Saving Seafood

  • Home
  • News
    • Alerts
    • Conservation & Environment
    • Council Actions
    • Economic Impact
    • Enforcement
    • International & Trade
    • Law
    • Management & Regulation
    • Regulations
    • Nutrition
    • Opinion
    • Other News
    • Safety
    • Science
    • State and Local
  • News by Region
    • New England
    • Mid-Atlantic
    • South Atlantic
    • Gulf of Mexico
    • Pacific
    • North Pacific
    • Western Pacific
  • About
    • Contact Us
    • Fishing Terms Glossary

NOAA releases draft update to ecosystem-based fisheries management roadmap

June 20, 2024 โ€” NOAA Fisheries is now accepting public comments on its updated ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) roadmap.

NOAA first established an EBFM roadmap in 2016 to provide guidance on the agencyโ€™s policy shift toward implementing ecosystem-level planning for the countryโ€™s fisheries. The management style involves setting quotas while also considering how an individual species fits into the wider ecosystem, rather than the status of an individual stock.

Read the full article at SeafoodSource

A Supreme Court ruling on fishing for herring could sharply curb federal regulatory power

January 11, 2024 โ€” Fisheries regulation might seem to be unusual grounds for the U.S. Supreme Court to shift power away from federal agencies. But that is what the court seems poised to do in the combined cases of Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. vs. Department of Commerce. The cases are scheduled for oral argument in tandem on Jan. 17, 2024.

The question at the core of both cases is whether the secretary of commerce, acting through the National Marine Fisheries Service and following the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, can require commercial fishers to pay for onboard observers whom they are required to take on some fishing voyages. In both cases, the plaintiffs assert that the Commerce Department has exceeded its legal authority. That claim turns on how much deference the court should give the agencyโ€™s interpretation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Specifically, plaintiffs are challenging a nearly 40-year-old doctrine of federal administrative law, known as Chevron deference for the 1984 case in which it was set forth. This tenet provides that when a federal statute is silent or ambiguous about a particular regulatory issue, courts defer to the implementing agencyโ€™s reasonable interpretation of the law.

In other words, if the agency and federal courts disagree about the โ€œbestโ€ interpretation of a federal law, the courts cannot force the agency to accept their version of what the statute means or allows, so long as the agencyโ€™s own interpretation is reasonable.

Read the full article at the Conservation

SCOTUS to put the administrative state under scrutiny

October 28, 2023 โ€” The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases that call into question so-called โ€œChevron deference,โ€ a judicial doctrine that has enabled government agencies to greatly expand their power beyond the authority granted by Congress.

The cases are Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc., v. Department of Commerce. Both nominally involve challenges to a rule promulgated by the National Marine Fisheries Service that required commercial fishermen to pay $710 per day for an at-sea monitoring program. The fishermen argued that a 1976 law, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, did not authorize the service to create an industry-funded monitoring program.

But the issue the court has agreed to decide goes far beyond the fishing industry. The justices have chosen these cases to review whether it is now time to toss โ€œChevron deferenceโ€ into the dustbin of history.

The Chevron doctrine dates to the Supreme Courtโ€™s 1984 decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc., v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. In that case, the justices created a legal test to determine when a court should defer to an administrative agencyโ€™s interpretation or decision. When an agencyโ€™s action was not unreasonable, and Congress had left the issue ambiguous, the justices said, a court should simply defer to the agencyโ€™s judgment.

Read the full article at the Orange County Register

Updates proposed for national standards for fisheries

September 7, 2023 โ€” Comments are due by Sept. 12 on proposed updates to federal National Standards for commercial fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, specifically those standards addressing allocations, communities and bycatch.

The National Standards are guidelines for regional fishery management councils on how to interpret and balance the 10 standards as they develop fishery management plans.

The marine resource consulting firm Ocean Strategies said in a statement released on Tuesday that reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens legislation is long overdue and a gridlock in Congress is preventing stakeholders from offering critical, time sensitive input to federal fishery management through reauthorization of that legislation.

Read the full article at the Cordoba Times

US Representative Jared Huffman: MSA reauthorization unlikely to pass this term

October 22, 2022 โ€” The U.S. House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife may have passed H.R. 4690 โ€“ the Sustaining Americaโ€™s Fisheries for the Future Act, the latest attempt to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) โ€“ but U.S. Rep. Jared Huffman (D-California) told SeafoodSource the chances of it passing this session are slim.

