Search Results for: F/V Mary B II

F/V Mary B II: Coast Guard owes the public answers

It has been more than four years since the deadly capsizing of the crabbing vessel FV Mary B II while it attempted to cross the Yaquina River bar inbound in stormy weather, killing the skipper and two crew members as Coast Guard vessels were nearby. The captain had previously operated off New Jersey and wasn’t familiar with Pacific Coast conditions. At the time of the hearings, the lead Coast Guard officer said a report was expected before May 2020. However, almost four years have now elapsed since the hearing and the Coast Guard has not released its final investigation report publicly. >click to read< 11:42

F/V Mary B II: Why Coast Guard sluggishness?

It has been more than four years since the deadly capsizing of the crabbing vessel F/V Mary B II while attempting to cross the Yaquina Bay bar inbound in stormy weather on Jan. 8, 2019, killing the skipper and two crew members as Coast Guard vessels were nearby. A Coast Guard Marine Casualty Investigation board convened in Newport, May 13-17, 2019, and soon revealed the captain had alcohol and methamphetamine in his system and one crew member had cannabinoids. The captain had previously operated off New Jersey and wasn’t very familiar with Pacific Coast conditions. >click to read< 13:03  Search Results for F/V MARY B II

F/V Mary B II captain tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine

Coast Guard investigators revealed that the captain of the doomed fishing vessel Mary B II tested positive for methamphetamines and alcohol. Captain Stephen Biernacki registered 0.17 mg per liter of amphetamine and 0.50 mg per liter of meth, according to post mortem toxicology results. The alcohol level was 0:033g/dL. A five-member panel of Coast Guard investigators on Monday kicked off a multi-day hearing on the Jan. 8 capsizing that took the lives of Biernacki, of New Jersey, and crewmen Josh Porter of Toledo and James Lacey of New Jersey. >click to read<14:55

Coast Guard to begin public hearing for F/V Mary B II marine casualty investigation in Newport today

The Coast Guard is inviting media and public to attend a formal public hearing, which begins May 13, 2019, at Newport City Hall, to consider evidence related to the Mary B II marine casualty investigation. The hearing will focus on the capsizing of the commercial fishing vessel Mary B II, which lead to the deaths of three fishermen at the entrance of Yaquina Bay in Newport on Jan. 8, 2019. The hearing is live streamed. >click to read/links<08:16

F/V Mary B II – Public hearing slated on fatal capsizing beginning at 8 a.m. on May 13

An investigation into the fatal capsizing of a boat off the coast of Newport remains ongoing. A public hearing will be held at Newport City Hall beginning at 8 a.m. on May 13. The hearing will focus on the capsizing of the commercial fishing vessel Mary B II, which led to the deaths of three fishermen at the entrance of Yaquina Bay in Newport. On Jan. 8, the three fishermen were approaching the Yaquina Bay Bar aboard the 42-foot Mary B II when it capsized without warning, tossing two overboard into the rough seas, according to a Coast Guard. >click to read< The hearing will be streamed live each day >click here to listen< 11:56

F/V Mary B II – Coast Guard seeks additional information for investigation

The Coast Guard continues the marine casualty investigation of the fishing vessel Mary B II, which capsized off Newport, Oregon, on Jan. 9, 2019, and resulted in the loss of the three crew members and the vessel. A public hearing will be held in Newport around mid-Spring and it is highly encouraged that anyone with information pertaining to the loss of the Mary B II provide it to the investigation team at [email protected]. >click to read<14:08

F/V Mary B II: Coast Guard to investigate capsizing on Yaquina Bay Bar in Newport, Ore.

The Coast Guard is investigating the capsizing of the commercial fishing vessel Mary B II, which lead to the deaths of three fishermen at the entrance of Yaquina Bay in Newport, Oregon, Tuesday night. The three fishermen were inbound the Yaquina Bay Bar aboard the 42-foot vessel Mary B II when it capsized without warning tossing two of the fishermen overboard into the stormy Pacific Ocean with reported waves of 14 to 16 feet with occasional waves of 20 feet.Prior to the Mary B II capsizing its crew requested a Coast Guard escort across the Yaquina Bay Bar.,,, >click to read<

Coast Guard seeks additional information for Mary B II investigation

February 22, 2019
U.S. Coast Guard 13th District
[email protected]

SEATTLE — The Coast Guard continues the marine casualty investigation of the fishing vessel Mary B II, which capsized off Newport, Oregon, on Jan. 9, 2019, and resulted in the loss of the three crew members and the vessel.

A public hearing will be held in Newport around mid-Spring and it is highly encouraged that anyone with information pertaining to the loss of the Mary B II provide it to the investigation team at [email protected].

Please ensure “F/V MARY B II” is in the subject line of your email. Questions may be sent to the same address. All emails will be read and responded to as time permits.

A future release will contain the date, time, venue and schedule of witnesses for the hearing. Upon completion of the investigation, the Coast Guard will issue a report that will include the collected evidence, established facts, causal analysis and conclusions, and possible safety recommendations to prevent similar incidents.

Initial release can be found here: https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHSCG/bulletins/22742c9
Investigation announcement available here: https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHSCG/bulletins/2287b21

-USCG-

Fishing Vessel Capsized off Race Point; Four Crew Members Rescued

Noah Santos and Malcolm Hunter were working on the docks at Flyer’s Boat Rentals on Tuesday, May 17 when the mayday call dropped around 10:10 a.m. A lobster boat had capsized off Race Point, and a crew of four needed help. The Coast Guard plane circled overhead, and the pair of tow boats zeroed in on the four crewmen: Capt. Glenn Rorro, Chris Gibson, Giacomo Luke, and Braden Wilson. That day, as the F/V Angela & Mary III took on water, the life raft refused to cooperate, said Rorro. It had failed to inflate automatically, and, to make matters worse, it wasn’t tied on properly. Untethered, the raft drifted away from the boat. But Luke jumped into the 49-degree water — without his survival suit. >click to read< 09:34

Come Rain and High Water – People will drive for hours, brave a deluge for a John’s Bay Boat Company launch

Some people go to the opera. In South Bristol, Maine, people go to a John’s Bay Boat launch. John’s Bay Boat Company owner Peter Kass has been building his traditional plank-on-frame lobster boats from a waterfront property in South Bristol, Maine, for nearly 40 years.,, Inside the bay, where until recently F/V Twilight II had filled the shed to within inches of the doors, tables were covered with donuts and coffee, but also Kahlua, Prosecco, Bloody Marys, bourbon, rum, Champagne, and all kinds of other things. The fruit salad was basically untouched. photos, happy people, >click to read< 08:15

BREAKING: Fishing boat from Deadliest Catch: Dungeness Cove” TV show capsizes in Newport

A commercial fishing boat that was part of the “Deadliest Catch” spinoff series capsized around 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday. Coast Guard officials said the Mary B. II, one of the boats from the “Deadliest Catch: Dungeness Cove” Discovery television show, requested a Coast Guard escort across the bar in Newport because the bar was restricted due to 12 to 15-foot waves. During that escort, the boat capsized and all three crew members ended up in the water.
The Coast Guard is currently attempting a rescue. >click to read<09:10

Timeline – Surf Rescue off Newport’s North Jetty – F/V Mary B 2 capsized – >click to read<

Coast Guard confirms three fishermen dead after boat capsizes near Yaquina Bay – >click to read<12:27

Fishing Industry, NEFSC Team Up for Gulf of Maine Longline Study

The Cooperative Gulf of Maine (GOM) Bottom Longline Survey is now underway for the fourth consecutive year. Two Massachusetts commercial longline fishing vessels and staff from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s (NEFSC) Cooperative Research Branch will be working in the Gulf of Maine over the next three weeks. They began staging October 5 on the 50-foot F/V Mary Elizabeth from Scituate and 40-foot F/V Tenacious II, which departed from Sesuit Harbor in East Dennis October 10 for the first of several two-to-four day trips. click here to read the story 14:28

Nature Conservancy EM project

January 22, 2016
John Bullard, Regional Administrator
National Marine Fisheries Service
Northeast Regional Office
55 Great Republic Drive
Gloucester, MA 01930
Dear Mr. Bullard:
Attached is an application for an Exempted Fishing Permit to implement an electronic monitoring program on fishing vessels in the New England Multispecies fishery in Fishing Year 2016.  The Nature Conservancy has partnered with the Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen’s Alliance, the Maine Coast Fishermen’s Association, and the Gulf of Maine Research Institute; and fishermen from Northeast Fishery Sector XI, the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector, and the Maine Coast Community Sector; and has worked closely with NMFS staff from GARFO and the NEFSC Fisheries Sampling Branch, to develop electronic monitoring in the region.  This program has been awarded funding by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and is scheduled to begin May 1st, 2016.
Thank you for your consideration of this application.
Sincerely,
Christopher McGuire
Marine Program Director
cc:
Ryan Silva
Barry Clifford
Brett Alger
Amy Martins
Nichole Rossi
Application for an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP):
To conduct experiments in the area of authority of the New England Fishery Management Council:
Application date:  January 22, 2016
Project Title:  Electronic Monitoring for New England’s Groundfish Fishery
Project timing:  Fishing year 2016; May 1st, 2016 thru April 30th 2017
EFP Primary Contact:
Christopher McGuire, Marine Program Director
The Nature Conservancy in Massachusetts
99 Bedford Street, 5th Floor, Boston MA, 02111
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: 617-532-8351
Project partners:
Maine Coast Fishermen’s Association/Maine Coast Community Sector:
Ben Martens, 207- 619-1755, [email protected]
NEFS Sector XI & NEFS Sector V: Daniel Salerno, 401-932-0070, [email protected]
Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen’s Alliance/Georges Bank Fixed Gear Sector: Claire Fitz-Gerald, 847-721-8186, [email protected]
Gulf of Maine Research Institute: Mark Hager, 508-269-8138,  [email protected]
The Nature Conservancy in Maine: Geoffrey Smith, 207-607-4805, [email protected]
Project Summary:
The Nature Conservancy, in partnership with the Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen’s Alliance, the Maine Coast Fishermen’s Association, and the Gulf of Maine Research Institute; and fishermen from the Northeast Fishery Sectors XI & V, the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector, and the Maine Coast Community Sector; is requesting an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) to implement an electronic monitoring (EM) program on groundfish fishing vessels in the New England Multispecies fishery in Fishing Year 2016 (FY16).  The EFP would authorize the conduct of a small-scale EM monitoring program to refine proposed standards for a comprehensive EM program.  This project has been awarded federal funding from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) to support EM implementation in FY16. The project will install EM equipment, and document the first year of an operational electronic monitoring program that allows groundfish sector vessels to verify area fished and regulated groundfish discards by species, for the purposes of monitoring sector utilization of annual catch entitlement. Participating vessels will use EM instead of an At-Sea Monitor (ASM), and in addition to a NEFOP observer, to verify regulated groundfish discards on those groundfish trips selected for observer coverage.
This EFP is requested for a one year period beginning May 1, 2016. During the course of the EFP, we will continue our efforts to improve the functionality of EM monitoring systems and to refine and optimize fish handling protocols by participating fishermen. These efforts will support continued development of EM systems as a tool to support the transition to a VTR audit or optimized-retention monitoring approach, rather than the 100% video review approach outlined in this EFP application.
Specific Objectives Include:
1. Demonstrate that EM can provide accurate third-party accounting of regulated groundfish discards and fishing information (date/time/location) for the purpose of sector ACE monitoring.
2. Incentivize and demonstrate accurate catch eVTR reporting by participating fishermen.
3. Refine fish handling protocols to ensure accurate identification and measurement of all discarded regulated groundfish species.
4. Refine protocols for fish where species, disposition, or measurement of an individual cannot be derived from video (e.g. poor video quality, obstructed view, crew mishandling, system failure)
5. Develop an expedient feedback-loop between video reviewer and captain/crew for accelerated learning.
6. Inform the development of pass/fail criteria for discard summary file compared to eVTR and appropriate audit percentages for future audit approach to EM.
7. Develop vessel monitoring plan (VMP) compliance metrics and sector penalty schedule.
8. Compare EM discard reports with NEFOP discard reports on the same trip.
9. Develop protocols for determining vessel-specific discard rates, rather than assumed discard rates based on strata currently used
Background and Rationale for Research:
Vision for and Importance of Electronic Monitoring: Long term, we envision Sector groundfish    vessels throughout New England operating with approved EM systems to affordably meet their catch monitoring requirements. Vessels will utilize traditional groundfish gear, such as:  sink gillnet, benthic longline, rod and reel/handgear, or otter trawl. Regional and federal groundfish data management systems will have evolved to meet the needs of this program and will incorporate data and analyses into decision-making. The groundfish industry, NGOs, the private sector, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will collaborate to ensure the success of this program.
We believe that EM can improve catch accountability, and that without improvements in catch accountability across the fleet, presently depleted stocks will continue to struggle to rebuild. EM is a promising tool for groundfish sectors to adopt in order to improve accountability at a manageable cost. EM can be used to validate fisheries-dependent data for use in the management of our fish stocks (Stanley,2011. Stanley 2014, Pria, 2014), use these data for real-time decision-making, and to eventually incorporate these data into robust stock assessments. EM, supplemented with biological
data collected by NEFOP observers, offers an important opportunity to improve our existing monitoring program and allow fishermen to serve as the primary stewards of the marine resources they depend upon.
New England fishermen have piloted and supported the use of EM technology for 12 years (McElderry, 2004). All participants in these pilot studies hold a strong belief that a successful EM program can provide a cost-effective, less obtrusive, safer, individually accountable and more accurate system of real-time catch and effort information. Given the groundswell of national support for EM, the ongoing economic crisis in the New England groundfish fishery, and limited government funding to meet observer coverage requirements, there is the need for this solution now more than ever.
Some EM protocols can best be refined during an operational fishing activity.  This EFP will test protocols as follows:
1.  Catch handling:
a. When length is indeterminate because of inadequate handling.
b. When unable to determine if discarded or not.
2. Unusable video:
a. Feedback to a vessel operator if catch handling or cleaning is required.
3. Video review and discard estimation
a. Identify discarded species and document length of individual fish:
i. Distinguish flatfish species.
b. Under EFP, data from useable hauls used to calculate rates.
c. Under a large scale program, data used for eVTRs comparisons.
d. Video review rates for future audit approach.
Project Outcomes
A successful project will result in 12-20 sector groundfish vessels from 3-5 sectors operating with EM systems in lieu of human at-sea monitors in FY 2016, with additional vessels opting into the program in future years. This EM program will be supported by NMFS data management systems, which will have evolved to meet electronic monitoring requirements through the ongoing ‘fishery data modernization initiative’ and will be capable of incorporating data and analyses into timely decision making, as described in the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office and Northeast Fisheries Science Center Electronic Technology Implementation Plan.
If successful, this project will result in refined data collection, review, and reporting protocols that will resolve several of the outstanding questions that have hampered the wide scale implementation of EM, which are outlined above.
Methods
1) Scope
a) This EFP is effective while the permitted vessel is fishing on an “EFP trip”, defined as all three below criteria being met:
i) any groundfish sector trip that results in sector ACE accounting and;
ii) where the trip has been selected for an At-Sea Monitor through the Pre-Trip Notification System or equivalent  process and;
iii) the vessel is identified as a participating vessel in the EFP and has an operational EM system  installed.
b) Vessels may additionally run EM systems for training or testing on non-‘EFP trips’.  The data from these trips will be the private property of the vessel and will not be archived or required to be shared with NMFS, but may be used by the project team for analysis
c) The Regional Administrator may terminate this permit or remove a participant by any of the following:
i) At the request of the EFP holder;
ii) The Regional Administrator determines it is necessary to issue amended EFPs containing additional or revised terms and conditions;
iii) Superseding Federal regulations become effective;
iv) NMFS finds that the EFP has unintended impacts;
v) NMFS finds that an EFP participant no longer meets the eligibility criteria; and/or,
vi) NMFS finds that an EFP participant failed to comply, in a more than minor way, with the terms and conditions of the permit.
2) Definitions:
a) Regulated groundfish: The 13 species which will be enumerated by video reviewers (cod,  haddock, yellowtail flounder, pollock, American plaice, witch flounder, white hake, windowpane flounder, Atlantic halibut, winter flounder, redfish, Atlantic wolffish, and ocean pout)
b) Downloaded EM Data: Unmodified video and sensor data archived or placed on a server from the original EM vessel hard drive.
c) Processed EM Data: Video and sensor data that have been analyzed using EM software and includes both downloaded data and data annotations
d) eVTR: electronic vessel trip report.
e) EM discard summary report: Report submitted to GARFO of weight and piece count of regulated groundfish discards by species, gear type, and location and including other pertinent metadata.
f) EM Feedback memo: Feedback directly to vessel from EM provider. Designed to improve catch handling and data collection performance. This does not include catch information.
g) VMP: Vessel Monitoring Plan: Unique vessel plan, accepted by NMFS, describing in detail the EM system specifications and catch handling procedures. See section 3(c).

