Saving Seafood

Marine Monument Economics: The Atlantic Red Crab Fishery

August 15, 2017 (Saving Seafood) — A July 25, 2017, article published by the Center for American Progress [“Big Oil Could Benefit Most from Review of Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Monument” by Michael Conathan and Avery Siciliano] made the accusation that “commercial fishing interests have spouted inflated numbers about what the economic impact of the [Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National] monument designation would be.”

Accordingly, today, Saving Seafood begins a series on “Marine Monument Economics.” In the coming weeks, we will publish commentrom the fishing industry submitted to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. We start with the Atlantic Red Crab fishery. Red crab is recommended by both the Monterrey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch and the New England Aquarium.

Today’s comments were submitted to Secretary Zinke by Mr. Michael Carroll. Mr. Carroll is a fishery economist specializing in seafood markets and economic impacts. He is both a Statistical and Scientific Committee member and an Advisory Panel member to the Deep Sea Red Crab Fishery governed under the New England Fishery Management Council. Mr. Carroll is founder and CEO of BackTracker Inc. and VP of Fisheries and Aquaculture Vertex, both in Boston. From 2008-2012, he was the business development manager of the New England Aquarium. He is lead author of “An Analysis of the Impacts of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on the Gulf of Mexico Seafood Industry” published in March 2016 by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Mr. Carroll holds a bachelor’s degree in business and economics from Saint Michael’s College, and a master’s degree in environmental and natural resource economics from the University of Rhode Island.

Mr. Carroll observes that in the Atlantic red crab fishery, there “has never been any indication that overfishing has occurred or even that the stock has declined.” And that a review of the current academic literature indicates that the actual market economic values produced by the fishery have been understated, while the types of non-market values ascribed to elements of the ecosystem such as deep-sea corals, have not been included in calculating the value of the fishery.

In his comments he observes that, “An Economic Impact (or cost to the fishery) … if done properly this figure will represent value lost throughout the entire supply chain (vessel to consumer) as well as other associated losses incurred by shore side infrastructure, such as fuel, bait, ice, marine service, etc.”  But to date, the publicly-available data from NOAA “has only presented impact figures in vessel landing dollars, which is approximately understating impacts by seven times the true economic damages to the economy.”

He urges the secretary to “consider only the facts that can be demonstrated through sound peer reviewed science and proven quantifiable economic valuation methods.”

Today is the last day to submit comments to inform NOAA’s review of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument. If you have not already submitted comments, Saving Seafood encourages you to do so here.

Mr. Carroll’s comments are below:

Dear Secretary Zinke,

My name is Mike Carroll. I am a fishery economist that specializes in seafood markets and economic impacts. I am both a Statistical and Scientific Committee member and an AP member to the Deep Sea Red Crab Fishery governed under the New England Fishery Management Council. We met in Boston on June 16 at the fishery industry meeting you had at Legal Seafood.

I have deep concerns in regards to the lack of valid economic impact evidence supporting the closure of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts to protect deep sea coral and other sea life, in effect creating economic hardship on various fisheries in the North-East Region. Specifically, I am commenting to note that the magnitude of potential impacts associated with this action on the Deep Sea Red Crab fishery are concerning and not based on peer reviewed economic valuation science.

For anyone reading my comments that are not familiar with economic impacts and economic valuation methods I will summarize some key points to remember when making decisions. For more information on this topic you can refer to the NOAA website or for more detailed input on deep sea coral please go here.

An Economic Impact (or cost to the fishery) is basically the effect of an event, policy change, in this case closure of a fishery area, on the associated economy. This is often stated in a stagnant figure that represents a yearly impact value to the business; if done properly this figure will represent value lost throughout the entire supply chain (vessel to consumer) as well as other associated losses incurred by shore side infrastructure, such as fuel, bait, ice, marine service etc… If any, NOAA has only presented cursory impact figures in vessel landing dollars, which is approximately understating impacts by 7 times the true economic damages to the economy. These figures can vary by fishery depending on the level of value added to the product as it travels down the supply chain but 7x is a good bell weather figure for now until NOAA provides us with the real figures. The important piece to note is these are real tangible values of loss to fisherman and our shore side community that are very measurable.