The bill was approved by the committee on 29 September, 2022, leaving a relatively short time for it to pass through both the U.S. House and Senate before the end of the year, when the current congressional term expires.

Read the full article at SeafoodSource

Department of Commerce Announces 2022 Appointments to the Regional Fishery Management Councils

June 28, 2022 โ€” The following was released by NOAA Fisheries:

The U.S. Department of Commerce today announced the appointment of 20 new and returning members to the regional fishery management councils that partner with NOAA Fisheries to manage marine fishery resources.

Established by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, councils are responsible for developing region-specific fishery management plans that safeguard and enhance the nationโ€™s fisheries resources. Council members represent diverse groups, including commercial and recreational fishing industries, environmental organizations, and academia. They are vital to fulfilling the actโ€™s requirements to end overfishing, rebuild fish stocks, and manage them sustainably.

NOAA Fisheries works closely with the councils through the process of developing fishery management plans. We also review, approve, and implement the plans.

Each year, the Secretary of Commerce appoints approximately one-third of the total 72 appointed members to the eight regional councils. The Secretary selects members from nominations submitted by the governors of fishing states, territories, and tribal governments.

Council members are appointed to both state-specific and regional seatsโ€”also known as obligatory and at-large seats, respectively.  Council members serve a three-year term and may be reappointed to serve three consecutive terms.

* Asterisk following a memberโ€™s name indicates a reappointment

New England Council

The New England Council includes members from Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. 2022 appointees will fill one obligatory seat for New Hampshire, and two at-large seats.

Obligatory seat

Peter Whelan (New Hampshire)

At-large seats

Eric Hansen (Massachusetts)

Richard Bellavance (Rhode Island)*

Mid-Atlantic Council

The Mid-Atlantic Council includes members from the states of Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. 2022 appointees will fill one obligatory seat for Delaware, and three at-large seats.

Obligatory seat

Paul โ€˜Wesโ€™ Townsend (Delaware)*

At-large seats

Scott Lenox (Maryland)*

Peter Hughes (New Jersey)*

Ken Neill (Virginia)

South Atlantic Council

The South Atlantic Council includes members from Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. 2022 appointees will fill two obligatory seats for North Carolina and South Carolina.

Obligatory seats

Robert โ€˜Timโ€™ Griner (North Carolina)*

Gary Borland (South Carolina)

Caribbean Council

The Caribbean Council includes members from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The 2022 appointee will fill one at-large seat.

At-large seat

James Kreglo (U.S. Virgin Islands)

Gulf Council

The Gulf Council includes members from Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. 2022 appointees will fill two obligatory seats for Mississippi and Texas, and one at-large seat.

Obligatory seats

Michael McDermott (Mississippi)

Troy Williamson, II (Texas)*

At-large seat

Thomas Frazer (Florida)*

Pacific Council

The Pacific Council includes members from California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. The Pacific Council also includes one Tribal seat. 2022 appointees will fill one obligatory seat for Idaho, and one at-large seat.

Obligatory seat

Peter Hassemer (Idaho)*

At-large seat

Marc Gorelnik (California)*

North Pacific Council

The North Pacific Council includes members from Alaska and Washington. 2022 appointees will fill two obligatory seats for Alaska.

Obligatory seats

Angela Drobnica (Alaska)

Nicole Kimball (Alaska)*

Western Pacific Council

The Western Pacific Council includes members from American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 2022 appointees will fill one obligatory seat for American Samoa, and two at-large seats.

Obligatory seat

William Sword (American Samoa)*

At-large seats

Judith Guthertz (Guam)

Shaelene Kamakaala (Hawaii)

 

WASHINGTON: Graves Pushes Biden Administration to Get Disaster Aid to Fishermen

February 2, 2022 โ€” The following was released by The Office of Congressman Garret Graves:

U.S. Congressman Garret Graves is pushing U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) Secretary Gina Raimondo to expedite โ€œFishery Disaster Determinationโ€ due to major damage related to impacts of Hurricanes Laura, Delta, Zeta, and especially Ida. Gravesโ€™ ask comes after a recent economic assessment verifies what we have been saying about the impact to our fishing communities. He is also working to reform the disaster designation process for the fishing community.

Immediately after Hurricane Ida, we worked to secure $200 million in federal funding for fisheries disaster assistance, but this down payment canโ€™t be made available for rebuilding our resources until a fisheries disaster has been determined. Under law, only the U.S. Secretary of Commerce can make this determination.