3) General requirements:
a) EM system installed by ‘accepted’ service provider. See NMFS “EM system specifications” memo for guidance.
b) Installation. The EFP participant must enable installation and operation of the EM system and associated equipment, including providing suitable camera mounts, power supply, wire runs and bulkhead thru-fittings, lighting, and fittings for hydraulic lines to enable connection of a pressure transducer (where applicable).
c) VMP: The vessel must have and adhere to a NMFS-accepted VMP on board the vessel at all times while fishing under this EFP. On behalf of the EFP participant, the EM service provider will prepare a draft VMP for each vessel and submit it to NMFS for acceptance. A standard VMP which includes many of the following will be submitted in advance of the vessel specific VMPs.  The VMP shall include descriptions and diagrams (as required) of the following:
i) General vessel information including the vessel name, gear type(s), home port, captain(s) name, and hull number;
ii) Vessel layout;
iii) The number and location and rationale for placement of cameras and corresponding views;
iv) Location of lighting, control center, GPS, sensors, monitor, and other EM equipment;
v) Frame rates, image resolution, frequency of data logging, sensor trigger threshold values, and other EM system specifications;
vi) Description (or image) of the location and specs of the measuring strip or grid;
vii) List of regulated groundfish to be passed over measuring strip and discarded in view of designated cameras. All other allowable discards will be discarded at one of the designated discard control points within full view of the camera;
viii) Instructions for catch handling, including designated discard control points within camera  view and procedures for measuring discards;
ix) Instructions for EM system operation;
x) Instructions for completing a logged EM system test and interpreting the results (e.g. hard drive space available, system errors etc.);
xi) Instructions for handling system malfunctions and points of contact for service provider;
xii) Instructions for removal, replacement and shipping of hard drives;
xiii) Types of errors – critical and non-critical;
xiv) Informational material collaboratively designed between EM provider and FSB will be disseminated by FSB for observers, providing advice on how and where to conduct observer activities there by reducing interference with EM system operations;
xv) Notes and changes made to VMP and system configuration, including date modified.

These provisions can be modified through a revised VMP submitted by the EFP holder and accepted by NMFS, in consultation with the EM service provider.
d) Maintenance: The vessel will schedule time as needed with the EM service provider for installation, catch handling feedback, equipment maintenance and service.
e) Signed agreement between fisherman and the Sector to adhere to established processes and timelines for the EM program
4) Before Trip:
a) The captain or owner will enter their intent to conduct a groundfish sector trip through PTNS as required: if selected for an ASM, the vessel will use the EM system instead of carrying an At Sea Monitor.
i) If selected for a NEFOP observer, vessel intends to run the EM system to facilitate direct   comparisons, but this will not be an ‘EFP trip’ and NEFOP collected information will be used for catch accounting.
ii) If not selected for a monitor or an observer, the vessel will not be required to run the EM system for sector ACE accounting purposes, but may do so for training or project development.
b) System Test
i) A system test will be conducted and logged before leaving the dock at the start of every fishing trip, even on non-EFP trips.
(1) If system test shows a failure on a non-selected day the fisherman must notify service provider as   soon as practicable.
(2) If system test shows a failure on an EM day see section c) below.
ii) The vessel operator must also ensure that the system has adequate memory to record the entire trip before departing port. Information regarding storage capacity and checking is located in the VMP.
c) System Malfunction
i) If EM system malfunctions before the start of an EFP trip
(1) Call EM service provider’s 24 hour technical support number immediately.
(2) The EM service provider technician will troubleshoot, and if not resolved will determine if the malfunction is critical or non-critical. A critical malfunction is one that prevents the data collection objectives of the EFP from being adequately monitored. Specific errors are listed in the VMP.
(a) Non-Critical EM System Malfunction: If the malfunction cannot be fixed in a timely fashion, the vessel operator may depart on the scheduled trip, but must follow the EM service provider’s instructions to adjust operations for that trip, if necessary. An example of a non-critical malfunction might be a
failed pressure sensor.
(b) Critical EM System Malfunction: If the malfunction is critical and not repairable, the vessel must contact NMFS FSB for a waiver.  If granted a waiver, the vessel can make that trip, and subsequent trips granted a waiver or selected for NEFOP coverage in PTNS, until the vessel is again selected for EM coverage.  The vessel may not sail the next ‘EFP trip’ until the equipment is deemed functional by the EM service provider.
(3) Inform program manager and/or Sector Manager
5) During EM Trip:
a) EM System on and operational
i) Operator is responsible for keeping all cameras clean and camera view unobstructed at all times, as per VMP.
ii) Operator ensures adequate and functioning deck lighting from 30 minutes before sunset to 30 minutes after sunrise.
b) System Malfunction
i) If a system malfunction occurs at sea the operator will attempt to contact service provider’s help line by phone or by email. See procedures in Section 4 (c)
ii) If a critical malfunction cannot be resolved then trip can be completed, but may be considered unobserved by NMFS.  The   vessel may not sail on their next ‘EFP trip’ until the system is deemed functional by the EM provider.
c) Catch Handling:
i) Operator will ensure catch is handled according to the VMP.
ii) Groundfish species
(1) All regulated groundfish discards must be passed through the dedicated discard measuring areas specified in the VMP. All fish to be discarded will be returned to the sea as soon as practicable once data collection has occurred and in view of camera.
(2) All hake species (white, red, silver and offshore) will be landed.
(3) Legal Unmarketable Fish (LUMF): vessel will be allowed to discard these at sea as long as this exemption is listed in the vessel’s sector specific LOA.  All LUMF will be discarded in view of the groundfish discard camera view and will be included in eVTR reports as discarded weights and piece counts.
(4) Other specific catch handling protocols, designed to facilitate correct species identification, will be detailed in the VMP.
iii) Non-groundfish species
(1) Species other than regulated groundfish that are not passed through the dedicated discard measuring area or chute (e.g. dogfish, skates) will be discarded in view of a camera at one of the designated discard control points, as specified by the VMP.
iv) Prohibited species (Marine mammals, sea turtles, seabirds, etc.) may be discarded per the VMP. A Marine Mammal Authorization Program mortality/injury report form must also be completed for interactions with any marine mammals (50 CFR 229.4). Forms are available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/interactions/mmap_reporting_form.pdf
d) Reporting
i) Operator will report haul level catch and discard weights on eVTR for all fish, in addition to all other required fields.
ii) In addition, operator will report haul level piece counts on eVTR for all regulated groundfish discards to facilitate video comparison.
6) After trip:
Operator will provide the EM hard drive to service provider for review (by mail or to technician as described in VMP) the next business day after landing, unless they are conducting back to back trips, in which case it will be delivered the next business day after consecutive trips. This schedule may be   revised mid-year if appropriate.
a) eVTRs will be submitted to NMFS and Sector Manager as currently required.  eVTRs will not be provided to the EM reviewers.
b) Providers will log into PTNS system and note if a trip scheduled for EM was not completed.
7) Video review for Catch Accounting:
a) Prior to video analysis, NEFOP/EM specific discard rates will be used for initial catch accounting on EM selected trips.
b) Metadata: The reviewer will document any time gaps, system failures or missing data.
c) Sample rate: 100% of the video collected on ‘EFP trips’ will be reviewed to account for all regulated groundfish species discards.
d) Haul data: Haul end location, time, and date will be recorded for each haul. Haul end is when the last piece of gear is retrieved onto the vessel.
e) Video data: The reviewer will provide feedback on image quality of the haul (e.g., high quality, medium quality, low quality, unusable).  A description of these quality levels will be in the report.
f) Discard data: The reviewer will document the number of each regulated groundfish species discarded and obtain a length for each fish discarded from the video. Length-Weight Relationships For 74 Species Collected During NEFSC Research Vessel Bottom Trawl Surveys, 1992-99 (Wigley, 2003) will be used to convert the length to weight for each fish. Any protected species interactions will be reported.
g) Observed trip passing criteria
i) In order for a completed trip to be considered an ‘observed’ trip most of the hauls
(specified below) must have usable video quality (see 7e).
ii) NMFS will use EM data that has “passed” for calculating discards/rates on unobserved hauls/trips
iii) To begin the year, 60% of the hauls (rounded up) from a trip must pass to consider the trip observed:
• 2 hauls (both must pass), 3 hauls (2 must pass, 66%), 4 hauls (3 must pass, 75%), 5 hauls (3 must pass, 60%), etc.
iv) On or around September 1 NMFS and the project team will evaluate a shift to a standard of 70% of the hauls must pass to consider the trip observed:
• 2 hauls (both must pass), 3 hauls (all must pass), 4 hauls (3 must pass, 75%), 5 hauls (4 must pass, 80%), 6 hauls (5 must pass, 83%), 7 hauls (5 must pass, 71%).
v) Trips that fail these criteria will be considered unobserved for the purposes of catch accounting.
8) EM Reporting
a) EM Feedback Memo: The provider will send an EM feedback memo for each reviewed trip, at the time of review, to the sector manager and vessel captain providing specific feedback on each trip, including any recommended catch handling or system changes.
b) EM Discard Summary Report: Provider will submit an EM discard summary report to NMFS within 14 days of the trip landing.
c) If an ‘EFP trip’ fails (see sec. 7g) the EM provider will contact FSB to make necessary changes.
9) Other
a) Video handling
i) Hard drives will be tamper evident to preserve chain of custody.  Specific details of chain of custody handling will be provided by each service provider.
ii) Once the hard drive is received by the service provider the downloaded video and data from the hard drive will be copied, and the copy will be used for data processing or video enhancements.
b) Video Ownership, Access and Archiving
i) Fishermen own their video.
i) Upon completion of video review the vessel operator, vessel owner, and sector manager will be able to view the video, upon request.
ii) Until specific protocols are established the service provider will archive all downloaded video for three years from the trip end date.
iii) NMFS staff will have access to any and all video and sensor data upon request to the provider.  Once NMFS takes possession of these data it assumes responsibility of long-term storage. Specific process to be determined. The provider may retain a copy of NMFS requested video data.
c) Data Confidentiality. The fishing activities recorded under this permit are for the purpose of collecting catch information. Information about fishing activities from the EM system, including video, sensors, and GPS, will be treated as confidential, in the same manner as observer data, and consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
d) Discard rates:
i) NMFS will create EM specific discard rates within each sector, regardless of the number of vessels, using both EM and NEFOP reports.
ii) kAll will be estimated using NEFOP if available or eVTR information.
e) Prohibitions. It is unlawful and in violation of this EFP for any person to do any of the following while fishing under this EFP. Sector penalties and expulsion from the EFP will apply for these violations.
i) Take an ‘EFP trip’ with a vessel that does not have properly installed and functioning EM equipment, or a NMFS waiver.
ii) Tamper with, disconnect, damage, destroy, alter, or in any way distort, render useless, inoperative, ineffective, or inaccurate any component of the EM unit required by this EFP;
iii) Fail to provide: a continuous power supply to the EM unit or notice to the EM provider of any interruption in the power supply to the EM unit;
iv) Fail to deliver an EM hard drive and eVTR to provider.
f) Leaving the EFP: Participating vessels may leave the EFP, but cannot re-join in the same fishing year. Vessels will be removed from the EFP by the project team for repeated or egregious failures to comply with VMP.
g) Joining the EFP: The Project team can request that new vessels join this EFP during the fishing year.
Regulations from which exemptions are being requested:
50 CFR 648.87 (b)(1)(v) (B)
Rationale for exemption: EM program details are not in the approved sector operations plan, and the EM program and EM providers are not yet approved by NMFS.
B) Independent third-party monitoring program. Beginning in fishing year 2013 (May 1, 2013), a  sector must develop and implement an at-sea or electronic monitoring program to verify area fished, as well as catch and discards by species and gear type, and that is consistent with  the goals and objectives of groundfish monitoring programs at § 648.11(l). The details of any   at-sea or electronic monitoring program must be specified in the sector’s operations plan, pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(xi) of this section, and must meet the operational standards specified in paragraph (b)(5) of this section. Electronic monitoring may be used in place of actual observers if the technology is deemed sufficient by NMFS for a specific trip type based on gear type and area fished, in a manner consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. The level of coverage for trips by sector vessels is specified in paragraph (b)(1)(v)(B)(1) of this section. The at- sea/electronic monitoring program shall be reviewed and approved by the   Regional Administrator as part of a sector’s operations plans in a manner consistent with the
Administrative Procedure Act. A service provider providing at-sea or electronic monitoring services pursuant to this paragraph (b)(1)(v)(B) must meet the service provider standards specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, and be approved by NMFS in a manner consistent with the Administrative Procedure  Act.
The participating vessels will be required to comply with all other applicable requirements and restrictions specified at 50 CFR part 648, unless specifically exempted in this EFP or the sector operations plan.
Catch information:
a) Target Species: (for some participating vessels)
a. Pollock
b. Monkfish
c. Spiny Dogfish
d. White Hake
e. American Plaice
f. Atlantic Cod
g. Haddock
b) Estimated weight of kept catch (in lbs) Target Species Incidental Species
(Weights are 14% (projected coverage rate for FY16) of annual kept catch for all participating vessels combined)
a. Pollock – 123,000
b. Monkfish – 105,000
c. Spiny Dogfish – 95,000
d. White Hake – 28,000
e.    American Plaice – 25,000
f. Atlantic Cod – 17,500
g.    Haddock – 5,500
h. Witch Flounder – 7,300
i. Redfish – 5,200
j. Cusk – 1,800
k. Silver Hake – 1,000
l. American Lobster – 800
m. Yellowtail Flounder – 800
n. Winter Flounder – 755
o. Atlantic Halibut – 400
p. Red Hake – 300
q. Skates – 150
r. Bluefish – 80
c) Estimated weight of discards (in lbs)
(Weights are 14% of annual discards for all participating vessels combined)
a. Spiny Dogfish – 24,000
b. Shark species – 10,000
c. Pollock – 3,100
d. Crab species -3,000
e. Skate species – 2,400
f. Monkfish – 1,500
g. American Lobster – 1,300
h. Atlantic Cod – 900
i. Atlantic Halibut – 650
j. Sea Raven – 200
k. Haddock – 275
l. American Plaice – 66
m. Atlantic Wolffish – 40
Expected catch disposition:
Legal sized regulated groundfish will be retained and landed as required by the groundfish FMP. All other species will be handled per normal commercial practice and returned to the sea as quickly as possible.  There will be no landing of undersized fish or discarding of legal-size regulated groundfish (except as permitted through Sector exemptions).
Anticipated impacts on marine mammals or endangered species:
There are no anticipated additional impacts on marine mammals or endangered species as a result of this study.
Proposed industry participants:  (Final list may be different)
Vessel, Permit Number, Registration Number, Homeport, Owner.
1. F/V Ann Marie, permit # 310609, reg. # 938382, Rye, NH, Ocean Pride Corp.
2. F/V Lady Victoria, permit # 131421), reg. # NH0001CF, Seabrook, NH, Charles H. Felch
3. F/V Heidi & Elisabeth, permit # 148106, reg. # ME6146M, Kittery, ME, James A. Hayward
4. F/V Sweet Misery, permit # 127422, reg. # NH2398AN, Rye, NH, Jayson J. Driscoll
5. F/V Brittany Lynn, permit # 151714, reg. # NH2470EL, Portsmouth, NH, King Marine LLC
6. F/V Danny Boy, permit # 251253, Portland, ME, Brian Pearce
7. F/V Safe Haven, permit # 242844, Harpswell, ME, Bryan Bichrest
8. F/V Gretchen Marie, permit # 220685, Portland, ME, John Daggett
9. F/V Bug Catcha, permit # 149638, Port Clyde ME, Gerry Cushman
10. F/V Ella Christine, permit # 250387, Port Clyde ME, Randy Cushman
11. F/V Free Bird, permit # 212165, Harpswell, ME, Brian Durant
12. F/V Theresa Irene III, permit # 140344, Kennebunk, Me, Tom Casamassa
13. F/V Pamela Grace, permit # 2422777, Harpswell, ME, Troy Bichrest
14. F/V Strangle Hold, Permit #149278, Reg #MS1102CD, Chatham, MA, Charlie Dodge.
15.   F/V Miss Fitz, Permit #232108, Reg #983256, Chatham, MA, John Our.
16. F/V Tenacious II, Permit #242648, Reg #1108075, Chatham, MA, Eric Hesse.
17. F/V Zachary T, Permit #130772, Reg #MS4951BD, Harwichport, MA. Nicholas O’Toole.
18. F/V Dawn T, Permit #118641, Reg #MS9353BE, Chatham, MA, Nick Muto
19. F/V Constance Sea, Permit #146922, Reg #MS1332AD, Chatham, MA, Greg Connors.
Fishing vessel effort:
Vessel Name
a. Gear type
b. Trip duration
c. Number nets/hooks/tows
d. Soak duration/tow length
e. Avg number of trips per year
1. Ann Marie (310609)
a. 6.5″ gillnets
b. average trip duration – 5 days
c. 3-4 strings of fifteen nets hauled per day
d. average soak duration 150 hours+
e. 35 trips/year
2. Lady Victoria (131421)
a. 6.5″ & 12″ gillnets
b. average trip duration – 3 days
c. 3-4 strings of fifteen nets hauled per day
d. average soak duration 96 hours
e. 35 trips/year
3. Heidi & Elisabeth (148106)
a. 6.5″ & 11″ gillnets
b. average trip duration – 1 day
c. 2-3 strings of fifteen nets hauled per day
d. average soak duration 48 hours
e. 140 trips/year
4. Sweet Misery (127422)
a. 6.5″ gillnets
b. average trip duration – 2 days
c. 3-4 strings of fifteen nets hauled per day
d. average soak duration 96 hours
e. 120 trips/year
5. Brittany Lynn (151714)
a. 6.5″ gillnets
b. average trip duration – 5 days
c. 3-4 strings of fifteen nets hauled per day
d. average soak duration 150 hours
e. 30 trips/yr
6. Danny Boy ( 251253)
a. 6.5” Gillnets
b. Average trip duration- 4 days
c. 3-4 strings of fifteen nets hauled per day
d. Average soak duration 24 hours
e. 25 trips/year
7. Safe Haven ( 242844)
a. 6.5” Gillnets
b. Average trip duration- 1 day
c. 3-4 strings of fifteen nets hauled per day
d. Average soak duration 24 hours
e. 100 trips/year
8. Gretchen Marie (220685)
a. 6.5” trawler
b. Average trip duration- 3 day
c. 4 hauls per day
d. Average tow length 6 hours
e. 5trips/yr
9. F/V Bug Catcha, (49638)
a. Jigging Machines
b. Average trip duration- 0.5 days
c. 2 machines with 4 hooks each
d. NA
e. 15 trips/year
10. Ella Christine (250387)
a. 6.5” trawler
b. Average trip duration- 36 hours
c. 4 hauls per day
d. Average tow length 8 hours
e. 25 trips/year
11. Free Bird (212165)
a. 6.5” Gillnets
b. Average trip duration- 1 day
c. 3-4 strings of fifteen nets hauled per day
d. Average soak duration 24 hours
e. 50 trips/year
12. Theresa Irene III (140344)
a. 6.5” Gillnets
b. Average trip duration- 1 day
c. 3-4 strings of fifteen nets hauled per day
d. Average soak duration 24 hours
e. 40 trips/year
13. Pamela Grace (2422777)
a. 6.5” Gillnets
b. Average trip duration- 1 day
c. 3-4 strings of fifteen nets hauled per day
d. Average soak duration 24 hours
e. 100 trips/year
14. F/V Strangle Hold (149278)
a. 6.5” gillnets
b. Day trips
c. 3-5 strings of 10 nets
d. Average soak 24 hours
e. 30 trips/year
15. Miss Fitz (232108)
a. 6.5” gillnets
b. Day trips
c. 3-5 strings of 10 nets
d. Average soak 24 hours
e. 30 trips/year
16. Tenacious II (242648)
a. 600 hooks- benthic longline
b. 1-2 day trips
c. 1-4 longline sets
d. Average soak 1-2 hours
e. 20 trips/year
17. Zachary T (130772)
a. Handline
b. 1-2 day trips
c. N/A
d. N/A
e. 20 trip/year
18. F/V Dawn T (118641)
a. 6.5” gillnets
b. Day trips
c. 3-5 strings of 10 nets
d. Average soak 24 hours
e. 30 trips/year
19. F/V Constance Sea (146922)
a. 6.5” gillnets
b. Day trips
c. 3-5 strings of 10 nets
d. Average soak 24 hours
e. 40 trips/year
Fishing location:
Fishing operations may occur within the entire range of the Northeast Multispecies Complex – the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank and the Southern New England and Mid-Atlantic   Region.
References:
Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office and Northeast Fisheries Science Center Electronic Technology Implementation Plan, 2015. www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/mediacenter/2015/february/garfonefscregionaletplan0 13015.pdf
McElderry, H., J. Illingworth, D. McCullough, and J. Schrader. 2004. Electronic Monitoring of the Cape Cod Haddock Fishery in the United States – A Pilot Study. Unpublished report prepared for the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association (CCCHFA) by Archipelago Marine Research Ltd., Victoria BC Canada.
Pria, M.J., McElderry, H. Stanley, R.D., Batty, A. 2014. New England electronic monitoring project report Phase III. Archipelago Marine Research Ltd report prepared for Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Fisheries Sampling  Branch.
Stanley, R. D., McElderry, H., Mawani, T., and Koolman, J. 2011. The advantages of an audit over a census approach to the review of video imagery in fishery monitoring. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 68: 1621–1627.
Stanley, R. D., Karim, T., Koolman, J., and McElderry, H. 2014. Design and implementation of electronic monitoring in the British Columbia groundfish hook and line fishery: a retrospective view of the ingredients of success. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsu212.
Wigley, S.E., McBride, H.M. and McHugh, N.J., 2003. Length-weight relationships for 74 fish species collected during NEFSC research vessel bottom trawl surveys, 1992-99. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE, 171,  p.26p.
Christopher McGuire
The Nature Conservancy