Often there is confusion by fishery managers about how to interpret economic impacts. All too often they think the decision should be made based on the relative impact to the industry but in reality, the decision should be made according to the net economic value the policy change will provide. Economic value is based on a basic calculation of how much benefit does the policy decision generate vs how much does the policy decision cost or the Economic Impact to the industry, therefore simply stated:

Economic Value = Benefit (value of corals) – Cost (value lost is the fishery or Economic Impact)

If the policy change produces a net positive economic value, then it should be perceived as good for our nation as a whole, whereas if it is negative, not good for our nation as a whole.

Now let’s look at how we value the benefit of the deep-sea coral. In the literature, there is mention of market values and values to the ecosystem which could someday be measurable but as it is today neither of these values are relevant to economic value or should be referenced without peer reviewed research that shows relative quantitative figures. True market values for corals are basically irrelevant considering it is not legal to harvest and sell corals for any purpose. The ecosystem value is something we all want to understand more about but arguably no true linkages have been proven where we can estimate the economic value they represent. Current studies indicate that deep sea coral is considered “Facultative Habitat” and not “Essential Fish Habitat,” therefore the absence of this habitat does not result in extinction of the species in question.

There has been considerable mention of market values, such as the value associated with people viewing deep sea coral on the Discovery Channel, and the revenue generated from this represents a true market value for preservation of the coral. Well, I agree completely, that is a true market value but what about the market value associated with the preservation of the fisherman. How much money do you think the Deadliest Catch or other commercial fishing shows on the Discovery Channel generate? I am not sure, but it definitely generates more than deep sea coral viewing shows. If this value is being represented on one side of the value equation (coral value) why is it not represented on the other side (fishery value)?

The value or benefits associated with deep sea coral for all intents and purposes are considered non-market values which are calculated based on value derived by people’s desire for them to exist. Non-market values are soft values based on what people say they are willing to pay or prefer given a set of choices. These values are often criticized because they frequently overstate true values of what people will actually pay in a real market environment. The use of the term existence value, which you see throughout the literature presented, often refers to these non-market valuation methods which may be useful to determine people’s preference but is grossly inadequate in determining value.

Everyone you met in Boston on June 16 cares about setting up a certain level of protections for these deep-sea corals. I would even go to the extent that we may be able to come to mutual agreement on certain zones that would optimize protection of coral while causing minimal impact to the fishery. As a US regulator, I would urge you to consider only the facts that can be demonstrated through sound peer reviewed science and proven quantifiable economic valuation methods. The impacts of these offshore closures on the deep sea red crab fishery and other offshore fisheries are substantially greater than benefits generated by the coral conservation measure being carried out. Even if you were to consider down the road that there could be increased ecosystem values, a decision to close this area to the deep sea red crab fishery is not a fair and equitable decision. It makes no reasonable sense to implement measures that would create impacts that would affect such a large portion of this fishery. This is a small fishery that has been harvested responsibly and made every effort to participate in discussions and share information. It is an exceptional fishery in the United States in that it is very environmentally sound and has gone through the MSC certification process. I would argue if these National Monument protections must go into place for political or legal reasons, regardless of the unsubstantiated economic valuation equation, the deep sea red crab fishery should be exempt from this rule based on sheer economic hardship.

Best Regards,
Michael Carroll

Jim Lovgren: Managers responsible for summer flounder mismanagement

Fisherman Jim Lovgren

August 9, 2017 — The following was submitted to Saving Seafood by Mr. Jim Lovgren:

Earlier this year New Jersey was found to be out of compliance by the Atlantic States Marine Fishery Commission (ASMFC) in regard to the proposed recreational catch specifications for summer flounder, or fluke. The ASMFC, which jointly manages summer flounder with the Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC), had recommended an increase in the recreational size limit for summer flounder to 19 inches for New Jersey. New Jersey fishery management representatives balked at that proposal and instead presented an alternative proposal that would keep the size limit at the present 18 inches but with a shorter season which would still meet the same conservation goals as the Commission’s plan.

The Commission denied this alternative and declared New Jersey out of compliance, an action that would result in the shutdown of the summer flounder fishery, both recreational and commercial, sometime later this summer. Unfairly, this shutdown would have occurred after the recreational season was over, and would only impact New Jersey’s commercial fishermen, who are already struggling with a 50% cut in their quota over the last two years.