โ€œThe recovery doesnโ€™t just happen overnight and for every additional day that the bureaucratic process drags on, our fishers and associated small businesses canโ€™t get back on their feet to rebuild their livelihood. Our fishermen have taken a pounding over the last several years. Hurricanes, floods, unfair trade practices, inflation, worker shortages and government over-regulation have taken their toll โ€“ all of which have been a major blow to our workforce and consumer demand. This report verifies what we have been saying about the hurricane impacts and clearly justifies the fisheries assistance weโ€™ve already funded. We need to get assistance to our fishing communities and it has to happen in a timeframe that will actually provide immediate assistance,โ€ Graves said.

DOC is able to declare the disaster provided by the provisions within the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act. The declared disaster would provide targeted relief to one of the most impacted sectors of Louisianaโ€™s economy. The funds would help both commercial and recreational fishers begin to recover.

Click here to read the letter.

 

North Pacific Council Weighs in on MSA Reauthorization Bills

November 8, 2017 โ€” SEAFOOD NEWS โ€” In response to a request from Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan, the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council reviewed three bills related to the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, comparing them to the current law and practices used to manage the nationโ€™s largest fisheries.

โ€œThe North Pacific Council believes that the current MSA already provides a very successful framework for sustainable fisheries management, and major changes are not necessary at this time,โ€ wrote NPFMC chair Dan Hull.

โ€œNevertheless, we also recognize the potential benefits of increased flexibility in some circumstances, and amending the Act to provide for such flexibility could provide all the regional councils additional opportunities to optimize their fishery management programs, with appropriate cautionary notes and limitations.

โ€œIn order for the Council to provide for the continued conservation of our resources, any changes to the law providing additional flexibility must continue to ensure that fundamental conservation and management tenets based on sound science are upheld, and should not create incentives or justifications to overlook them,โ€ Hull wrote.

Allowing more flexibility in fisheries management, particularly when stocks in a rebuilding phase, is a hot-button issue with many stakeholders, not just in the North Pacific but nationwide. Proponents of adding more flexibility to any new legislation say the current law is too protective of the resource at a cost to the fishery. They urge more flexibility so that each management council can optimize yield without jeopardizing the resource.

โ€œRegarding potential changes and increased flexibility for stock rebuilding plans, the NPFMC believes that further flexibility, would appropriately increase the ability to maximize harvest opportunities while still effecting rebuilding of fish stocks,โ€ noted Hull, referring to HR 200, the bill introduced by Alaska Congressman Don Young.

โ€œThe arbitrary 10-year requirement may constrain the Councils management flexibility with overly restrictive management measures, with unnecessary, negative economic impacts, with little or no conservation gain,โ€ Hull wrote.

Another controversal issue is using annual catch limits (ACLs) to manage stocks, something opponents have said needlessly restricts a fishery. Hull defended the importance of ACLs as a foundational part of fisheries management.

โ€œAnnual catch limits (ACLs) have been used in the North Pacific for over 30 years, and such limits are a cornerstone of sustainable fisheries management. We also believe there are situations where some flexibility in the establishment of ACLs is warranted, particularly in the case of data poor stocks.

โ€œConsideration of the economic needs of fishing communities is critical in the ACL setting process, and while the current MSA allows for such consideration, we recognize the desire for a more explicit allowance for these considerations.

โ€œWe must be careful however, not to jeopardize long term fisheries sustainability, and associated community vitality and resiliency, for the sake of short term preservation of all economic activity associated with a fishery,โ€ he wrote.

โ€œAccounting for uncertainty, articulating policies for acceptable risk, and establishing the necessary precautionary buffers, are all explicit outcomes of the ACL process, and we believe that the [Scientific and Statistical Committees] SSCs are the appropriate gatekeepers to establish the upper limits of โ€˜safeโ€™ fishing mortality. This limit, which is established as the Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) level, appears to be consistent with the provisions of H.R.200,โ€ Hull added.

Speaking to Rep. Garrett Graveโ€™s (R-LA) S. 1520 Modernizing Recreational Fishing Management Act of 2017, Hull noted that โ€œalternative measuresโ€ may not meet the standard in the current MSA.

โ€œThe bill provides the councils authority to use alternative measures in recreational fisheries including extraction rates, fishing mortality targets, harvest control rules, or traditional or cultural practices.