Shelley Wigglesworth – Fishermen denied disaster relief funds

On March 1, 2016 The Maine Department of Marine Resources announced it will soon be issuing the third and final payment to Maine-home ported commercial Northeast Multispecies (groundfish) permit holders to provide direct assistance under federal disaster relief funding which is being issued due to changes in fishing regulations and cutbacks in the industry.

Shawn Tibbetts of the Miss Megan II in Saco and Pete Morse from Teazer Charters, Portland are two of the fishermen denied DMR federal disaster relief funds.

Shawn Tibbetts of the Miss Megan II in Saco and Pete Morse from
Teazer Charters, Portland are two of the fishermen denied DMR federal
disaster relief funds.

This is the third and final bin of money being allotted in Maine.

Other New England states have also received federal relief funding in three separate dispersions, and although it is federal money, each state  has individual discretion on how to allocate use of the funds. While some other states divided the money among permit holders and in some cases, their crews, Maine chose a formula based criteria for fishermen in this category to qualify for
relief funds.

Last week, many charter/for hire boats in Maine received notification from the DMR that because of Maine’s criteria, they will not be eligible for any of these relief funds in bin 3 which was estimated to be in the $75,000 range and was intended for the charter/for hire sector as other sectors have already received compensation. This has this sector of fishermen very concerned about the method of qualification which excludes many of them and for the future of their livelihood altogether.

Last year alone, newly imposed regulations made it illegal to retain any cod fish, and haddock retention was reduced to 3 fish per person on charter/for hire trips. Captains said these restrictions combined with the limited window of days to actually be at sea each season has severely impacted their income and income potential, and it has them worried about the future of their fishing businesses which they have worked for years to build.

Meredith Mendelson, Deputy Commissioner, federal policy issues, budgets, legislation and emerging issues for the  Maine Department of Marine Resources was not able to answer questions about how many fishermen in the charter/for hire sector were eligible for relief funds and how much was dispersed to eligible recipients,  stating that the information is “confidential, pursuant to 12 MRS
Section 6173, as it is based on fisheries information reported to the Department” though she did explain the breakdown of the criteria needed to make fishermen eligible.

USMC Veteran Captain Shawn Tibbetts at sea last year.

USMC Veteran Captain Shawn Tibbetts at sea last year.

“The use of the relief funds in Maine was determined by the Commissioner of Marine Resources Patrick Keliher, along with me ( Deputy Commissioner ) and the  Director of External Affairs, Terry Stockwell.  We established these criteria by making an assessment of the level of trips that we felt represented a full time charter operation that could provide primary income (75 trips, targeting any species).  We chose 2012 as the baseline year for reference. and at this point we required active charter trips in 2015 to demonstrate that the business had not failed for reasons other than the disaster declaration for Gulf of Maine cod and ensuing restrictions.”

She added “The three of us (Keliher, Stockwell and Medelson) also had many individual conversations with fishermen in both the commercial and party/charter sectors about the best use of these funds.”

United States Marine Veteran and Wells resident Captain Shawn Tibbetts of the F/V Miss Megan II, which docks in Saco, is one of the fishermen denied relief funds. “Basically Maine said in order to be eligible you had to run 75 trips in 2012 and show that 50% were ground fishing. We must also show a 20% decrease in trips to be eligible. That puts just about all of us ineligible as almost all of us participated in other fisheries just to make up for the lost income.”

He elaborated on the difficulties charter/for hire fishermen face meeting the criteria to receive funds. “Our season starts when the kids get out of school and it ends when they go back. We get a few trips prior and after, but the bulk of our money in made in July and August. Of those sixty days you can count on losing at least one day a week due to weather and or cancellations. I run 20-35 miles from home in a 35 foot boat with passengers-for safety reasons and passenger comfort. To be able to go out 75 days in that period of time is unrealistic.”

Captain Peter Morse, Teazer Charters

Captain Peter Morse, Teazer Charters

Buxton resident, Captain Pete Morse of Teazer Charters in Portland agreed with Tibbetts.  “I was shocked to see the amount of trips required. My season is from Memorial Day to Labor Day, that’s just over 90 days. In order for me to be eligible, it would have to be flat calm, no wind and no fog not to mention a line of clients waiting to go. We struggle to even book trips, and when you tell them (potential customers) we can’t even retain some species, it’s  ‘thanks but no thanks, goodbye.'”  Morse said he has lost many of his repeat “freezer fillers” (non-tourist customers who go out to catch fresh fish to fill their freezers to eat and not as a recreational sport) He added ” I can clearly see how some of my competition has thrown in the towel and gone on to work another job, they make it very hard to make a living. Those who came up with these standards to qualify, obviously have never tried to make their sole living running a 6 passenger vessel in the state of Maine.”

One fisherman pointed out that the number of fish retained played only a small role, if any when it comes to the equation/formula used to decide who gets relief funds in their category as the bulk of the money they have lost comes from the lack of clients who pay to go out fishing, therefore reducing the amount of trips the can take which is also a factor in the equation deciding who gets relief money.

Representatives from the DMR said that in addition to consulting with the New England Fishery Management Council Recreational Party and Charter Advisory Panel, fishermen were also invited beforehand to voice their opinions and concerns as to how the funds should be determined and allotted during the public meetings held on the disaster relief funds, and that their opinions were taken into consideration.

Tibbetts said he attended those meetings and made his recommendations well known, though he feels his suggestions “fell on to deaf ears.”  While Morse said he was discouraged from attending the meetings altogether by the DMR. “I was told if I could go if I wanted to, but that I would likely the only one there representing the charter fleet as it was mostly the non-charter ground fishermen who were heavily involved.”

Tibbetts added “There’s only about 40 of us altogether who are charter head boat permit holders total in the state. Of those, most of them don’t offer ground fish charters and there might be 15 that are actually active. I have only heard of one vessel in the entire charter/for hire fleet that actually did qualify for the funds.”

Six charter/for hire Captains were asked if they qualified for relief funds for this article. Of the six, five were denied and one qualified.  Captain William “Tim” Tower, of the Bunny Clark in Ogunquit said he believes he qualified.  Tower, who also sits on the New England Fishery Management Council Recreational Party and Charter Advisory Panel said “I have heard that I qualify. But as to the details of qualification, all I know is that the DMR is interested in for hire boats where their sole source of income is from taking anglers groundfishing. Obviously, if charter/head boats also go after sharks, tuna, stripers, bluefish, mackerel, etc. their qualifications for receiving money would be less. The target for this relief money is to those who have suffered due to the groundfish regulations.”

Captain John L. Ellis 3rd, of Camp Ellis and Captain John’s Charters aboard the Island Prince, Camp Ellis, Saco said that there is no doubt in his mind that they all suffered loss. While Tibbetts and

A crew of customers showing their catch from the Island Prince, Captain John's Charter's last year.

A crew of customers showing their catch from the Island Prince, Captain
John’s Charter’s last year.

Morse said they hold second jobs as truck drivers in addition to fishing to make up for loss and to simply make ends meet.

Ellis commented “It seems like if we are all in the same category and are all actively working, why not just split it and keep it fair for everyone involved? We all lost money whether we went 75 trips or not.”

In response to the questions posed by charter/for hire fishermen that the money intended for relief was made almost impossible to obtain by many charter/for hire boat owners, Mendelson said “Disaster relief funds are not simple to allocate, as we lack the data necessary to accurately and meaningfully assess how someone’s business has changed due to changing regulations.  In all sectors (commercial, party/charter, shore side, etc), there are almost always individuals or businesses who feel that they should have received some or more funding.” She added “This decision is final, so
there are no further actions related to disaster relief funding.”

Tibbetts said he and other fishermen in his position who were were counting on the disaster relief money to literally “stay afloat” feel that they were “let down and misled” and that they are very concerned about the future of their businesses. He added that a group of them have reached out to Congresswoman Chellie Pingree for help.

“At this point I have no choice but to look for a full time job to support my family and my charter business. This is shameful. We worked very hard to build this business and client base, and it slowly all being taking away.”

While it’s called fishery management, it’s not even close – Managing fishing, not fish

NetLogoBackground500

 

 

 

Nils E. Stolpe

FishNet USA/December 4, 2015

“At the global scale, probably the one thing currently having the most impact (on the oceans) is overfishing and destructive fishing gear.” (former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration head Jane Lubchenco in an interview on the website Takepart.com on April 7, 2010.) The Deepwater Horizon oil spill catastrophe began on April 20, less than two weeks later.10172769-large

Each year in the U.S. hundreds of millions of tax dollars are spent on what is called fishery management. It’s called fisheries management in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The federal administrative entities which implement the mandates of the Magnuson-Stevens Act are designated in the Act as Regional Fishery Management Councils, and the bureaucrats and scientists who are involved in those mandated activities are referred to as fishery managers.

But all things considered, can what the Magnuson-Stevens Act mandates, what the Regional Councils are charged with and what the managers do be considered fishery management?