New Jersey appealed the ASMFC’s finding of non-compliance to U.S. Department of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who on July 11th announced that he agreed with New Jersey, and found its proposed specifications would meet the mandated conservation goals as well as the Commission’s regulations would. The Commission responded with a “sky is falling” press release objecting to the Secretary’s decision, and setting up New Jersey as the fall guy for the so-called collapse of the stock.

Even though I firmly disagree with the assertion that the summer flounder stock is in trouble, fishery managers need to examine their past mistakes in managing the species. It is their mismanagement that has caused the recreational industry to target only the largest breeders in the biomass, killing the large females that produce the most viable eggs, while at the same time causing millions of fluke to be discarded dead every year because they do not meet the stringent length requirements.

Fifteen years ago, as a member of the MAFMC, I stated that the constant increasing of the recreational size limit was at some point going to do more damage than good. I said then that I believe that once you reach a size limit of 16 or more inches that the effects of discarding would nullify any effect a higher limit had on reducing the catch. At that time, with a possession size limit of 16 inches, I estimated a five-to-one discard-to-catch rate. That has since climbed to twenty-to-one in some areas, meaning that to catch a single “keeper” an angler will discard 19 smaller fish.

Obviously many of those twenty fish will die, and the National Marine Fishery Service is sticking with a 10% mortality rate for those discards. I personally know of nobody who believes that percentage to be correct, and mortality may well be as high as 50%.

Regardless of what the real mortality rate is, at 10% with a twenty-to-one keeper rate would lead to millions of dead fish annually, and hundreds of thousands of disaffected anglers, who now disregard the regulations because they find them ridiculous. I urged the Council/Commission to do the math and to find the number where discard mortality negates any benefits from increasing the size limit. They never did.

I have been commercial fishing for over forty years and summer flounder is my primary target. The stock reached a historical high about five years ago, and has since declined slightly according to my fishing experience. The last two years I’ve noted a small decline in my catch per unit of effort (CPUE), but this year I have seen the best recruitment of 14 and 15 inch fish I have seen in at least five years. This past month my CPUE has been the best ever, resulting in short day trips of 5 hours dock to dock for my 500 pound trip limit: one two-hour tow, and go home. The two-month season lasted two weeks thanks to the ease of catch, combined with the recent reductions in quota. The summer flounder stock is still near the historic high level of spawning stock biomass, yet the fishing industry is allowed to catch only 20% of the landings that were common 35 years ago with a lower spawning stock biomass.

There is no shortage of summer flounder, only some angry stock assessment scientists who’re still mad that the fishing industry hired their own scientist a few years back to do his own independent stock assessment using the same NMFS data. The scientist, Dr. Maunder, discovered the science was wrong. Coincidentally the fishing industry has hired their own scientists on the east coast for two other fisheries, scallops and monkfish. In both those fisheries the Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s stock assessment science was found to be inaccurate, resulting in a higher quota for the species. So it seems like there is a pattern regarding the NEFSC that indicate the quotas have been set too low.

This brings up the National Academy of Science’s review of all of the fishery management plans that underwent rebuilding after being found to be overfished since the Sustainable Fisheries Act was implemented in 1996. They discovered that in the whole country twenty stocks underwent rebuilding plans that were later found to have not needed them, causing reductions in quota, closures, and putting people out of business. Amazingly, the study found that of those twenty stocks ten of the wrong assessments originated in the NEFSC. There are 6 Fishery Science Centers in the U.S. and no other one had more than two mistakes. Not included in the study were butterfish and menhaden, which were erroneously declared overfished after the study was concluded, which were also wrongly assessed by the NEFSC. That makes 12 out of 22 stocks wrongly assessed by the NEFSC, which is clear incompetence in anybody’s book. These mistakes cost the American public hundreds of millions of dollars, yet no one was held accountable, and the results were swept under the rug.

A decade before the National Academy of Science study, “Trawlgate” occurred, where it was discovered that a trawl survey vessel had been towing their net around for at least two annual surveys with one tow cable shorter than the other. As a result, a trawl survey advisory group was formed, of which I was a member, and designed a new net for the new survey vessel that was soon to be deployed. This net was going to use two different sweeps, a large “rock hopper” sweep for the Gulf of Maine with 12 inch rubber “cookies,” while a smaller 4 inch “cookie” sweep would be used in the Georges Bank and Mid Atlantic regions due to their sand/ mud bottom habitat. The 4 inch cookie sweep is the industry standard size and is designed to catch flatfish and other demersal species. The large rock hopper just rolls over flatfish.