โ€œThe NPFMC notes that it is unclear if alternative fishery management measures replace the requirement for ACLs. Nevertheless, fisheries managed under alternative measures should be accountable to the conservation and management provisions of the MSA, including prevention of overfishing. ACLโ€™s serve as the primary conservation measure for fish stocks in the North Pacific, and have effectively prevented overharvesting in our fisheries. The NPFMC also notes that traditional or cultural practices are not normally considered as recreational fisheries,โ€ Hull wrote.

Hull also addressed the section in the bill related to rebuilding overfished stocks that would mandate a rebuilding term to be โ€œas short as possibleโ€ but in any case not to exceed ten years.

โ€œThe NPFMC believes that the arbitrary 10-year time period can be harmful to resource users and fishing communities if it prohibits even limited fishing activity under a scientifically sound rebuilding plan. Replacing the term โ€˜possibleโ€™ with โ€˜practicableโ€™ provides the councils with more flexibility to incorporate the needs of fishing communities in maintaining economic stability during a rebuilding period,โ€ Hull wrote.

The NPFMC took issue with sections of Rep. Jared Huffmanโ€™s Discussion Draft (also called โ€œStrengthening Fishing Communities Through Improving Science, Increasing Flexibility, and Modernizing Fisheries Management Actโ€) in certain areas, while agreeing with others.

But a section requiring an assessment of conflict of interest of council members, triggered a lengthy comment on problems the NPFMC have faced and a solution theyโ€™ve offered to NMFS.

The current MSA conflict of interest language leaves a standard for recusal of a council member up for interpretation. The recusal provision in the current law requires full economic disclosure but also that an affected individual not be allowed to vote on council decisions that would have a significant and predictable effect on a memberโ€™s financial interest.

โ€œThe MSA language left the issues of significant and predictable effect open for interpretation, so NMFS developed a regulation that set a 10% threshold for a significant effect, which is the basis for determining whether a recusal is required,โ€ explained Hull.

โ€œThe primary problem is the way in which NOAA calculates a memberโ€™s financial interests in determining whether the 10% thresholds are exceeded. The NOAA and NMFS policy is to attribute all fishing activities of a company โ€” even partially owned by an associated company โ€” in calculating an individual Council memberโ€™s interests. The North Pacific Council believes that this attribution policy is inconsistent with the intent of the conflict of interest statute and regulations.

โ€œThe following example helps to explain this issue: Joe Councilman works for Fishing Company A, which owns 50% of Fishing Company B, which in turn owns 3% of Fishing Company C. NOAA uses ALL harvesting and processing activity by ALL three of these companies in determining whether Joe Councilman exceeds any of the 10% thresholds,โ€ Hull explained.

โ€œThe North Pacific Council believes that this is an unfair and illogical interpretation of the recusal regulations, and results in unintended recusals of Council members. The North Pacific Council believes that NOAA should use only the amount of harvesting or processing activity equivalent to the Council memberโ€™s percentage of ownership,โ€ Hull continued.

โ€œUsing this proportional share approach, NOAA GC would use 100% of the harvesting and processing activity of Fishing Company A, 50% of the harvesting and processing activity of Fishing Company B, and 1.5% of the harvesting and processing activity of Fishing Company C to determine whether Joe Councilman exceeds any of the thresholds.

โ€œAt our request, NOAA and NMFS revisited the attribution policy, but to date, have declined to make changes,โ€ Hull wrote.

Finally, on behalf of the NPFMC, Hull asked that any new legislation:

โ€ข Avoids across the board mandates which could negatively affect one region in order to address a problem in another region.

โ€ข Allows flexibility in achieving conservation objectives, but be specific enough to avoid lengthy, complex implementing regulations or โ€˜guidelinesโ€™.

โ€ข Is in the form of intended outcomes, rather than prescriptive management or scientific parameters.

โ€ข Avoids unrealistic/expensive analytical mandates relative to implementing fishery closures or other management actions.

โ€ข Avoids constraints that limit the flexibility of Councils and NMFS to respond to changing climates and shifting ecosystems.

โ€ข Avoids unfunded mandates.

โ€ข Prioritizes the reservation and enhancement of stock assessments and surveys among the highest when considering any changes to the Act.

This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

 

Judge denies fedsโ€™ motion for Carlos Rafael to forfeit more vessels, permits

October 26, 2017 โ€” NEW BEDFORD, Mass. โ€”  Judge William Young didnโ€™t waste any time denying the United Statesโ€™ motion for reconsideration in the case of Carlos Rafael.