Let’s consider what management of either naturally occurring or cultured living organisms (other than fish and shellfish) actually entails. The most obvious requirement of managing them is the provision of something between an adequate and an optimum environment, including both the living and the non-living components of that environment, for the species/species complexes being managed. This is regardless of whether the management process is aimed at optimizing the production of one (or a few) species or at maintaining an area in a so-called “natural” state (though how close any area can be to natural, considering humankind’s pervasive impacts on virtually the entire biosphere, is open to argument).

Whether it’s a herd of dairy cattle, a field of poppies, a national park or an entire watershed, the involved individual or collective managers are charged with maintaining an appropriate environment for the organisms/systems being managed.

How does “fisheries” management fit in with this? Quite obviously and not so surprisingly, not all that well.

When we are considering maintaining (or ideally, increasing, though in the U.S., Canada and the EC in particular we’re far from ready for the “giant step” of increasing the harvest) capture fisheries in natural systems, there is a host of both natural and anthropogenic factors that play a significant role in determining the population levels of particular species. Among them are:

· Water quality · Entrainment/impingement  · Water temperature  · Disease/parasites  · Wind direction/duration  · Parasitism  · Upwelling

· Turbidity  · Food availability  · Competition · Predation  · Cannibalism  · Essential habitat availability  · Reproductive success  · Fishing

And there are undoubtedly others.

So what do the people in the ENGOs who, with a bunch of help from their foundation keepers, have become so adept at manipulating the press, the pols and the public do when there aren’t enough fish? They demand that the managers reduce (or eliminate) fishing. This is regardless of the effect of any other factor on the particular fish stock or the effectiveness of reducing or limiting fishing in rebuilding the stock in question (and “rebuilding” the stock almost always means returning it to maximum population levels).

And the managers for the most part go along because they have to do something to justify their positions, and thanks to federal legislation controlling (or eliminating) fishermen is a lot easier than controlling just about anything else. It’s easier politically, it’s easier scientifically, it’s easier economically and it’s easier technologically. So what if it isn’t effective? Thanks to the extensive efforts of anti-fishing activists over the last two decades (see Pew and the media Click here), cutting back or eliminating fishing is just about a guarantee of positive media coverage, and there are few politicians, reporters or members of the public who have enough of a grasp of the involved complexities to know the difference. Besides which there will be enough tilapia and swai and cultured shrimp produced overseas to keep the consumers fed – if not in culinary nirvana.

This has cost and is costing the domestic fish and seafood industry untold millions of dollars every year in uncaught fish that could be sustainably harvested. It is denying U.S. consumers the health benefits and the undeniable pleasures of dining on ocean-fresh, locally produced seafood and it is costing our coastal communities tens of thousands of jobs every year.

With what seems a monomaniacal fixation on the effects of fishing, a fixation which has been successfully – and tragically – spread virtually everywhere in this country, many other factors of equal or greater potential to temporarily or permanently interfere with vital ocean processes or the health of our fish stocks have been largely or completely ignored.

At the time it sounded good, at least to the un- or ill-informed

I started this FishNet with a quote from Jane Lubchenco from less than two weeks before the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe began to unwind in the Gulf of Mexico. At the time she was the newlyDeepwater-Horizon-April-21-2010.-REUTERS appointed head of NOAA, the agency in the US Department of Commerce that is in charge of about everything non-military in the US Exclusive Economic Zone. Her academic background was as a tide pool biologist. She was a Pew Ocean Fellow and a member of the Pew Oceans Commission and in keeping with the Pew spin on the oceans and their misuse, appeared to believe that she and her ideas could save the world’s fisheries – from the fishermen.

As the quotation demonstrates, she was so concerned with the supposed evils of fishing that she assumed that everything was more than fine with our federal policies regarding the safety of our offshore energy systems. I won’t rehash it here but I’d strongly recommend that you go over the FishNet on this issue I did while the Deepwater Horizon well was still gushing an eventual 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, Fish and Oil: NOAA’s Attitude Gap, Click here (and delayed Exxon Valdez impacts were still being revealed by researchers in the agency she now headed – see http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/news/features/delayed_effects_oilspill/index.cfm.) Perhaps if Dr. Lubchenco and the people she brought with her from the ENGO world weren’t so myopically focused on overfishing, offshore oil wells would have received some of the governmental scrutiny that was, and still is, so illogically directed at commercial fishermen. What are the chances that doing so would have saved the U.S. taxpayers a few bucks and spared the Gulf of Mexico – and the businesses that are dependent on its ecological integrity –the possibly irreversible damages caused by the huge oil spill?

The situation vis-a-vis on-board observers is the most dramatic indication of how skewed perceptions have become regarding ocean/fishery protections. In just about all federally regulated fisheries there are requirements for on-board federal observers, who are increasingly being paid for by the vessel owners/operators. These observed trips range in frequency from 100% coverage of all of the vessels in a fleet to vessels being assigned to carry an observer on a trip once a month or so, and with charges – often to the vessel – approaching a thousand dollars per day at sea. In fisheries in which landings are severely limited, observer costs can force vessels into bankruptcy.

These observers are there to track the catch and bycatch of the vessel to insure that quotas are not exceeded and that the take of protected species are accurately accounted for. There are also requirements for at-sea and at-the-dock reporting, so the catch of a vessel may be reported three separate times.

Surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly considering the attitude of federal policy-level folks like Dr. Lubchenco, there are no requirement for any official observers on oil tankers, drilling rigs or other offshore vessels or structures that could have a negative environmental impact in our EEZ. As we have seen in a history of maritime accidents extending back for at least a half a century, these disasters can cause hundreds of millions of dollars or more in damages.

The following table is from The International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited website (cached by The Wayback Machine at http://tinyurl.com/osw5slv). These were only spills from tankers, not drilling rigs or pipelines. Note that the Exxon Valdez spill, while included, ranked only number 35 in spill size. Note also that the authors assumed that offshore spills “caused little or no environmental damage.” The cached version of the website was from 2007/08.
The table below gives a brief summary of 20 major oil spills since 1967. A number of these incidents, despite their large size, caused little or no environmental damage as the oil did not impact coastlines, which is why some of the names will be unfamiliar to the general public. The Exxon Valdez is included because it is so well known although it is not the twentieth largest spill but rather the 35th.

Position     Shipname              Year                Location                               Size (in tonnes)

1        Atlantic Empress          1979      Off Tobago, West Indies                    287,000

2           ABT Summer             1991     700 nautical miles off Angola            260,000

3     Castillo de Bellever        1983   Off Saldanha Bay, South Africa           252,000

4         Amoco Cadiz               1978        Off Brittany, France                          223,000

5             Haven                       1991             Genoa, Italy                                    144,000

6           Odyssey                      1988  700 nautical miles off Nova Scotia      132,000

7        Torrey Canyon             1967             Scilly Isles, UK                               119,000

8           Sea Star                      1972             Gulf of Oman                                 115,000

9       Irenes Serenade            1980       Navarino Bay, Greece                      100,000

10         Urquiola                     1976          La Coruna, Spain                            100,000

11      Hawaiian Patriot          1977  300 nautical miles off Honolulu         95,000

12      Independenta               1979           Bosphorus, Turkey                        95,000

13     Jakob Maersk                1975          Oporto, Portugal                             88,000

14         Btaer                            1993         Shetland Islands, UK                     85,000

15       Khark 5                         1989 120 nautical miles off of Morocco       80,000

16     Aegean Sea                    1992             La Coruna, Spain                         74,000

17      Sea Empress                1996             Milford Haven, UK                      72,000

18        Katina P                     1992        Off Maputo, Mozambique               72,000

19          Nova                         1985    Off Kharg Island, Gulf of Iran            70,000

20        Prestige                     2002              Off Galicia, Spain                       63,000

35      Exxon Valdez             1989     Prince William Sound, Alaska           37,000

As we saw in the Deepwater Horizon episode, effective federal oversight was sorely lacking, and I’ve yet to see much progress there other than some bureaucratic rearranging and changing the name of the agency in charge. Human nature is human nature, whether the human is on an oil tanker, an offshore drilling rig or a commercial fishing vessel. But the potential for damages with the tanker or the drilling rig can range into the many billions of dollars while a fishing boat might kill a couple of thousand dollars’ worth of over-quota fish. And the income earned by a drilling rig or193X122PEWLogo tanker every year is many orders of magnitude greater than the fishing vessel. Yet we don’t have a federal observer on the bridge of every tanker or on board every rig in the Gulf.

(It’s important to note here that the Pew Charitable Trusts, which has been directly responsible for much of the anti-fishing efforts over the last two decades, is largely controlled by heirs of Joseph Pew, the founder of Sun Oil/Sunoco.)

Gulf of Maine cod – again it’s not just fishing, and again it’s Jane Lubchenco

“We need a rapid transition to sectors and catch shares. Catch shares are a powerful tool to getting to sustainable fisheries and profitability. I challenge you to deliver on this in Amendment 16, to include measures to end overfishing. I will commit the resources to my staff to do their part to ensure Amendment 16 is passed in June. We are shining a light on your efforts and we will track your progress. There is too much at stake to allow delay and self-interest to prevent sectors and ultimately catch shares from being implemented. We are shining a light on your efforts and we will track your progress. There is too much at stake to allow delay and self-interest to prevent sectors and ultimately catch shares from being implemented.” (Ms. Lubchenco on April 8, 2010 while telling the New England Fisheries Management Council how her policies were going to fix the New England groundfish fishery – by Julie Wormser on the Environmental Defense blog EDFish/.)

What she said the day after her less than prophetic statement that fishing was the biggest threat to the world’s oceans was yet another demonstration of Ms. Lubchenco’s commitment to the naïve idea that just about any problem with the world’s oceans could be solved by adequately controlling fishing.

Six and a half years after her “catch shares revolution” that she kicked off by inflicting it on the New England groundfish fishery, the fishery is in a shambles and New England has lost much of it’s fishing infrastructure. This has all happened as fishing effort has been reduced so many times that far too many fishermen can no longer afford to fish for their own quota or to buy or lease quota from other fishermen in similar straits. So what was wrong with Ms. Lubcheco’s foresight this time?NEFMC Sidebar

The recent media mini-frenzy brought about by the release of a study relating the decline of codfish in New England to increasing ocean temperatures will give you some idea. The study was titled “Slow adaptation in the face of rapid warming leads to collapse of the Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod fishery.” Not incidentally, it was funded by the Lenfest Foundation, the fisheries-related grants of which are “managed” by the Pew Trusts.

For an idea of the misdirected zeal with which the people at Lenfest pursue their “scientific” objectives, in their report on Subsidies to U.S. Fisheries, Lenfest researchers R. Sharp and U.R. Sumaila (who was also a Pew Oceans Scholar) list “Fuel Subsidies” as the largest category. They describe these as “exemptions from federal and state fuel taxes and some state fuel sales taxes.” In reality they are refunds of federal and state highway use taxes available to fishermen or any other commercial/industrial users who are “exempt” from the tax. This is because they do not use the federal/state highway systems (http://tinyurl.com/RoadUseTax).

Sharp and Sumaila also include “sales tax exemptions,” which also aren’t fishing-specific subsidies but exemptions from sales taxes which are provided to any businesses for qualified purchases. The authors apparently believe that having fishermen pay taxes that the federal and state governments don’t intend them to pay would eliminate a “harmful subsidy” and “could improve the health of fisheries in the U.S.”

The following quotes were taken directly from the paper (my emphasis added):

· Recovery of this fishery (GOM cod) depends on sound management, but the size of the stock depends on future temperature conditions.

· Based on this analysis, the Gulf of Maine experienced decadal warming that few marine ecosystems have encountered.

· The Gulf of Maine cod stock has been chronically overfished, prompting progressively stronger management, including the implementation of a quota-based management system in 2010. Despite these efforts, including a 73% cut in quotas in 2013, spawning stock biomass (SSB) continued to decline.

· The Gulf of Maine is near the southern limit of cod, and previous studies have suggested that warming will lead to lower recruitment, suboptimal growth conditions, and reduced fishery productivity in the future.

· Gulf of Maine cod spawn in the winter and spring, so the link with summer temperatures suggests a decrease in the survival of late-stage larvae and settling juveniles. Although the relationship with temperature is statistically robust, the exact mechanism for this is uncertain but may include changes in prey availability and/or predator risk. For example, the abundance of some zooplankton taxa that are prey for larval cod has declined in the Gulf of Maine cod habitat. Warmer temperatures could cause juvenile cod to move away from their preferred shallow habitat into deeper water where risks of predation are higher.

· The average weight-at-age of cod in the Gulf of Maine region has been below the long-term mean since 2002, and these poorly conditioned fish will have a lower probability of survival.

· Temperature may directly influence mortality in younger fish through metabolic processes described above; however, we hypothesize that predation mortality may also be higher during warm years. Many important cod predators migrate into the Gulf of Maine or have feeding behaviors that are strongly seasonal. During a warm year, spring-like conditions occur earlier in the year, and fall-like conditions occur later. During the 2012 heat wave, the spring warming occurred 21 days ahead of schedule, and fall cooling was delayed by a comparable amount. This change in phenology could result in an increase in natural mortality of 44% on its own, without any increase in predator biomass.

An article in the Boston Globe about the study reported that “the authors… say the warmer water coursing into the Gulf of Maine has reduced the number of new cod and led to fewer fish surviving into adulthood. Cod prefer cold water, which is why they have thrived for centuries off New England. The precise causes for the reduced spawning are unclear, the researchers said, but they’re likely to include a decline in the availability of food for young cod, increased stress, and more hospitable conditions for predators. Cod larvae are eaten by many species, including dogfish and herring; larger cod are preyed upon by seals, whose numbers have increased markedly in the region.” (Climate change hurting N.E. cod population, study says, David Abel, October 29, 2015.)

While Mr. Abel neglected to mention it, post-larval cod up to maximum size are also consumed by adult spiny dogfish, as are the fish and shellfish that cod feed on. From Bigelow’s and Schroeder’s classic Fishes of the Gulf of Maine, “voracious almost beyond belief, the dogfish entirely deserves its bad reputation. Not only does it harry and drive off mackerel, herring, and even fish as large as cod and haddock, but it destroys vast numbers of them…. At one time or another they prey on practically all species of Gulf of Maine fish smaller than themselves….”cod-fish

The authors of the report recognized a number of temperature-related factors which might have been contributing to the GOM cod decline and went so far as to state that the earlier warming in GOM surface waters in 2012 “could result in an increase in natural mortality of 44% on its own, without any increase in predator biomass.”

So a group of researchers published a paper in Science that showed that it wasn’t just fishing that was responsible for decreasing populations of cod in the GOM. That’s a good thing, right?

But then, according to an article in The Plate, National Geographic’s food blog, the study predicted that “if fishing mortality is completely eliminated (that is, a complete closure of the cod fishery, such as took place in Newfoundland), Gulf of Maine cod could rebound in 11 years. If some fishing is allowed, recovery would take longer: from 14 to 19 years, depending on how fast the water warms.”

Hard as it is to credit, in spite of all of the indications of the severity of the effects of warming on the GOM cod that the authors identified, the paper that they published in what is supposed to be one of the most important scientific journals in the world couldn’t get past the “it’s got to be fishing” creed as espoused by Ms. Lubchenco and others that has turned managing fishermen into the only “effective*” tool in the fishery managers’ toolbox. Not only has fishing, according to them, reduced this stock to its current depleted status, reducing fishing even further or eliminating it appears in their collective estimation to be the only way to fix it.

I have to get into some fisheries management basics here before proceeding farther. First off, the goal of fisheries management is to have enough fish in a stock after fishing to be able sustain itself (most simply, removals from the stock = additions to the stock). This amount of fish is represented as Bmsy, the biomass (B) that is required to produce the maximum sustainable yield (msy).

If we are dealing with a static environment Bmsy will remain constant. But when the environment changes – as when the temperature changes – with fish that are approaching either end of their comfort range Bmsy will change as well (the authors of the paper provided us with a number of factors related to water temperature which I reproduced in the bullet list above that would explain at least some of these changes). Thus, as the water temperature in the Gulf of Maine (GOM) increased, the cod Bmsy decreased. In plain English, the GOM is capable of producing fewer cod today than it was ten years ago.