At the same time, the NEFSC cancelled their annual winter trawl survey which was designed to catch flatfish, explaining that by using the new 4 inch cookie sweep in the spring and fall surveys they should get accurate data on flatfish. Within months of the winter survey cancellation they decided that they would only use the large rock hopper sweep throughout the whole of the survey area, resulting in the abandonment of the trawl survey advisory panel, as industry members quit in disgust.

With that track record in mind, we return to Dr. Maunder, who discovered that although summer flounder stock assessments were performed for over 40 years, no one noticed that males rarely grew bigger than 17 inches, and that fish bigger than 18 inches are almost all female. Not taking this important basic biological fact into consideration in doing a stock assessment is going to lead to very inaccurate spawning stock biomass numbers, and hence, another wrong assessment. How embarrassing, of course doing the science right resulted in an increased quota. NMFS has been trying to get those fish back ever since.

So congratulations to Secretary Ross for his well-reasoned decision. As for the Commission and the Council, get your act together and develop a management plan that does not target all the spawning stock biomass, while creating an enormous discard problem, think about a slot limit or total length, ideas that have been suggested for decades, and ignored.

About Mr. Jim Lovgren: Mr. Lovgren is the Captain and owner of the F/V Shadowfax out of Point Pleasant, New Jersey, targeting whiting, fluke, and squid. He is a third generation fisherman who was raised and still resides in Brick, New Jersey. Mr. Lovgren’s grandfather, who was a lifelong fisherman himself, came to New Jersey from Sweden after World War I. Mr. Lovgren has been active in fishery management issues for decades. He currently holds the position of the Director at the Fisherman’s Dock Cooperative, is a Board of Trustee member for Clean Ocean Action, is on the board of directors for the Garden State Seafood Association, and is President of the Ocean County Farm Bureau. Additionally, he has served as the Director of the New Jersey Seafood Harvesters’ Association. Mr. Lovgren has also served on several state and regional fishery advisory councils and served two terms on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. In addition to the various councils and boards he has served on, Mr. Lovgren has also presented on Fishing Responsibility for Dogfish at the Responsible Fishing Workshop in Providence, Rhode Island. In 2006, Mr. Lovgren received the Highliner Achievement Award for lifetime service to the fishing industry.

Under Trump, recreational anglers feel tide turning in their favor on red snapper

August 7, 2017 — WASHINGTON — It’s getting easier to snap up red snapper.

The sought-after game fish has been at the center of a years-long debate between environmentalists who want to protect the iconic species while it continues to rebuild from overfishing and recreational anglers who contend years of economically crippling restrictions have paid off and it’s time to go fishing again.

After eight years of policies under President Obama that emphasized protection, there’s now a rising tide of momentum under the Trump administration to loosen restrictions in the federal waters off the Southeastern United States. Already:

• Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in June expanded the recreational fishing season for red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico from three to 42 days.

• Legislation has been reintroduced in the House and Senate to give more say over red snapper management to Gulf Coast states, which are seen as more sympathetic to recreational anglers’ interests. Such bills are likely to get a friendly reception if they reach the president’s desk.

• And next month, the agency overseeing fishing restrictions in the South Atlantic is expected to lift a years-long ban on red snapper in 2018.

All of that delights anglers who feel the Obama administration ignored their arguments that red snapper had rebounded so well they were literally “tripping over” fish.

“I feel a whole lot better today than I did a year ago,” said Jeff Angers, president of the Louisiana-based Center for Sportfishing Policy, which advocates for the recreational fishing industry.

Read the full story at USA Today

Fishing managers to meet over Trump official’s flounder rule

July 31, 2017 — Interstate fishing regulators are meeting to discuss a Trump administration decision they say has the ability to jeopardize conservation of marine resources on the East Coast.

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission is meeting Tuesday in Alexandria, Virginia. The commission has disagreed recently with U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross over a decision he made about summer flounder fishing.