The government filed the reconsideration on Wednesday, the same day Young filed his judgment.

The government sought Young to reconsider the forfeitability of Rafaelโ€™s vessels and permits.

Young ordered four vessels and the accompanying permits to be forfeited on Oct. 11. U.S. Marshals seized the vessels the Lady Patricia, Olivia & Rafaela and the Southern Crusader II on Oct. 18.

The reconsideration stated, โ€œthe court may correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical or other clerical errorโ€ within 14 days. The government, again, is seeking Rafael to forfeit all 13 vessels and permits associated with his guilty plea to 28 counts of falsifying fishing quota, bulk cash smuggling and tax evasion.

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times

 

Members of Congress Want Department of Justice to Penalize Carlos Rafael For Violations of MSA

October 27, 2017 โ€” SEAFOOD NEWS โ€” Commercial fishing mogul Carlos โ€œThe Codfatherโ€ Rafael pled guilty for violations of the Lacey Act, but now Congressman Raรบl M. Grijalva and Congresswoman Chellie Pingree want the Department of Justice to penalize him for violations of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).

Grijalva and Pingree sent a letter on Thursday to Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross and Department of Justice Attorney General Jeff Sessions seeking for the forfeiture of assets and permits that are not โ€œdirectly linked to a specific crime.โ€

โ€œWe are writing today to follow up on a letter sent September 21, 2017 regarding Carlos Rafael, the leader of a massive illegal fishing operation in New England, reads the letter. โ€œWhile Rafael pled guilty to violations of the Lacey Act and was recently sentenced to 46 months in prison, the judge bizarrely rejected the governmentโ€™s recommendation that Rafael forfeit all 13 vessels involved in the crimes, instead requiring the forfeiture of only four vessels and 34 permits and levying a much lower fine than the government had recommended. We want to thank the Justice Department for its recent motion asking the court to reconsider the ruling, including the level of the fines.โ€

The letter goes on to state that itโ€™s โ€œunacceptableโ€ to allow Rafael to โ€œmaintain the ability to transfer or sell millions of dollars worth of assets.โ€ Although Rafael can no longer participate in the fishery, he still has a reported 27 fishing vessels, as well as an assortment of permits.

โ€œCongress gave the Secretaries clear authority to completely remove bad actors from the fishing industry,โ€ Grijalva said in a press release. โ€œIf they donโ€™t use the authority here, it will send a clear signal to Codfather wannabees that the Magnuson Act is a joke. This administration claims to be all about law and order โ€“ this is a chance to prove it.โ€

The letter comes just as William D. Weinreb, acting United States Attorney for the District of Massachussetts, filed a motion to reconsider the forfeiture of Rafaelโ€™s vessels.

This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

 

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Next Page ยป

Recent Headlines

  • Fishermen battling with changing oceans chart new course after Trumpโ€™s push to deregulate
  • ASMFC Approves Amendment 4 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Northern Shrimp
  • Trump to allow commercial fishing in New England marine monument
  • California and 17 other states sue Trump administration over wind energy projects
  • Alaska Sen. Sullivan pushes U.S. government to complete key stock surveys, fight illegal fishing amid possible NOAA funding cuts
  • US senator warns of warming, plastic threats to worldโ€™s oceans and fisheries
  • Younger consumers demanding more sustainable seafood products, European Commission data finds
  • Horseshoe Crab Board Approves Addendum IX Addendum Allows Multi-Year Specifications for Male-Only Harvest

Most Popular Topics

Alaska Aquaculture ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission BOEM California China Climate change Coronavirus COVID-19 Donald Trump groundfish Gulf of Maine Gulf of Mexico Hawaii Illegal fishing IUU fishing Lobster Maine Massachusetts Mid-Atlantic National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NEFMC New Bedford New England New England Fishery Management Council New Jersey New York NMFS NOAA NOAA Fisheries North Atlantic right whales North Carolina North Pacific offshore energy Offshore wind Pacific right whales Salmon South Atlantic Western Pacific Whales wind energy Wind Farms

Daily Updates & Alerts

Enter your email address to receive daily updates and alerts:
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Tweets by @savingseafood

Copyright ยฉ 2025 Saving Seafood ยท WordPress Web Design by Jessee Productions

Notifications