For another fishery management basic, all of those factors that account for mortality in a fishery are considered either natural and indicated by M, or due to fishing, indicated by F. For convenience (meaning the scientists don’t have a clue and it’s too much trouble to figure it out what it really is) M is usually assumed to be constant.

“However, in most cases, a single value—usually 0.2—for natural mortality is assumed for stock assessments, despite evidence to the contrary (Pope 1979, Quinn and Deriso 1999, Jennings et al. 2001).” From A Review for Estimating Natural Mortality in Fish Populations, Kate. I. Siegfried & Bruno Sansó

“The traditional assumption of a constant M may be appropriate when only mature fish are of explicit interest in the assessment.” From Estimating Natural Mortality in Stock Assessment Applications, edited by Jon Brodziak, Jim Ianelli, Kai Lorenzen and Richard D. Methot Jr., NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-119, June 2011. (I have to point out that in a GOM that’s getting hotter a constant M isn’t even appropriate when “only mature fish are of explicit interest in the assessment.” – NES).

Because, according to management dogma or due to management convenience, natural mortality remains constant by definition regardless of what it actually is, when a stock decreases it must be due to fishing. Accordingly, in spite of the authors having provided at least seven reasons why natural mortality for GOM cod is increasing as GOM temperatures are increasing, and in the face of the inarguable fact that the amount of cod fishing and the cod fishing mortality have plummeted at the same time, the authors conclude that reducing fishing for cod even further than it has been or eliminating it will “fix” the cod stocks.

Predation has and will continue to increase as the water temperature rises. The condition of the cod has declined and will continue to decline as the water temperature rises. Spawning success ditto. Also the survival of late-stage larvae and settling juveniles. And prey availability. And predation on the cod will increase. An example that the authors note is that seals, which are apparently quite fond of a diet rich in cod “have increased markedly in the region.” (For the significance of seal predation on cod stocks, see Seals threaten Scottish cod stock recovery at http://tinyurl.com/SealPredation-Cod.) Yet cutting back on fishing effort again and again and again is still the modus operandi of choice for recovering the GOM cod stocks, regardless of its impact on New England’s fishermen, fishing communities and fishing traditions and regardless of its lack of impact on the recovery.

That’s about all that needs to be said about the efficacy of fisheries management as espoused by the anti-fishing claque and as embraced by our modern fisheries management regime.

This definitely doesn’t bode well for fishing in any waters that are or will be warming, and that supposedly is or is going to be all of them, but it’s fishing-centric management at the most painfully obvious.

In how many fisheries being “managed” is that the case today? More importantly, in how many of fisheries in which natural mortality has increased due to ocean temperature increase has the permitted fishing mortality been correspondingly adjusted downward? As ocean temperatures continue to increase, how long will it take the fisheries management establishment – at least that part of it that doesn’t depend on foundation funding for hundreds of millions of dollars of “lets keep on beating the overfishing drums” funding, many of them provided by Pew – to admit that the whole idea of “overfishing” and its actual causes needs to be reconsidered.

* “Effective” from the managers’ perspective because it’s all they are allowed to do to manage fisheries.

When the commercial fishing industry didn’t agree with NOAA/NMFS on the status of the monkfish stocks

(Part of the ongoing controversy with New England/Gulf of Maine cod is centered on the difference in opinion between members of the fishing industry and the management establishment about the health of the stocks. I thought it might be instructive to review how a similar disagreement, only this time dealing with monkfish, was resolved fifteen years ago.)

In Framework Adjustment #1 to the Goosefish (monkfish) Fishery Management Plan published in 2001 it was announced that the directed monkfish fishery off the Northeast states would be permanently closed in 2002 due to the low number of fish that were being captured in the annual Northeast Science Center’s bottom trawl surveys (http://www.nefmc.org/library/framework-1-2). The participants in the directed fishery disagreed with the survey results and objected strenuously to the proposed closure, reporting that there were plenty of fish available, and for whatever reason(s) the NOAA R/V Albatross was not capable of catching them. Participants in the fishery – primarily in the Mid-Atlantic – formed the Monkfish Defense Fund (MDF) which convinced NMFS leadership that the fish were there but were not being taken by the researchers. A collaborative industry/NMFS pilot survey validated the industry’s claims that the stock was more plentiful. As a result, Congress provided funding for a collaborative, comprehensive NOAA/NMFS/MDF monkfish survey, again using commercial vessels with a history of successful participation in the monkfish trawl fishery and using their experienced captains and crews and their own gear to conduct the survey. On board the commercial vessels would also be NMFS and state personnel and academic researchers.

The first large scale cooperative monkfish survey took place in early 2001 with two modern trawlers, F/V Drake (out of Portland, ME) and F/V Mary K (out of New Bedford, MA). The commercial vessels did catch the monkfish that the Albatross couldn’t and provided a more accurate biomass estimate. The difference in the monkfish catch between the commercial vessels and the NOAA/NMFS vessel was significant enough that the managers reversed their decision to permanently close the directed fishery. Subsequent cooperative monkfish surveys on commercial vessels were held in 2004 and 2009. The series stopped after the 2009 survey because NOAA/NMFS personnel decided that their new survey vessel, R/V Bigelow, would adequately sample the monkfish stock.

And for an update on spiny dogfish….

(If you missed it, in Dolphins and seals and dolphin, oh my! from this past January I wrote about the almost totally ignored impacts of predation on commercial and recreational fish stocks in New England and the Mid-Atlantic (http://www.fishnet-usa.com/Dogfish%20and%20seals%20and%20dolphin.pdf). Since then the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has recommended that the spiny dogfish Total Allowable Catch be reduced significantly, based on the results of an assessment update which evidently couldn’t find a whole bunch of these highly efficient predators that were there until a few years back (for a discussion of how efficient they are follow the previous link). Last July Dr. James Sulikowski’s research group at the University of New England in Biddeford, Maine published The Use of Satellite Tags to Redefine Movement Patterns of Spiny Dogfish (Squalus acanthias) along the U.S. East Coast: Implications for Fisheries Management which reported the results of their work to more accurately describe the spiny dogfish stock(s) of the Northeast U.S. (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0103384),

But before getting into their research I’m going to take a slight detour to discuss the Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s two annual bottom trawl surveys, the primary data source for the assessments of commercially and recreationally important fish species from Cape Hatteras to Maine. These surveys are so influential in assessments because they collectively comprise a time series going back to the early 1960s. In that time NOAA vessels have made approximately the same number of tows of approximately the same nets of approximately the same duration over approximately the same pieces of bottom on approximately the same dates every year. The annual variations in the numbers/weights of the various species being sampled are assumed to be an (approximate) indication of the variations of the total populations of those species. The nets that are used fish on the bottom and don’t sample the entire water column.

The total area sampled is identical from year to year, and the area sampled does not necessarily represent the full range of the species (or stock) being sampled.

The assumption is that the catch of particular species each year is going to be proportional to the total population of that species. Hence, if the trawl survey took 5,000 pounds of scup, for example, in one year and 3,000 pounds of scup the following year, in year two the biomass of scup would be estimated to be 60% of what it was the previous year (the weight used is often the average of several recent years – as specified in the FMP).

This seems to be reasonable if the distribution of the species (or stock) doesn’t change significantly from year to year. But what if it does? What if, for example, the population shifts to the north and to the east, which would be one of the expected reactions to warming ocean temperatures? It seems obvious that the part of the population sampled by the trawl survey(s) will no longer by representative of the total population as it is today, only as it was. And considering that not all of the species sampled are restricted to living in close association with the bottom but at times might move up and down in the water column, it might well be that with a changing temperature regime some species will not be equally susceptible to capture by the bottom tending gear utilized in the trawl surveys.

Getting back to the University of New England spiny dogfish work, from the abstract of the report, “vertical utilization also suggests distinct diel patterns and that this species may not utilize the benthos as previously thought, potentially decreasing availability to benthic (bottom tending gear as used in the NMFS bottom trawl surveys) gear.” In Conclusions the authors write “the results suggest that the estimated spiny dogfish movement patterns calculated from satellite tag data are possibly spatiotemporally asynchronous with the NEFSC bottom-trawl surveys, thus a potentially large percentage (horizontal and vertical “availability”) of these sharks may be unaccounted for in this survey.”

What would be a consequence of underestimating the total biomass of spiny dogfish off the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states? Obviously one would be underestimating what they were eating, which includes both codfish and the species that codfish eat. But as fishing management is accomplished today, spiny dogfish predation is irrelevant, because even if it were known, nothing could be done about it. The spiny dogfish fishery must be managed like all of our other fisheries, with a harvest limited to what would yield MSY every year. This is in spite of the fact that spiny dogfish are worth pennies a pound to the fishermen while the other commercial species like cod whose populations spiny dogfish are significantly impacting are worth at least an order of magnitude more.

While the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the federal legislation that controls fishing in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, pays lip service to the Optimum Yield in a fishery, something which should allow fisheries to be fished to below the MSY level if that is economically or socially warranted, the Act actually precludes that. As I wrote in 2009:

“One of the requirements of the Magnuson Stevens Act, the federal legislation that controls fishing in the US Exclusive Economic Zone, or more accurately one of the implied requirements of the Act, is that all fisheries be at the level that will produce MSY.

The first of the 10 National Standards that are applied to Fishery Management Plans put in place through the provisions of the Act is “conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the OY (Optimal Yield) from each fishery for the U.S. fishing industry.”

From the Act (16 U.S.C. 1802, MSA § 3): 104-297

(33) The term “optimum”, with respect to the yield from a fishery, means the amount of fish which—

(A) will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational opportunities, and taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems;

(B) is prescribed as such on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or ecological factor; and

(C) in the case of an overfished fishery, provides for rebuilding to a level consistent with producing the maximum sustainable yield in such fishery.

(34) The terms “overfishing” and “overfished” mean a rate or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to produce the maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis.

The definition of OY supposedly allows for departures from the MSY. However, as even the casual consideration of the above section of Magnuson indicates, that is not the case, or more accurately, that is only the case when a stock isn’t at the MSY level. In that case the stock is considered to be overfished, and if it is considered to be overfished, it must be “rebuilt” to the MSY level by having the

Watch Dr. Steve Cadrins presentation "Strengthening the Scientific Basis of the 2006 Management Requirements: Optimal Yield from Mixed-Stock Fisheries" Click here

Watch Dr. Steve Cadrins presentation “Strengthening the Scientific Basis of the 2006 Management Requirements: Optimal Yield from Mixed-Stock Fisheries” Click here

harvest level reduced.

But will having every stock of fish in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone being managed at the MSY level be economically, socially or ecologically “optimum?” Will it automatically provide “the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational opportunities?” Economically and socially, emphatically no. Is it even possible? Ecologically a not so emphatic “maybe.” Considering all of the good intentions, all of the effort, all of the pain and suffering and all of the money – both from the public and the private sectors – that is being expended in efforts to reach what are perhaps undesirable and unattainable goals, the results of being tied to the Magnuson concept of OY can be and in demonstrable instances are far from optimum. (from MSY and effective fisheries management, http://www.fishnet-usa.com/maximum_sustainable_yield.htm).

One of the demonstrable instances in which the results are far from optimum is having spiny dogfish at the MSY level in waters off the Mid-Atlantic and New England.

So why is it important to call it fishing management or fishermen management or something similar?

Because no one has much of a clue of the effects of water quality or water temperature or wind direction/duration or upwelling or food availability or of much of anything else on fish stocks. As a matter of fact they lump all forms of non-fishing mortality together, call it Natural Mortality – as opposed to Fishing Mortality – and assume that it is a constant. Natural Mortality plus Fishing Mortality is by definition equal to total mortality. So obviously the authors at the Gulf of Maine Research Institute can report that fishing mortality is what’s driving the Gulf of Maine cod population, because that’s what fisheries science and their models demand. It doesn’t matter how many codfish the burgeoning stocks of spiny dogfish eat nor does it matter how much of the prey species that codfish depend on is left after the dogfish get done with them, because codfish mortality that isn’t due to fishing doesn’t vary. All that varies is fishing, and the only way to have more fish is by reducing fishing. And if it can’t be reduced enough, then stop it.

The only way real fishery management has a chance of working will be by identifying and quantifying all of the major forms of mortality on each fish stock being managed, and by either controlling at beast or at least allowing for all of those other sources of mortality – which in no way in the natural world can add up to a constant year after year.

Once we’re at that point we’ll never have to look at a fishery that continues to decline, regardless of how much we cut back on fishing mortality, and force the fishermen to continue to pay the price for other factors that we either can’t or that we feel that it’s too inconvenient to control.

As I concluded in MSY and effective fisheries management six years ago (cited above):

“The so-called conservationists involved in fisheries would have us believe that there’s some sort of “natural balance” possible in our inshore and offshore waters and that, if fishing is reduced adequately across the board, this mythical balance can be reestablished. That is far from the case.

In their Rousseau-inspired misconception of what the oceans should be, they look at anthropogenic effects as categorically bad, with fishing in general and not harvesting every stock at the MSY level in particular among the worst. This is not necessarily the case. Fishing can be an effective management tool. In the case of species like herring, menhaden and dogfish, allowing – or encouraging – harvest levels above what would be considered “sustainable,” and then maintaining the populations at lower than maximum levels by carefully regulating harvest might be all that is necessary to return “overfished” stocks of much more valuable species back to their OY levels.

Take, for example, the current situation regarding the New England groundfish complex. Fishermen have been hit with a seemingly interminable series of harvesting reductions extending back well over a decade. These cutbacks have been so severe that, if the most recent “management” proposal by NMFS is instituted, boats will be allowed to fish only 20 days a year.

This is due to the fact that several of the groundfish stocks haven’t been recovering as they were expected to (at least by the managers) following previous drastic reductions in fishing effort. At the same time, as we’ve seen above, the stock of spiny dogfish, notoriously voracious predators on groundfish and their prey species, have been allowed to increase unrestrictedly. And the even larger Atlantic herring stock could be impeding the groundfish recovery as well.

Reduce the number of spiny dogfish? Of course not. The Magnuson Act won’t permit it. Reduce the number of herring? Ditto, but for political rather than biological reasons.

But what if we could? Using such an approach, the economy will benefit, the ecosystem will benefit (through increased biodiversity), and the fishing communities that are dependent on “balanced” fisheries will benefit as well.

And there are other fisheries that are facing ever more stringent harvesting restrictions each year because they aren’t performing as the fishing-centric computer models predict that they should. The summer flounder fishery in the mid-Atlantic is one. What’s the impact of spiny dogfish on the summer flounder stock?mark-twain-its-easier-to-fool-people-than-to-convince-them-they-have-been-fooled

An EEZ that is being managed to provide the optimal harvest from a complex of interacting species would seem to be preferable to what we have today. The way we’re doing it today, our most valuable fisheries are increasingly subject to the depredations of other, less valuable species that enjoy the protection of a management regime that is totally stacked against rational management. If fewer spiny dogfish, fewer Atlantic herring or fewer menhaden will mean an increase in more valuable, more desirable or more threatened species, then why shouldn’t the people responsible for fisheries management be provided with the administrative wherewithal to allow this? Legislation mandating that they can’t isn’t benefitting anyone beyond the few anti-fishing activists who have built careers on saving fish stocks that clearly don’t need saving, and it’s certainly not benefitting the ecosystem. So why do we have it?”

Guest Writer Column

Northeast Fisheries Science Center cannot ignore other fishery data

 

On the morning of June 5th, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) hosted a Pre-TRAC meeting at the New Bedford Public Library. The TRAC is an international agreement between the United States and Canada under which yearly catch limits for George’s Bank yellowtail, cod, and haddock are determined and allocated appropriately to each Nation.

Attendees at the Pre-TRAC meeting included representatives from industry, non-profit organizations, educational institutions, and state governmental organizations.  Unfortunately, there were few fishermen present; however, considering that the meeting was held during working hours it was not surprising that members of a financially struggling industry could not take time off from work to attend.  Industry members present and other attendees did voice many concerns of those that were out fishing. The intent of the meeting was to discuss “updated commercial and research survey data” and the findings from the new “empirical approach” meeting that would be applied to the TRAC benchmark assessments meeting to be held on June 23-27 in Woods Hole.

