Letter: Fishermen part of S-K grant process – NMFS Regional administrator John Bullard

130307_GT_ABO_BULLARD_1I need to respond to Mr. Parisi’s June 28 letter (click here) expressing concern that academics receive the majority Saltonstall-Kennedy (SK) Grant Program funding, leaving a limited amount for local fishermen. First, I would like to point out that competition for limited 2016 Saltonstall-Kennedy funds was stiff. Requests for SK funds always far exceed the resources available, and 2016 was no different. In 2016, $11 million was available for SK grants, but requests for funding exceeded $75 million. Of the 50 projects selected nationally, 22 projects were from our Greater Atlantic Region, totaling $4.6 million. While it is true that few fishermen submit applications by themselves to this highly competitive program, this does not mean that they and other fishing industry representatives are not involved. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Frequently they are partners in grant applications. Read the rest here 20:21

4 Responses to Letter: Fishermen part of S-K grant process – NMFS Regional administrator John Bullard

  1. borehead says:

    Submitted Comment by Jim Kendall

    Thanks for the response to Sam Parisi’s letter to the editor, re: the S-K funds John, but I would like to ask several questions regarding the funding itself, & the makeup of the review panels themselves. While I am somewhat familiar with the S-K funding process, & I realize that the members of these panels cannot be identified individually, I would like to inquire about the makeup of these review panels. That is, can you tell us how many fishermen were involved in the process, & what the makeup of the other members were?

    I would also like to learn what percentage of the total monies that were derived from seafood imports, were designated to be used for the S-K grant funding? I.e., what was the total amount of S-K funds derived for the past year, & what percentage was assigned to be used as part of the SK grants to the industry, & what percentage was retained by the NMFS/NOAA?

    Lastly, what is or was the actual breakdown percentage-wise of these funds?

    While I am sure that this information is available somewhere, the breakdown is seldom, if ever, forthcoming, & definitely not readily transparent!

    Thanks for your awaited response:

    Jim Kendall – NBSC

    July 11, 2016

    • Joel Hovanesian says:

      “I would also like to learn what percentage of the total monies that were derived from seafood imports, were designated to be used for the S-K grant funding? I.e., what was the total amount of S-K funds derived for the past year, & what percentage was assigned to be used as part of the SK grants to the industry, & what percentage was retained by the NMFS/NOAA?”

      Good luck getting this answer. Also this is the root of the problem. With this nation importing 93% of the seafood it consumes, if NOAA were to actually do something to to ratchet that number down to pre Magnusson numbers, probably between 20 or 30% what would the effect be on NOAA’s bottom line?
      As in all things that stink, just follow the money. And these tyrants stink to high heaven!!

      • borehead says:

        It does smell very badly. I think people would be shocked. Sam hit a nerve to get a response from John Bullard, which is another reason to be skeptical.

      • borehead says:

        Submitted Comment by Jim Kendall

        Jmknbsc just now

        @Joel Hovanesian @jmknbsc One thing to remember, is that as the percentage of seafood imports increase, so too does the products subject to import duties. With the reported percentage of imported seafood now at about 92%, so too, the import duties should have increased. However, as best as understood at this point (with new information hopefully about to be presented), the amount of these funds which were, by law, to be dedicated to the fishing industry, had declined over the years, while none of us were smart enough to realize, or catch it!

        Apparently, the fishing industry has continued to suffer losses both from the reduction of our harvests of the natural resources, & so too from the financial losses attributed to the reduction in the sharing process of the S-K bill. This is just one more reason that the Magnuson-Stevens Act, & fishery policies need to be amended!

        Jim Kendall – NBSC

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: