates that new fees for at-sea monitors could amount to $710 per day.

Read the full opinion peace at The Eagle-Tribune

Costs for at-sea monitors will force many fishermen out of business.

December 18, 2015 — The following was released by the Center for Sustainable Fisheries:

The Center for Sustainable Fisheries fully supports the lawsuit filed in New Hampshire last week by Cause of Action. The Washington-based watchdog group, which focuses its attention on government overreach, is suing the federal government on behalf of our commercial fishermen in New England.

The case is crystal clear. It stems from the high cost for at-sea monitors and the insistence, by NOAA’s intransigent National Marine Fisheries Service, that fishermen must now foot the bill for monitors because the agency has run out of money. This is simply outrageous. The regional administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service is former New Bedford mayor John Bullard.

Beginning January 1, fishermen who are required to bring monitors on groundfish trips will be billed an estimated $710 daily for their services, an expense previously borne by our government regulators. This mandate comes down at a time that the groundfishery in New England has been declared a disaster, with landings and revenue down and fewer boats fishing. To now burden struggling fishermen with what is undoubtedly a function of government is simply unjust. Furthermore, NOAA has conducted its own study on the costs of monitoring and concluded that upwards of 60 percent of active groundfish vessels would be rendered unprofitable if forced to pay for at-sea monitors. ‘Unprofitable’ in this case meaning fishermen going out of business; deprived not only of income but a way of life.

The plaintiffs in this important case are Dave Goethel, a CSF board member and owner of the Ellen Diane, a 44-foot dayboat out of Hampton, N.H., along with Northeast Fishery Sector XIII, comprising thirty-two East Coast fishermen and managed by John Haran in New Bedford. The controversial issue has been simmering for some time. It is now in the hands of the judiciary. In arguing the case Cause of Action will present a number of legal arguments, primarily that NOAA has no authority to compel funding. It does not take a legal scholar to see which way this case should be resolved. Let us hope that justice will prevail.

View a PDF of the release