The commission announced in June it had found New Jersey out of compliance with management of the fishery.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at the New Jersey Herald

PRESS OF ATLANTIC CITY: One way or another, NJ victory in flounder fight won’t last long

July 31, 2017 — Several months of fighting over catch restrictions for summer flounder, a.k.a. fluke, culminated earlier this month in a striking victory for New Jersey fishing interests and their representatives.

Federal regulators wanted to cut the catch 30 percent by increasing the size of keeper fish an inch (to 19 inches in the ocean and nearby waters, 18 in Delaware Bay), imposing a daily limit of three fish and setting a 128-day season.

Since January, fishing groups such as the Jersey Coast Anglers Association and federal representatives have pushed to avert the restrictions, at least until a fresh assessment of the flounder stock can be made.

Rep. Frank LoBiondo and fellow delegates from New Jersey in January sent the first of four letters against the restrictions to Obama administration Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker. When that got nowhere, a letter went to her replacement in the Trump administration, Wilbur Ross … and then in April one to the chair of the House panel considering a LoBiondo-sponsored bill requiring a new stock assessment.

Read the full editorial at the Press of Atlantic City

Trump administration steps in on fishing limits, and the implications could ripple

July 25, 2017 — [Commerce Secretary Wilbur] Ross earlier this month dismissed the findings of the 75-year-old Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, which concluded that New Jersey was violating a conservation plan for summer flounder that all the other states in the compact approved. Many conservationists thought that New Jersey, while following protocols, was bowing to the fishing industry.

The decision, which effectively allows New Jersey to harvest more summer flounder, marked the first time the federal government had disregarded such a recommendation by the commission, and it drew a swift rebuke from state officials along the East Coast.

Officials in New Jersey, which has one of the region’s largest fluke populations, had drafted an alternative plan that they said would do more to protect the fishery, but it was rejected by the commission, whose scientists concluded the plan would result in nearly 94,000 additional fish being caught. Ross, who oversees the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, overruled the commission, allowing New Jersey to proceed.

“New Jersey makes a compelling argument that the measures it implemented this year, despite increasing catch above the harvest target, will likely reduce total summer flounder mortality in New Jersey waters to a level consistent with the overall conservation objective,” Chris Oliver, assistant administrator of fisheries at NOAA, wrote the commission in a letter on behalf of Ross.

“This is the first time that no one asked me for a formal recommendation,” said John Bullard, NOAA’s Greater Atlantic regional administrator. “The secretary’s decision goes against long-standing protocol, and there’s a cost to that.”  He added: “There’s a reason to have regional administrators, because their experience and knowledge is valuable in making decisions like this one. This is an unfortunate precedent.”

“Ross was brilliant in his decision,” said Jim Donofrio, executive director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance in New Jersey, which represents thousands of recreational fishermen across the country. “The Trump administration has challenged a broken fishery management system in this country, and I applaud them for doing it.”

Read the full story at the Boston Globe

NEW JERSEY: Freeholders Praise Washington’s Approval Of Flounder Limits

July 22, 2017 — The federal government’s decision to cap flounder fishing limits at levels favored by the state, county and local fishermen is a win for the entire Jersey Shore, Freeholder Director Joseph H. Vicari said.

“We are very pleased with this decision that maintains the limits that the state already imposes on daily flounder catches,” Vicari said.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) earlier this month affirmed New Jersey’s summer-flounder fishing size, bag limits and the length of the fishing season, meaning all rules adopted by the state earlier this year will remain in effect through early September.

The decision also won final approval from U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross.

In approving the state plan, Ross rejected a proposal to reduce the annual flounder haul by 34 percent and instead found that New Jersey’s existing rules are in compliance with the safe and sustainable management of summer flounder.

The Freeholders in April passed a resolution favoring the existing limits and rejecting the proposed 34 percent decrease, saying the change would have harmed the local tourism economy and done nothing to protect the flounder population.

Read the full story at Jersey Shore Online

Fishing Report: U.S., fisheries panel disagrees on flounder targets

July 20, 2017 — Wilbur Ross, the U.S. commerce secretary, notified the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) that he has found the State of New Jersey to be in compliance with the new Summer Flounder Fishery Management Plan. The decision circumvents the work of the commission that provides coastwide management of summer flounder (fluke) in our area.