Prior to the June meeting, NEFSC hosted an “empirical approach” TRAC Yellowtail Benchmark meeting in April to “evaluate all relevant data sources with respect to their support for alternative hypotheses on stock status and . . . their directional impact on catch advice.”  With NEFSC pledging that the “empirical approach” meeting would be new, innovative, inclusive, and transparent, there was much hype leading up to the April “Empirical Approach” meeting.  NEFSC has been criticized in the past for a lack of transparency, collaboration, and using limited and stale data sources because it utilized only two government owned and operated Bigelow trawl surveys and one Canadian trawl survey to assess George’s Bank yellowtail stock when in fact there are several more studies and assessments completed throughout the year by educational institutions and cooperative research.  It is an understatement to say that the fishing industry and stakeholders were excited and supportive of NEFSC’s “empirical approach.”  They saw it as an important step forward in increasing collaboration, transparency, and cooperation between researchers to improve upon science and ensure that all data is considered.

So, what is the result of the new “empirical approach?”  At the close of the April meeting, several studies presented revealed that the yellowtail biomass was in the range of 4,000 to 11,000mt.  This data and applying the most conservative regulatory standards, suggests that the yellowtail catch advice should be 1,000mt.  However, on June 5th NEFSC presented 553mt as its likely yellowtail catch advice to be presented at the TRAC meeting.

The catch advice is based on three surveys: NOAA’s spring and fall Bigelow surveys and Canada’s one winter survey.  Other scientific studies, such as cooperative research and the UMass Dartmouth SMAST’s video trawl survey, have not been factored into the catch advice.  When pressed to answer questions about why other sources of data were not factored in, or if the agency had tried other methods to analyze the data, the standard answer given was that NEFSC has not had a chance to incorporate the other empirical data. NEFSC’s explanation of “not having the time” has been found to be insufficient justification for not reviewing such data and its effect on catch advice (See Guindon v. Pritzker).

The TRAC agreement does admittedly state that catch advice will be based on the three government surveys; however, the agreement is amendable.  It is highly unlikely that NEFSC’s Canadian counterparts would be opposed to improving upon the science and issuing more appropriate and accurate catch advice.  By not incorporating and ignoring the contrary data from the “empirical approach” meeting, the 553mt yellowtail catch advice will raise questions about whether this advice is in fact based on the “best scientific information available” not following NEFSC on-going bureaucratic agenda.

NEFSC further attempted to justify its catch advice by reasoning that because only 35.6% of the George’s Bank yellowtail quota was landed in 2013, it must necessarily follow that the yellowtail stock biomass is low.  Audience members offered several reasons for this low landed yellowtail quota. First, that several fishermen held onto their quota until haddock season so that they could harvest haddock while not worrying about avoiding yellowtail, but weather was not favorable for fishing during the overlapping seasons.  The second reason offered was that many fishermen are avoiding yellowtail hotspots because they fear running into large amounts of yellowtail and exceeding their quota.  These reasons were generally brushed aside by NEFSC with an answer that these reasons are economic and are not studied by the presenters.

Ironically, an exemplification of why NEFSC’s reasoning that if landings are down, then the stock biomass must be low, is flawed was apparent in its haddock presentation.  Both cod and haddock stock biomasses were also discussed at the Pre-TRAC meeting.  Similar to yellowtail, the concluding remarks about cod were that only 463mt were landed in 2013 and therefore, cod stocks must be overfished.  However, when it came to haddock, despite only 15.2% of the quota having been landed in 2013, the same reasoning was not applied.  NEFSC attributed the low landings to flawed management measures because NEFSC stock assessments show haddock biomass is healthy.

In sum, on the one hand and despite contrary data regarding yellowtail stock biomass, NEFSC reasons that when cod and yellowtail landings are down, it must mean that biomass is low.  On the other hand, NEFSC maintains that because its science shows healthy haddock stocks, when haddock landings are down it is not due to low stock biomass and must mean that management measures have failed.  NEFSC’s hypocritical and flawed reasoning exemplifies why it must incorporate contrary, and potentially superior, data from the “empirical approach” meeting in its catch advice for George’s Bank yellowtail.

The International TRAC meeting is coming up on June 23rd.   NEFSC still has an opportunity to make a fundamental change and utilize the contrary data presented at the “empirical approach” meeting in devising its yellowtail catch advice.  If the NEFSC is attempting to be transparent and to build public trust, then its TRAC team should present both the results of the three governmental surveys and the contrary and probably superior biomass data from the “empirical approach” meeting.  Presenting all data and catch advice options will lead to the final decision makers being fully informed to determine the “best scientific information available” and establish better, more reliable total catch advice for both Nations.

Scott W. Lang

Scott W. Lang is an attorney and former Mayor of New Bedford.

Click here to comment

——————————————————————————————–

I am Professor Bill Allen PhD.

I do scientific research on the Worlds Oceans studying the mating habits and reproduction of various sea creatures and their life cycles.

I have managed to fund my studies by various methods of capture of marketable, edible species of sea life, in which I sell as food for the American public and to other Countries.

I have gained a wealth of knowledge in my years of participating in this endeavor , and at some point will write about it as to share with the scientific community my lifes work findings in conducting the research and defending my dissertation. I am proud to say I have managed to pursue my quest at no cost to the tax payers.

Currently I and other fellows like minded, are studying the demise of the North Carolina Blue crab as a former significant food source, and the economic impact it has created on local producers, businesses, and tax revenues into public coiffures.

Our initial findings from a recent 5 year study suggest the cause of the demise of the crabs are directly related to the strong documented increase of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) populations. It is an oceanic turtle distributed throughout the world, a marine reptile, belonging to the family Cheloniidae.

The Loggerhead sea turtle is omnivorous, feeding mainly on bottom dwelling invertebrates and crustations including the blue crab, shrimp, and lobster. It’s large and powerful jaws serve as an effective tool for crushing and dismantling its prey.

So it is the recommendation of myself and my fellow scientists who have studied this delima, that we remove the sea turtle from the Endangered Species list with an up grade to Protected Species. This will allow the controlled re-commercialization of the species in order to keep it’s populations to more suitable numbers of their Bio-Mass in relation to food sources shared by humans, thus creating healthier natural wild populations of the species as well.

But there is another problem yet to be addressed over this situation.

It is the human resource side of the issue that needs to be resolved, to cover the losses they have accrued due to the lack of oversight by the people who were paid out of the public coiffures, and supposed to be diligently monitoring the turtle recovery programs.

It is suggested to pay each operator of a blue crab, or lobster business a restitution amount of $250,000.00 to cover the losses they have accrued due to this lack of oversight by the Professional people hired, not elected, in these positions.

We also propose that there be issued to each operator of a blue crab or lobster business, a license to harvest turtles, not to exceed 1000 per operator per season in further restitution. These numbers are minimum amounts and each operator is encouraged to show actual losses, if they exist, which may exceed the $250,000.00 minimum, shall be encouraged to do so.

Next we will be discussing the total loss of revenues accrued by the commercial shrimper due to the loss of shrimp revenue, related effort, and bodily harm to the crew members resulting thru the use of these Turtle Excluder Devices, (TED’s) as the increase of the turtle populations are evident from Texas to the Carolinas.

I expect this amount could be on the low end as much as $750,000.00 per vessel.

Our lawyers will be contacting NOAA and various state fishery managements, along with turtle groups, like CCA and Oceana in the very near future.

Best regards,

Professor Bill Allen PhD….(Piled Higher, and Deeper)

Comment here

———————————————————————————
Today’s Marine Conservationists Are Climate Deniers

 

 

There was a time when marine conservation was a grassroots movement funded by scientists and activists alarmed by the enormous cost to the marine eco-system due to the industrial revolution, modern society, and our way of life. Industrial pollution choked the rivers, smoke filled the skies, and acid rain flowed into the ocean through the dirty sewers of every city and town near the ocean. Coastal areas rapidly became densely populated as humanity gathered by the sea to enjoy cleaner air, negative ions, and the prosperity global trade brought on giant ships filled with shiny new goods. When sludge and dead fish started washing up on the beaches and life by the sea began to look less attractive than it once did, it was easy to see that the natural world wouldn’t be able to absorb all of the pollution humanity was pouring into it. These activists fought industry and big business and eventually found the political will to clean up the beaches, air, and water, ensuring a better quality of life for all of us.

 

 

There was no political will to make any kind of reduction to pollution that was more difficult to see, like the carbon molecules that passed through the filters mandated by clean air regulations, or the chemical pollutants that can’t be removed from wastewater pouring into the sea. The beaches were made cleaner for bathers by a system of secondary sewage re-processing utilizing large amounts of chlorine creating rivers of (Anti-bacterial and pharmaceutical infused) grey water incapable of supporting life and effectively scouring the beaches of most of the natural life they once supported. Global temperatures began rising with the carbon levels in the atmosphere and the plankton that once would have absorbed any amount of carbon from the atmosphere began to decline rapidly. Both of these factors distressed the marine eco-system and the fish populations that counted on both plankton and the natural life in near coastal areas for food. The rise in ocean temperature and the shift in food sources caused many fish to change their migration patterns following the food and water temperatures they need to stay healthy, reproduce, and get the nourishment they need to survive.

 

 

Modern marine conservation has adapted and evolved over the years and with those changes in organization and funding the description of events affecting the natural world and scientific evidence they accept as valid has changed dramatically. Since they are funded by the industry and big business they once fought against, blame for any changes in the marine eco-system has been shifted from pollution and industrialization to regional fishing activity by fishermen whose numbers have been diminished by increasingly restrictive regulation designed to rebuild the reduced fish stocks to levels that the ocean food chain may no longer be able to support. Over-fishing has become the battle cry of a marine conservation industry so closely tied to the petro-dollars that fund them they are unable to take on polluters or take a meaningful stance against expansion of oil drilling and other energy projects that damage the marine environment.

 

 

Today’s marine conservation activity is largely about drawing lines on the ocean, planning and zoning it like a big piece of watery real estate. Checkerboard lines proliferate denoting areas protected from fishing activity but open to any amount of drilling, fracking, or strip mining that the market and our growing need for raw materials can justify. The fact that they are turning the ocean into a giant industrial park while pushing the few remaining fishing vessels into areas reserved for fishing which due to migration may no longer contain the fish they hope to catch is no problem for the slick media types that have replaced grassroots activists and scientists. The premise that the lines drawn on the ocean for the protection of marine life aren’t working due to temperature induced migration of food sources doesn’t work for the planners and zoners of the last remaining wilderness area on our planet.

 

 

So why should anyone worry about the fate of a few fishermen being pushed onto watery fishery reservations that are doomed to fail in order to support the industrialization of the ocean for energy production and resource extraction? Perhaps the fact that every breath you take gets 50 percent of the oxygen in it from ocean plankton that are being killed by the very measures we used to clean up the environment. Consider the effect of industrializing the near coastal areas of the ocean which support all of our planet’s plankton production and over 90 percent of ocean life. A billion people are fed each year from the ocean’s natural food chain, a source that is perpetually renewable if we take proper care of it and don’t poison it with chemicals and industrial pollutants. Does our need for more energy and materials trump the need to draw breath and have food to eat? The fact that the so-called marine conservation organizations have nothing to say on these matters and will in fact deny climate changes impact on the ocean and the life it contains (Especially when it concerns zoning activity) should concern us all because if the self-appointed saviors of the ocean won’t do anything to save it, who will?

 

Jay Andersson

Leave a comment here

———————————————————————————————————————–
The Reasons For The New England Groundfish Collapse Are An Inconvenient Truth For Regulators
As federal disaster funds roll into New England and hopeful recipients line up to fight for what amounts to pennies on the dollar for the investments and livelihoods lost, the regulatory blunders that caused this crisis are being swept under the rug. The sad premise that individual ownership of the fish in the sea is a cure-all for fishery managment issues has been exposed for the lie that it always was, yet the issues caused by introducing this new system of effort controls for New England groundfishing remain unaddressed by bumbling regulators who seem to be unwilling to admit that sector allocations have been a dismal failure and cause more problems than they solve.
The quota system’s  back up plan for vessels and men dis-enfranchised by it was participation in a growing small mesh bottom trawl fishery for the abundant herring resource left unfished by the absence of mid-water vessels which were the target of an inshore fishery closure enacted in 2007 that left much of the near coastal herring resource up for grabs. The result of these actions just prior to the collapse of the groundfish stock will not be mitigated by a paltry few tax dollars of relief money that will likely be siphoned off by the organizations that crafted the plan.
New England groundfish was rebuilt on the strength of strict effort controls involving a system of permit limitations, Days-At-Sea (for each permit year), and mesh size restrictions that allowed juvenile fish to escape from the bottom trawls and gillnets utilized. It was also rebuilt with the blood, sweat, and tears of the men and women that gave their lives and life’s work to create the many small businesses and small fishing boats that eventually failed due to the limitations of harvesting a rebuilding stock with a draconian time-line. Even though these measures made life hard for the participants the system was fair and rewarded hard work and determination with the hope for a bright future and growing fish stocks.Sadly before so many that sarificed everything to make ends meet during the difficult times brought on by stock rebuilding could realize any benefit from their efforts, the new system of sector allocations and individual fishing quotas that was supposed to be voluntary when it was proposed, virtually eliminated all who did not “volunteer” by taking away most of the (open pool) quota they were awarded.
Many found their personal efforts of groundfish conservation (By fishing for other species) rewarded by tiny quota allocations that effectively removed them from the fishery. Fishing under the new system had more than a few flaws. Localized depletion of areas where fish spawn, targeting of easy to catch fish, high-grading, (The discarding of small cheaper fish in order to retain the most marketable large ones to maximize value of quota used), discarding of “Choke species” (Fish for which there was only a small amount of quota available that would inhibit landing a vessels other quota). The At-Sea-Monitors that were supposed to prevent all of these activities from occuring were easily gamed by vessels hoping to make unobserved trips by cancellation of any trip a monitor was actually available to go.
The new system offered an unprecedented opportunity to fish for the abundant herring resource with small mesh bottom trawls by vessels freed up by individual fishing quotas. Thousands of permits were made available and participation was encouraged as a way to mitigate the damage caused by losses due to groundfish restricitions. Unfortunately large numbers of vessels towing gear with small mesh is a disaster for the juvenile groundfish that so many in New England have pinned their hopes and dreams of a better future on. Original catches of these fish were full of juvenile haddock, cod fish, river herring, and tiny flat fish all of which were protected in every other fishery. When fishermen learned that this was going to be a problem they merely picked out the juvenile groundfish and in southern New England even the river herring that are a major issue there. Since the fishery is for the most part unobserved and many landings occur at sea (and aren’t even reported) there is no way for inept regulators to obtain even a clue about the decimation of protected groundfish occuring in this fishery. With so many vessels and crew made desperate by failing fishery revenue it is not hard to see how all of this came about.
It would be easy to blame the unfortunate vicitims of this failed fishery policy made desperate by the complete failure of incompetent regulators, and  policy pushed by greedy organizations hoping to use the new system to take control of the fishing industry through the use of permit banks, charitable corporate donations, and political favors. Fishermen like anyone else are going to do what is necessary to survive. A well planned sytem of effort controls that takes this fact into account and incorporates fairness and reward for dedication and hard work is what is needed. Unfortunately for the people of New England the disasterous policy described here is still in place and no amount of disaster money will help with that.Jay AnderssonBio…
Jay is a retired fisherman who worked in the Alaskan and New England Fishing Industries for 40 years.

 

 

———————————————————————————————–
“Hey Cap! I’ve got you man. He’ll be here within the hour.”
By Joe Daughty

Well, I can’t believe I’m gonna tell this story, because it was kinda a rotten thing to do. But it was insanely funny at the time.I had been running a swordfish longline boat named the “Kelly Ann” out of Ft Pierce Fl. for quite a while. I got myself into a situation where I’d fired an under achieving crewman and couldn’t find a replacement. Decent crew were hard to find these days and I had began to… worry that I might miss the rest of the moon. You see, for the most part, sword fishermen live on what we call “Swordfish time”. In a nutshell, if there is any moon in the sky at night, we would be offshore with gear in the water. Swordfish raise up in the water column at night and use the moon light to catch their prey.

