Saving Seafood

Fishing Monitors To Accompany Fewer Trips

May 2, 2016 — After protesting for months about having to pay for the government observers who monitor their catch, the region’s fishermen are catching a break.

The National Marine Fisheries Service on Friday approved a measure that will ease the financial burden on fishermen by reducing the number of times observers must accompany them to sea.

They will now have to take monitors on only 14 percent of their fishing trips, down from nearly a quarter of all trips.

“With the experience and data from five years of monitoring, we have determined that the lower coverage levels in this rule will allow us to effectively estimate discards,” said Jennifer Goebel, a spokeswoman for the Fisheries Service in Gloucester.

The move comes after federal regulators last year decided to end the multimillion-dollar subsidy that paid for the observer program, passing the cost to the fishermen.

A federal report found the new costs could cause 59 percent of the boats in the region’s once-mighty groundfishing fleet to lose money. Many of the estimated 200 remaining fishing boats are already struggling amid reduced quotas of cod and other bottom-dwelling fish.

“The agency has used better statistical methods every year to create a more most efficient monitoring system,” said Robert Vanasse, executive director of Saving Seafood, which represents the fishing industry. “This year’s regulations are a reflection of an effort to make the system as efficient as possible.”

“This should be something that’s applauded by both the environmental community and the fishing industry,” he added.

Read the full story at the Boston Globe

Monitoring The Catch Aboard Groundfishing Vessels

April 22, 2016 — While the feds used to pay for [at-sea] monitors, as of March 1st, fishermen have had to start footing the roughly $700-per-day cost.

John Bullard is Regional Administrator for NOAA’s Greater Atlantic Regional Fishery Office in Gloucester. His agency uses input from fishermen and scientists to set quotas and other regulations for the industry.

“It’s not that we wanted the industry to pay,” Bullard said. “We understand the hardship that the groundfish industry is under, believe me.”

Bullard explained that NOAA covered the costs of at-sea monitors for as long as it could. But that money is now gone. And he said the industry has had plenty of warning.

“We’ve been saying to industry, ‘You guys are gonna have to pay for this…not because we want you to, but because the money’s gonna run out.’ So this hasn’t been a sudden thing,” said Bullard.

Most groundfishermen now must scramble to come up with ways to pay for at-sea monitors. Meanwhile, others are trying another option: electronic monitoring with video cameras.

Read and listen to the full story at WCAI

Massachusetts: Rep Koczera Joins Fishermen’s Call for Better Science and Better Funding for Groundfish Monitoring

September 17, 2015 — The following was released by Massachusetts State Representative Robert Koczera:

State Representative Robert Koczera (D-New Bedford) has joined Massachusetts officials and fishermen in calling for a reassessment of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA)’s recent decision to shift the costs of federally-mandated At-Sea Monitoring expenses onto the shoulders of the struggling Massachusetts fishing fleet.

“NOAA’s insistence on at-sea monitoring as the only means to reach observational requirements is symptomatic of a bureaucracy wedded to one approach, especially when science has demonstrated there are other alternatives of fishery management and data collection that can possibly better meet the short-term and long-term needs of the fishing industry and the monitoring program,” stated Rep. Koczera.

“I would like to see NOAA reach out to local research organizations — like UMD’s School for Marine Science & Technology (SMAST) or the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute – – to bring together unbiased scientific research and local knowledge for alternative monitoring ideas,” added Rep. Koczera.

“Our fishermen are seasoned professionals with years of expertise which is being disregarded in current discussions,” added Rep. Koczera. “The ongoing disagreement between policy-makers and hands-on practitioners on the best approach underscores the need for a better understanding of current stock conditions and more research before a scientifically and statistically-sound monitoring program can be developed and implemented successfully.”

In a recent letter to Secretary of Commerce Penny Prizker which highlighted his concern with the structure and rationale of the current at-sea monitoring program, Rep. Koczera also decried the anticipated effects of the cost-shift on the fishing fleet.

According to NOAA’s recent assessment, each fishing vessel would have to absorb a $710/day expense for an at-sea monitor. Collectively, this would lead to an industry cost $2.6 million annually, with the dire prediction that 60% of the fishing fleet would have negative returns in the first year of implementation.

“For an industry that has been through a federally-recognized commercial failure, these actions equate to an ill-advised and insurmountable unfunded mandate that would cripple any progress towards sustainable recovery,” said Rep. Koczera.

NOAA recently suggested that remaining “Bin 3” federal disaster funding be specifically allocated towards at-sea monitoring expenses. Governor Charlie Baker and the entire Massachusetts Congressional delegation are strongly opposed to this proposal.

“It is disingenuous to suggest this proposal is for the relief of the fishing industry, while, in truth, it would undercut the support system put in place to assist in their long-term viability,” added Rep. Koczera. “I join with my colleagues in insisting that this would be an inappropriate use of the “Bin 3” allocation of disaster funding.”

“The history of contention between the New England fishing fleet and NOAA is well known, but both have incentives for maintaining a healthy fishing industry and both agree that better information is needed to achieve that objective,” said Rep. Koczera.

“However, shifting the cost of an unfunded mandate onto the backs of the fishing industry – an indispensable partner in the federal government’s efforts to ensure a thriving fishery – is NOT how we will reach that objective,” added Rep. Koczera. “If NOAA is serious in this commitment, it should address the cost-effectiveness concerns of the at-sea monitoring program, be open to alternative strategies of meeting monitoring goals, and commit appropriate federal funding to prevent this unjust costshift to the fishing fleet,” concluded Rep. Koczera.

Read the press release from Rep. Koczera here

Read the letter from Rep. Koczera to the Secretary of Commerce Penny Prizker