“New Jersey makes a compelling argument that the measures it implemented this year, despite increasing catch above the harvest target, will likely reduce total summer flounder mortality in New Jersey waters to a level consistent with the overall conservation objective for the recreational fishery,” Ross stated in a letter to the commission.

In a press release last week, the ASMFC stated: “Based on the latest stock assessment information, summer flounder is currently experiencing overfishing. Spawning stock biomass has been declining since 2010 and is just 16 percent above the threshold. If the stock falls below the biomass threshold, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires the Council to initiate a rebuilding program, which could require more restrictive management measures.”

The Magnuson-Stevens Act puts fish first in this nation to ensure that fish stocks are rebuilt. Having more than 40 fish stocks successfully rebuilt proves the fish-first policy works. When decisions — such as the commerce secretary’s decision to allow New Jersey to make its own summer flounder regulations — are allowed, they put the interests of individual states first.

This is a recipe for disaster. States are subject to local political pressure to put local interests first, and the fish will take a back seat. The big concern with last week’s decision is that other states will decide to fish the way they want to regardless of what’s best for the fish, and we could end up with total chaos.

Read the full story at the Providence Journal

ASMFC Blasts Secretary Ross Decision on Summer Flounder in Favor of New Jersey’s Recreational Sector

July 18, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — In a stunning decision to grant New Jersey’s recreational summer flounder fishery a waiver from new regulations to conserve the stock, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross has shattered a 75-year practice of honoring the scientific process of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. The letter was written to Executive Director Robert Beal and signed by Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator NOAA Fisheries on July 11, 2017.

Oliver notes that the Atlantic Coastal Act’s compliance process rests on two criteria — whether or not New Jersey has failed to carry out its responsibility under the management plan and if so, whether the measures the state failed to implement are needed for conservation purposes of summer flounder.

Oliver further notes that if the Secretary determines that New Jersey has not been in compliance, the Act mandates that Ross declare a moratorium on that fishery.

“New Jersey makes a compelling argument that the measures it implemented this year, despite increasing catch above the harvest target, will likely reduce total summer flounder mortality in New Jersey waters to a level consistent with the overall conservation objective for the recreational fishery,” Oliver wrote.

“While there is some uncertainty about how effective the New Jersey measures will be, considering the information provided by the state, the Secretary has found that the measures are likely to be equivalent in total conservation as those required under Addendum XXVVIII. Therefore, the second criterion of the noncompliance finding is not met and it is unnecessary to implement a fishery moratorium in New Jersey waters in 2017,” Oliver wrote.

“The Commission is deeply concerned about the near‐term impact on our ability to end overfishing on the summer flounder stock as well as the longer‐term ability for the Commission to effectively conserve numerous other Atlantic coastal shared resources,” replied Commission Chair Douglas Grout of New Hampshire.

“The Commission’s finding of noncompliance was not an easy one. It included hours of Board deliberation and rigorous Technical Committee review, and represented, with the exception of New Jersey, a unanimous position of the Commission’s state members. Our decision was based on Technical Committee’s findings that New Jersey’s measures were not conservationally‐ equivalent to those measures in Addendum XXVIII and are projected to result in an additional 93,800 fish being harvested,” Grout added.

Based on the latest stock assessment information, summer flounder is currently experiencing overfishing. Spawning stock biomass has been declining since 2010 and is just 16% above the threshold.

But almost from the day Ross was confirmed as Secretary of Commerce, the political push to oppose further restrictions was underway.

On March 2, 2017, NJ governor Chris Christie “formally requested the new U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, to put a hold on severe restrictions on recreational summer flounder fishing adopted recently by a regional fisheries commission, a move that would effectively cripple the state’s fishing industry and have far-reaching impacts on the shore tourism economy,” read an announcement from NJ Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Bob Martin.

On June 23, Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr. (NJ-06) sent a letter to Ross asking him to consider New Jersey’s response to the ASMFC’s evaluation of the state’s compliance.

“I firmly believe that New Jersey is making every reasonable effort to chart a course forward that adequately balances conservation with the economic needs of fishermen and fishing communities, and I ask that you give the state’s approach a fair and thorough review,” said Pallone.

“New Jersey has proposed that the summer flounder size limit be decreased to 18 inches, with a 104-day fishing season and a 3 bag limit. The state is arguing that its summer flounder regulations reach conservation equivalency with federal regulations, and that its regulations will actually preserve the stock by reducing discard mortality,” Pallone told Ross.