Well, it came to the point where I really needed to get offshore, so I put the word out that I was looking for a body to go fishing. experienced or not I’d take what I could get. Farther along in this story you’ll see what a mistake this decision was. There are only two crewman on the deck of a small Sword boat, so you can understand how important it is to have decent help.

I got to the fish house early the next morning to pump the boat out and see what was going on. As I walked into the fishouse, the dockmaster and head fish house flunkies as we used to call them, Troy, said, ” I got you man coming. He’ll be here within the hour”. I thanked him and went about the business of getting ready for a trip.By midday, my regular crewman and I had the boat nearly loaded and ready to go, but still no new guy.

At Three PM, Troy walks over to my boat with an older guy with long straggly hair and says “here is your guy”. I took one look at him and all I could think was WOW! He looked to be in his late forties,but good Gawd he was dirty. He had sores on his arms that looked like spider bites. I could smell him for ten feet away like he hadn’t bathed in months. In the back of my mind, I knew it was a mistake to hire him, but I needed to go fishing, so I gave him the nod to come aboard. Well he got on the boat with an old dingy seabag and a sleeping bag that looked as if it had never been washed. He told me his name, (lets call him Ken, because I long ago forgot his name), and asked me what he needed to do. I told him two things. Go down below and stow your gear, and then get in that shower and take a bath. I’ve always believed in keeping clean on a boat, and he was gonna learn that. I turned my attention to other duties and went to work. After a few minutes I looked forward and noticed that the front Ice hold hatch was open. I walked up there to shut it and realised that Ken was down there. I asked him what he was doing and he said he was stowing his gear. I kinda laughed and showed him the way to the forward focsle.

24 hours later, after a trouble-free and calm ride out to the fishing grounds, I first began to realize that bringing old Ken was probably a mistake. He had spent a restless night in his bunk and was screaming and hollering at someone all night long. My crewman Greg was on edge and I reassured him that it would be Okay and that we really needed a catch. About that time we could hear him screaming at someone down there again. Problem was, he was the only one down there. Funny, but not really funny. This boat was only 45 feet long and there was no room on there for a crazy man.

Two days later, he was still in his rack. He got up every now and then to take a leak and walk the deck, but we had come to the realization that ole Ken there was in full-blown Delirium Tremens. The guy was a stone cold alcoholic and was in withdrawal. He couldn’t work, so Greg and I did it all. It wasn’t easy but we did it anyways. This guy was nuts though. He was convinced there was someone underneath the cabin floor making noise and he was giving his imaginary guy some serious tongue lashing.

By the fourth day of the trip, I was getting worried about him. He still hadn’t eaten and he was looking weak. I called my Boat owner, Newell, on the single side band, and told him what was going on and that I didn’t know what to do. He said the first thing to do was get him up on the deck and shake his bunk down. Look for knives and such because a former Capt of his had been stabbed by a guy in a similar situation. He also said If I couldn’t get him fed within 24 hours to bring him home. So I immediately made him get on deck and had Greg watch him while I inspected his bunk. Sure enough, under his pillow I found a brand new Tiger knife. That scared me. I went on deck and in a fit of rage told him that if he didn’t eat right now I would throw him overboard right then and there. He ate two Ham sandwiches.

Now I have to tell you, Ken wasn’t really a bad sort. He just had an alcohol abuse problem. As the trip got longer, he got just a little better. He still couldn’t work, but he seemed to calm down a little bit. He still talked to people who weren’t there, but he got a tad steadier where I didn’t have to worry about him dying. He even tried to help where he could, like attempting to wash the dishes ‘n clean the cabin. He even sat out on deck one night while we set gear and kept telling us that the Miami vice had been on the boat earlier. He really did want to please me, but he just couldn’t.

There was another company boat close by, and its skipper was a friend of mine. Ray- Ray was the Capt of the ” Nicole” and had heard me talk about this guy just about every day in the radio. Well with his help, we decided one morning to plot my revenge on old Ken. We decided to meet up boat to boat early in the morning and pull off a stunt known as a radar check. We planned it out well in advance, and we had it down pat. I had let Greg in on the joke and told him he had to keep a straight face. As we got within earshot of the Joshua, I turned the VHF really loud so it could be heard. Then I yelled down into the cabin and woke Ken up. I told him that I really needed his help. He said okay. He was trying to please me and got right up and came out on deck. I asked Ray-Ray if he need that radar check now and he replied “Yes I need it bad.” So I told old Ken that we had to fix that other Boat’s Radar and would he help. He was eager to help and asked what to do. I told him to get up on the bow. It was slick calm so I wasn’t worried about him. He got up there and looked back at me and I handed two sauce pots out the window to him. I told him to get up to the point of the bow and hold those pots out at arm’s length on each side of him. He did so. than I d tell him to hold them at 12 o clock, then three o clock. After a minute of this Ray-Ray came on the radio and said, “Not good enough, I can’t get the signal.” So I hollered at Ken and told him we need more of a target out there. I handed him a large soup pot along with the two pots he already had. He said he couldn’t hold them al and I said well…..Just do this and I put it over his head. He walked back out to the end of the bow and dropped that soup pot all the way over his head and started waving the little pot around.

It was almost too funny to keep a straight face at this point as I was taking pictures of him. About that time Ray-Ray came on the radio which was turned up loud, and said, “Damn, get him off the bow. Hurry! Hurry, Man.” I cant believe I did that.” Hehe, Well I waved him off the bow as he handed me the pots thru the window and told him to come to the wheel house asap. As Ken came into the wheelhouse, I asked Ray-Ray on the radio, “How much Microwave poisoning did he get?’ Ray-Ray replied,” It had to be about 7 or 8 seconds worth! Man I’m sorry! I pushed the wrong button and it happened sure as shit!”. Well I turned to Ken and said, “we haven’t much time”. I handed him my tube of tooth paste and told him to go out on deck and rub the toothpaste all over himself. Well, he did, and when he was done with that, I had him wrap himself in aluminum foil. I made him stay like that all day saying that it would save his life.

After he went to bed that night, I told the story to the whole fleet via side band radio. They were in stitches telling me how cruel i was. The next morning I asked ole Ken how he felt and he said he could feel a little bit of the poisoning in him, but he thought we might have got most of it. He also said that if he ever had children he would know that they were his if they came out with a green glow.

When we got back to the Dock, I pur fifty bucks in Ole Ken’s pocket and sent him on his way. I never had the heart to tell him about the joke. I sure he thought to this day that he really helped us at risk to his life.

Leave comments here

 

———————————————————————————————————

This is in response to John Bullard in the Myopic View Column in the GDT

I don’t know where to start. This is one of those instances where “to  keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool is better than opening it up  and removing all doubt”, something you should’ve considered before you  submitted this deceptive drool.

 Your self serving revisionist history  would be right up there with “intelligent design” if not for the fact  that there is nothing intelligent designed into “Your View”.

 First off,  it was a collaboration between SMAST and fishermen that blew NOAA’s  scallop assessment right out of the water. Yet you’re still trying to  take credit for it. The only thing that NOAA policy has contributed to  the scallop fishery is the consolidation of the resource into the hands  of the few stake holders who now control both the stock and the market.  This can be proven at the fish market. If there are now so many scallops being landed, why is the price so high that most people just can’t  afford to eat them?

 And exactly the same thing is happening in the  groundfishery. That’s your “best example” of successful management? It  certainly explains alot!

And where are all these waterfront jobs and  thriving fishing communities to which you so proudly refer? Is this  monumental achievement the reason why we are now importing over 90% of  the seafood we, as a nation, consume?

Even as I write this NOAA’s  yellowtail assessment is being debunked by yet another SMAST collaboration with real fishermen. I especially like the part about profitable fisheries and developing markets. I have only one word to  say about that – Dogfish! Busted!

As far as “a shift in focus for  some”?, that comment is in a class of it’s own, I would recommend you  visit the eye doctor, and a shrink while you’re at it, after all we’re  paying for your health insurance so what the hell! Apparently there  isn’t enough left in the NOAA budget to hire a fact checker otherwise  your view would have been a whole lot shorter.

But I always like to end  on a positive note, your secretary did a good job on spelling and grammar.

Carrumba, Paul Cohan, Captain, F/V Sasquatch, Gloucester, Ma.

Comment here

 

——————————————————————————————–

The Massachusetts commercial striped bass fishery. Poster child for an abused resource – John Rice, Director, CIIFA

The Massachusetts commercial striped bass fishery. This fishery is the poster child for an abused resource. The MA DMF policies and regulations for the striper fishery are directly responsible for 2013 being the shortest season ever recorded since the fishery  re-opened.  An unwillingness on the  part of director Diodati to address the issue of too many permits in the fishery has led to so many participants participating in the fishery coupled with a significant aggregation a commercial size stripers of Chatham for the last several years, which has resulted and smaller and smaller seasons each year for the last several and record low prices for the last 20 years.  The fishery off of Chatham is a disgrace.  Some days there are as many as 400 boats and they 1 by 3 mile area.  So many people were coming to Chatham to go striper fishing the town of Chatham had to close all of its boat ramps and institute a parking permit system for Ryders Cove.  Every Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday they descend upon Chatham like a swarm of locusts, folks in brand new trucks with brand new boats brand new motors, people who aren’t citizens of the United States, some people from Brazil some people from Asia, this summer we even saw boat from Canada, are all there in Chatham trying to cash in on the quote on quote Chatham gold rush. Out there you will see boats from Rhode Island New York Connecticut New Hampshire Vermont New Jersey Virginia Maryland Colorado Kansas California Florida all here to catch and sell striped bass.  Almost none of these people live here or participate in any other fisheries here they just come here for two(or three) weeks of the summer to catch striped bass, many of them are merely subsidizing a very expensive vacation, others are making money and taking that money home, others purchase a permit strictly as a recreational pursuit with a chance to subsidize their expenses.  There are also a handful of charter boats thrown into the mix.  By and large the majority of the people out there participating in the fishery are not independent fisherman, 95 percent of them have full-time other jobs that they will go and work at after striped bass is over.

Continuing on about the fishery in Chatham.  There is a tremendous amount of what I will call cheating occurring there.  Many of the boats fishing there are making several trips a day,

in other words they are landing a limit in the morning and then going back out and catching another limit and landing that limit somewhere else or in another name. This is rampant.  I could name names many names I know most of them, but I don’t want to go there.  When you see a boat from Connecticut that has 5 people on it every day it’s out there, every day from sunrise until sunset and you are catching a limit all by yourself in half that time, you have to know that those people aren’t catching just 30 fish.  The DMF will say this is an enforcement issue. The environmental police will tell you we can’t be everywhere at once.  so, the only solution are regulations that make it nearly impossible for this form of activity to occur.

Since the fishery has been reopened many different individuals have attempted to work with the DMF to bring some sort of common sense to this, however, all these tabs have fall upon deaf ears. census fishery has reopened the DMF as maintain a policy of keeping this fishery an open-access fishery.  When questioned about this they reply that by maintaining this is  as an open-access fishery, it is a gateway fishery, enabling some participants to become full time fisherman.  The truth of the matter is, that most of our other states water fisheries are already limited in the entry or have been reduced in their significance to the point where they’re no longer viable.  Therefore, claiming that someone would be able to enter other fisheries as result of having been able to participate in the striped bass fish re is a little disingenuous.  Most of the participants have no intentions of going to beyond the striped bass fishery, they are really enjoying a free for all with some of their friends for a few weeks each summer coming out and pretending to be a fisherman but using the money to either pay for their vacations or to buy things (boats…) they couldn’t afford from their regular jobs.  This policy is a tremendous disservice to the full time working for Sherman of Massachusetts.  I say this is a disservice because with so many of the other fisheries being diminished in their capacities, many fishermen looking to supplement lost incomes from other fisheries need to participate in the striped bass fishery here to help make ends meet.  These fishermen are tremendous loss from things like a 10 day season.  I have questioned director of the DMF as to why he won’t do something to legitimize the striped bass fishery, His response? “I simply don’t want to deal with all the negative publicity.”  To this I would say, well if you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen.

The fact that things have gone on this far this way, proves, the director of the division Marine Fisheries has no intention of doing anything that will help make this fishery less contentious.  There are anti striped bass commercial fishing groups who are trying to get the Massachusetts commercial fishery closed.  The most vocal of these groups is a group from Maine called stripers forever. This group, SF, has perrenially assailed the commercial fishery through legislation intended at getting the commercial fishery closed. They enlist the help of left leaning senators and congressmen, most of whom do not hold office is shore side districts.  The fishery as it has become off of Chatham, is certainly not helping the commercial fishermen in this argument.  The DMF has had so many opportunities to correct this, but they just don’t do it. Why?  By maintaining their open access policy, they created an out of control monster, period.  Their unwillingness to address this situation is deplorable.  This fishery should be no different than any other fishery that is “commercial”, it should be for the fishermen.

Someone needs to approach this situation at a level higher than the DMF in the Massachusetts state government obviously, the DMF has no intentions of doing anything anytime soon.

10 days?

John Rice – Director – ><> CIIFA <><

Comment here

Press Releases

 

————————————————————

Minister LeBlanc Accepts Key Recommendation of Advisory Panel on LIFO

OTTAWA, ONTARIO–(Marketwired – July 6, 2016) – Today, the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, issued the following statement:

“After a thorough review of the Ministerial Advisory Panel Report on the Northern Shrimp fishery’s Last in, First Out (LIFO) policy, I wish to confirm acceptance of its fundamental recommendation. The panel determined that after being in place for about 20 years, “LIFO is not a sustainable instrument of public policy,” and should be replaced by a system of proportional sharing for the future.

Proportional Sharing is consistent with the approach used in most other Canadian fisheries with respect to stock and allocation management. Applying this principled approach of Proportional Sharing means that the inshore and offshore fleets as well as Indigenous Peoples will continue to share in the economic benefits of this precious resource. Sharing arrangements must also respect land claims agreements and the interests of Indigenous groups as well as the interests of adjacent coastal communities.

I have asked departmental officials to provide advice in the specific application of this way forward in keeping with our precautionary approach as well as the sustainability and long term conservation of the fishery given the declines in the stock. This input will be received in the coming weeks and it will include consideration of community impacts and Indigenous commitments and obligations.

At the same time, I look forward to receiving the Northern Shrimp Advisory Committee recommendations for the fishery following its meeting on July 7.

In the meantime, I am announcing an interim quota for the Shrimp Fishing Area (SFA) 6, which will enable fishing to start. The offshore harvesters will be allocated 4,500 tonnes; inshore harvesters will be allocated 4,500 tonnes, and there is an allocation of 500 tonnes for an existing special allocation holder.

In closing, I want to once again express my gratitude to the Panel – Chair Paul Sprout and members Barbara Crann, Wayne Follett and Trevor Taylor – for their hard work and dedication in delivering on their mandate to conduct an independent, open and fair review of the LIFO Policy. More than a thousand harvesters, Indigenous Peoples and industry representatives participated in the Panel’s review, which brought home to me the vital importance of the northern shrimp fishery to all concerned. All of these diverse views were considered and I thank everyone who contributed their valuable insights.”

Internet: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Follow us on Twitter! www.Twitter.com/DFO_MPO


For Immediate Release Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Panel sides with inshore fishery, recommends elimination of LIFO policy

JOHN’S, NL – The Ministerial Advisory Panel conducting an external review of the Last-In, First-Out policy (LIFO) released its recommendations yesterday. The Panel recommended abolishing LIFO and implementing permanent proportional sharing.

“The panel recommendation to abolish LIFO and implement permanent proportional sharing is a much fairer decision based on good fisheries management principles,” said Keith Sullivan, President of the Fish, Food & Allied Workers Union (FFAW-Unifor). “The panel accepted the position of harvesters, plant workers, municipal leaders and small business owners who have been speaking out against LIFO for years.”