“I respectfully request that you carefully consider the state’s arguments and technical data as you make your decision about whether to find New Jersey out of compliance. Imposing a moratorium on summer flounder fishing in New Jersey would have a devastating impact on the economies of coastal communities that rely on the recreational fishing industry in my Congressional district.

“Additionally, reaching that determination while there continue to be compelling technical and scientific reasons to question the initial decision to cut summer flounder quotas will further erode anglers’ trust in entities like ASMFC, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other fisheries management bodies,” he wrote.

The Commission has not “imposed a moratorium” on summer flounder fishing. Their changes affect the size limit and bag limit that can be taken by the rec sector in New Jersey.

Pallone also introduced a bill in Congress H.R. 1411 titled ‘‘Transparent Summer Flounder Quotas Act’’ simply to overturn the Commission’s tighter management tools for the recreational sector in New Jersey, and to continue the more relaxed regs through 2017 and 2018.

The vast majority of fishery‐independent surveys show rapidly declining abundance. Any increase in overall mortality puts the stock at risk for further declines and increases the probability of the stock becoming overfished.

If the stock falls below the biomass threshold, the Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires the Council to initiate a rebuilding program, which could require more restrictive management measures.

New Jersey was not the only state to be concerned about the impact of the approved measures to its recreational fishing community. Two other states submitted alternative proposals that were rejected in favor of the states equally sharing the burden of needed reductions. Those states, as well as other coastal states, implemented the approved measures in order to end overfishing and support the long‐ term conservation of the resource.

“The states have a 75‐year track record of working together to successfully manage their shared marine resources,” continued Chairman Grout.

“We are very much concerned about the short and long‐term implications of the Secretary’s decision on interstate fisheries management. Our focus moving forward will be to preserve the integrity of the Commission’s process, as established by the Atlantic Coastal Act, whereby, the states comply with the management measures we collectively agree upon. It is my fervent hope that three‐quarters of a century of cooperative management will provide a solid foundation for us to collectively move forward in achieving our vision of sustainably managing Atlantic coastal fisheries.”

The Commission is currently reviewing its options in light of Secretary Ross’s action, and the member states will meet during the Commission’s Summer Meeting in early August to discuss the implications of the Secretary’s determination on the summer flounder resource and on state/federal cooperation in fisheries management under the Atlantic Coastal Act.

Meanwhile, Commission members are working on applying a better data collection system for recreational catches that will allow a recalibration of historical catches. That information will be available in the spring of 2018. With that, a new stock assessment will be conducted in the fall of 2018 for a full suite of data to base future management decision on.

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission was formed by the 15 Atlantic coastal states in 1942 for the promotion and protection of coastal fishery resources. The Commission serves as a deliberative body of the Atlantic coastal states, coordinating the conservation and management of nearshore fishery resources, including marine, shell and diadromous species.

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

Ocean Conservancy sues over red snapper

July 18, 2017 — The Ocean Conservancy and Environmental Defense Fund filed a lawsuit on Monday suing the Department of Commerce for its decision to lengthen the federal red snapper season for recreational anglers from three days to 42. Environmentalists with the groups feel the change “sanctioned overfishing,” putting the rebuilding of the historically overfished red snapper fishery at risk, and violated the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).

“We’ve made great progress but we’re only about halfway through the rebuilding plan. You don’t stop taking antibiotics halfway through a prescription,” Chris Dorsett, vice president of conservation policy and programs, said in a press release.

The lawsuit, he said, is about protecting the longevity of the red snapper fishery.

The groups are arguing the mid-season change — which was advocated for by local elected officials — violated the MSA, which requires fishery managers to create and enforce annual catch limits that prevent overfishing. If the catch limit is exceeded, the excess catch is taken out of the allocated catch for the following year.

Red snapper is halfway through a 27-year rebuilding plan. Local fishermen report that it’s working, saying they are catching more and larger red snapper, which is why many found the three-day federal season insulting.

The result, though, is fish are being caught faster and the majority are actually being caught in state-managed waters, which was why the federal season was initially so conservative. When the Department of Commerce lengthened the season, they required the states to give up fishing days as part of the compromise.

Read the full story at the Panama City News Herald