The Panel determined that the LIFO policy was not sustainable. In its place, the proposed sharing regime would establish percentage shares from 2016 onward in each of the shrimp fishing areas. Percentage shares for each quota holder in SFA 6 will be calculated based on the total of cumulated annual allocations between 1997 and 2009, before LIFO was implemented.

The Panel also recommended that special allocation holders in SFA 6 be given the option of utilizing the inshore fleet to harvest their allocations. Additionally, it was recommended that the Government of Canada establish a formal ongoing engagement process with all sectors of the industry to ensure that the repatriation of the processing of industrial shrimp becomes a reality that will benefit inshore processing facilities.

“While the decision doesn’t remove the offshore fleet from area 6, it does strengthen adjacency in area 6 and recommends long overdue changes to how special allocations can be harvested,” continued Sullivan. “Most importantly, the recommendation will allow for a viable inshore northern shrimp fishery this year.”

A final decision on the review is expected to be made by Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, later this week.

-30-

For media inquiries, please contact:

Jessica McCormick, FFAW-Unifor Communications Officer 709-576-7276 (office) 709-728-7147 (cell) [email protected]

————————————–

At White House, Pacific Island Delegation Warns that the President’s Proposed Marine Monument Expansion Will Fail American Fisherme. At an hour-long West Wing meeting yesterday, fisheries managers and commercial fishing industry representatives from the U.S. Pacific Islands spoke with Counselor to the President, John Podesta, and senior officials from the White House Council on Environmental Quality to express concerns regarding the President’s proposed expansion of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, which they contend will harm U.S. fishermen in the region without benefiting the surrounding environment.

HONOLULU (10 September 2014) A delegation from the U.S. Pacific islands, including fisheries managers and commercial fishing industry representatives, met yesterday with the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), including Counselor to the President JohnPodesta. The group conveyed its concerns for an Executive proposal that would bar fishermen from nearly 700,000 miles of vitally historic fishing grounds.The delegation from the Pacific islands included leaders from Hawaii, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC). They expressed their opposition to President Obama’s proposal to expand the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument (PRIMNM). Arnold Palacios, CNMI Secretary of the Department of Lands and Natural ResourcesandWPRFMC chair, described the meeting as “a frank discussion,” at which the delegation from the Western Pacific shared “concerns that the current proposal is destined to fail our fishermen and environment.” According totheWPRFMC and others at the meeting, the proposed Monument expansion would unfairly penalize the U.S. Pacific islands and American fishermen and fail at its conservation objectives.The meeting was an important opportunity for Executive officials to hear firsthand about these issues. In addition to Mr.Podesta, Acting Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality Michael Boots, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Daniel Ashe, and Senior Advisor to the Undersecretary of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Dr. Christine Blackburn were in attendance, among other senior officials.According to theWPRFMC, the Administration overlooked key local stakeholders and regional fishery managers in the original planning of the proposal, which in turn produced a plan that neglects the needs and concerns of the region and its vitally important fishing industry.Sean Martin, of the HawaiiLongline Association, remarked that “this attempt at crafting an environmental legacy for our nation will ultimately prove to accomplish the opposite by disenfranchising our own fishermen and outsourcing domestic seafood demand to nations whose standards for environmental protections pale in comparison to our own.”Opposition to the proposed Monument expansion centers around arguments that it disregards already effective marine protections,unfairlyharmshard working American fishermen, and outsources domestic seafood demand to nations with poor records of environmental stewardship.KittySimonds,ExecutiveDirectoroftheWPRFMC, explained, “Our current management systems are a global guide and a living legacy for responsible resource management. Our regulations are the strictest in the world.”

Map illustrating the vast expanse of ocean that would be off limits to fishermen with the
proposed Monument expansion.

Added to that, say representatives from the WPRFMC, is the unfortunate reality that the size of an expanded Monument would be too large to enforce, likely leading to exploitation of the Monument by foreign competitors for illegal fishing. Currently, 91 percent of seafood consumed in the United States is imported, with up to one-third potentially sourced from illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing.

 

The delegates from the U.S. Pacific islands also say that the marine species for which protections are sought are highly migratory and will not gain protections from an expanded PRIMNM. For our fishermen, they argue, the expansion will mean substantial cost increases, both in terms of fuel to travel further out to sea and for entry to other nations’ fishing grounds, for which our fishermen are required to pay large fees. They noted that fishing access to the high seas is also restricted by international fishery management organizations, to which the United States is a party. Representatives from the WPRFMC further explained that U.S. Pacific island fishermen are also being squeezed out of U.S. waters by other existing marine national monuments, national marine sanctuaries, large fishing vessel exclusion zones and no-access military areas.

 

Claire Poumele, Director of the American Samoa Port Authority and a WPRFMC member, said the Monument expansion would have catastrophic consequences to the territory’s tuna canning operations, which employs one-third of the population.

 

But at the meeting, government officials reaffirmed their support for the Monument’s expansion, however, they did not explain their rationale or expound upon any supporting facts. Mr. Podesta expressed his opinion that large marine protected areas are valuable to the nation’s conservation objectives.

 

The WPRFMC is a regional fishery management council established by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 1976. The Council has successfully implemented innovations in fisheries management and conservation for 35 years, including ecosystem-based fishery management plans and vessel monitoring systems. WPRFMC emphasizes public participation and the involvement of local communities in science-based fisheries management.

 

Attachments:

 

WPRFMC Presentation to White House CEQ

 

PRIMNM CEQ Meeting Complete Media Package

 

Comments can be posted here

 

 ———————————————————————————————————————————-

 

NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release                                                         September 5, 2014

 

 

(St. John’s) FFAW-Unifor President Earle McCurdy said there needs to be more respect shown to inshore fish harvesters by industrial users of traditional fishing waters as well as regulatory authorities.

No fewer than three ongoing issues highlight the degree of intrusion on traditional fishing grounds, McCurdy said.

He said it is “shocking” that the Government of Canada is proposing a Marine Protected Area in the Laurentian Channel off the province’s south coast in which fishing would be prohibited but activities other than fishing would be accommodated.

“What kind of second class citizens do they think fish harvesters are?” McCurdy charged.

He said that while 100% of the proposed area, which encompasses more than 11,000 square kilometres of ocean, will be closed to fishing, 83% will remain open for cable and pipeline installation, and for all practical purposes the entire area will be open for oil and gas exploration and development.

McCurdy also expressed concern about plans for installation of a telecommunications cable that’s scheduled for peak fishing time in 2015. This cable would run from Nova Scotia to Europe, and would run through prime fishing ground off the south coast and on the Grand Banks.

McCurdy said entanglement of fishing gear with a telecommunications link in the Gulf of St. Lawrence was a “nightmare” for a fishing vessel owner who was sued by the cable company.

He said the cable laying should be delayed until after the peak fishing season; that a compensation fund should be set up in the event any fishing enterprises incur damages as a result of the development; and a waiver should be put in place exempting fishing enterprises from damages arising out of ordinary fishing activity.

“These guys are the new kids on the block. They shouldn’t expect to just come in on traditional fishing grounds and take over,” McCurdy said.

He noted that the “watering down” of environmental protection regulations by the Harper government means that this proposed development no longer has to go through a proper Environmental Assessment process.

The third issue that McCurdy raised was a report that a move is afoot to reduce the amount of pilotage required for industrial users of Placentia Bay.

McCurdy said he understands a proposal has been made to water down the current mandatory requirements for large vessels using the busy bay, and that local Transport Canada officials have been bypassed.

“This flies in the face of 25 years of co-operation between various users of this bay,” he said. “There should be no watering down of the current pilotage requirements.

For further information, contact FFAW-Unifor President Earle McCurdy at (709) 576-7276 or (709) 743-5444.

 

—————————————————————————————

Gulf of Maine Cod Peer Review Meeting – Live Streaming Information for Aug. 28-29, 2014

Dear Interested Parties:

Meeting: The public is invited to listen in to a panel of scientific experts who will review the recently released Draft Gulf of Maine Cod Operational Assessment Report on Thursday, August 28 and Friday, August 29, 2014. The meeting is scheduled to convene at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday and 8:30 a.m. on Friday.

Background:  Six members of the Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee and one external reviewer will serve as the panel of experts. The reviewers will evaluate whether the assessment successfully met the Terms of Reference – a set of specific tasks the assessment was directed to address. The assessment document, Terms of Reference, or ToRs, a list of the reviewers, and additional information is available at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw/cod.

Location: Sheraton Harborside Hotel, 250 Market Street, Portsmouth, NH for those who decide to attend in person. Click www.sheratonportsmouth.com/<http://www.sheratonportsmouth.com/> for location details, etc.

Webinar Information: Click https://www3.gotomeeting.com/join/535601814 to join in online. There is no need to pre-register. The webinar will be activated beginning at 8:00 a.m. and end at approximately 6:00 p.m. EST each day.

Charges for Listening: There are no charges for accessing the webinar via your computer. If you would like to listen to the meeting on your telephone, please be aware that your regular phone charges will apply.

Dial in number: +1 (872) 240-3201
Access Code: 535-601-814.

Meeting Materials: Please click here for all meeting documents: http://www.nefmc.org/tech/cte_mtg_docs/2014/140828-29/gom_cod_review.html, including the agenda and other materials to be considered.

Questions: If you have questions prior to or during the meeting, feel free to call me at the Council office at (978) 465-0492 ext. 106, or otherwise send an email to [email protected]<mailto:pfi[email protected]>. If you need to call, my cell phone number is 617 548 5786.

Regards, Pat Fiorelli
Patricia M. Fiorelli
Public Affairs Officer
New England Fishery Management Council
50 Water Street, Mill 2
Newburyport, MA 01950
978.465.0492, ext. 106
[email protected]<mailto:pfi[email protected]>

————————————————————————-

NORTH CAROLINA FISHERIES ASSOCIATION, INC.
PO Box 335
Bayboro, NC 28515
Phone: (252) 361-3015                   www.ncfish.org

 

PRESS RELEASE                                  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASENCFA

August 5, 2014

CONTACT:                           Brent Fulcher, Chairman: (252) 514-7003
                  Jerry Schill, President: (252) 361-3015
                  Stevenson L. Weeks, Attorney for Plaintiffs (252) 725-2503

 

STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES NAMED IN LITIGATION
Commercial fishing groups file complaint regarding Endangered Species Act

Litigation was filed today alleging that several agencies and their representatives have failed to abide by the Endangered Species Act, (ESA),  in the protection of sea turtles.

Filed in Raleigh, North Carolina by two commercial fishing organizations, the complaint requests that the Court rule that the defendants have violated and continue to violate Section 9 of the ESA and have allowed the recreational hook and line fishery to “operate in a manner that has caused and is continuing to cause the illegal take of endangered Kemp’s Ridley sea turtles and the unauthorized take of threatened loggerhead, green and leatherback sea turtles”. They further request that the Court order the defendants to implement regulations in the recreational hook and line fishery until they receive an incidental take permit, and further, for the federal agencies to conduct abundance surveys and nesting population surveys. The groups filed a letter of intent to sue in March of this year.

The listed defendants are Penny Pritzker, Secretary of the US Department of Commerce; Sally Jewell, Secretary of the US Department of the Interior; Dr. Kathleen Sullivan, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Daniel Ashe, Director of the US Fish & Wildlife Service; John Skvarla, Secretary of the NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources; Dr. Louis Daniel, Executive Director of the NC Division of Marine Fisheries; and Gordon Myers, Executive Director of the NC Wildlife Resources Commission.

Plaintiffs are the North Carolina Fisheries Association, Inc,; and the Carteret County Fisherman’s Association, Inc., both non profit trade associations of commercial fishermen, seafood dealers and processors.

The complaint states that the defendants have long realized that the recreational hook and line fishery has been in violation of the ESA, yet have failed to take any action to prevent the illegal take of sea turtles in the fishery. On the other hand, commercial fishermen have been required to adhere to a number of measures in efforts to protect sea turtles, including shrimping, large mesh gillnets and the longline fishery.

-end-

Note: The North Carolina Fisheries Association is a 61 year old trade association representing the interests of commercial fishing families. It is governed by a Board of 17 Directors, including 6 affiliate groups.

The 19-page civil action is available by request, as is more detailed background information.

Sea Turtle litigation: 19-page document as pdf

16:33

 

Please see the below Press Release from Tradex Foods.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Tradex Foods Launches Tradex LIVE

Victoria, British Columbia – July 22nd, 2014 – Tradex Foods a Global Seafood Producer and Distributor is proud to announce a new and exciting tool for purchasing seafood – TradexLIVE

 

Tradex LIVE is an exclusive portal that displays our latest offers on H&G and Value Added seafood items Live and in Real-time. Access to this Tradex LIVE requires registration of a user account however the service is provided Free of Charge to our valued customers. This fast approach to servicing our customers saves them time on emails, saves them time on phone calls and most of all, saves them money!

Tradex LIVE was built from the ground up for efficiency. The “filter” and “search” function is Lightning Quick returning your results in Real-time. Customer will also be able to see product information such as the Catch Method, the Fishing Area and even Product Photos.

Demo: A demo has been created for you to view. Please use the login details below.  

username: [email protected]

password: demo

If you have any questions or concerns please contact John Steel – Global Sales Manager at [email protected] or 1-877-479-1355.

Safety, and Survival Training,  Gloucester  May 15 – 16img-logo-fpss

Fishing Partnership Support Services is offering two hands-on training sessions taught by Coast Guard-Certified Fishing Vessel Safety Instructors. These day-long trainings are FREE for commercial fishermen – and you’ll be learning from the best.

   MAY 15:     Safety & Survival Training takes you through the basic skills you need in these vital areas: Firefighting, Man-Overboard Procedures, Flooding & Pump Operations, Flares & EPIRBs, Survival Suits, Life Raft Equipment, Helicopter Hoist Procedures, and First Aid. If you have a survival suit, bring it.

FREE vaccines, blood pressure and cholesterol screenings.

 

   MAY 16:    Drill Conductor Training is the advanced “train the trainers” course for those who’ve taken Safety & Survival Training  and want to conduct the required monthly drills on their fishing vessel. This coOMIA side BLUEurse meets the federal requirements of 46 CFR28.

Location: COAST GUARD STATION GLOUCESTER  17 HARBOR LOOP, GLOUCESTER, MA 01930
7:30am – 3:00pm – Coffee and donuts; lunch provided by Ocean Marine Insurance Agency.

Space is limited so click HEREto register or contact Nina Groppo or call 978-282-4847.

—————————————————————————————-

From: Tom Nies [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 9:20 AM Subject: Phil Haring

Long-time Council staff member Phil Haring passed away on May 3, 2014 after a courageous battle against an aggressive brain tumor. He was at home with his family. He was 60 years old.

As a young child, Phil lived in several Middle Eastern countries as his father pursued a career in the Department of Agriculture. He later joined the Merchant Marine and served as a watch officer on several large merchant ships, including the high speed SL-7 container ships introduced in the early 1970s, and kept his love of the ocean throughout his life. He spent several years crewing private yachts, the highlight of which was running Walter Cronkite’s yacht off New England. Phil also spent several years in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, working as crew on several yachts and charter fishing vessels.

Phil joined the Council staff in 1990 after earning his Master’s Degree in Marine Affairs from the University of Rhode Island, where he was a classmate and roommate of MAFMC member Jeff Kaelin. Phil was the key staff member for the groundfish plan during the development of the effort control system that was adopted in Amendments 5 and 7 in the mid-90s. He continued to work on groundfish through the end of 1999, authoring three amendments and about 22 framework actions in six years. He then staffed the Atlantic Herring Committee before switching to the monkfish FMP. Phil was also the curator for the Council sound system, a thankless task that caused him considerable irritation due to his co-workers’ lack of attention to the proper use and stowage of the equipment. Phil was diagnosed with a brain tumor in early 2013, but continued to perform his duties until late October.

Phil met  his wife Kris, a licensed clinical social worker, shortly after joining the staff. He often bragged of her pie-making prowess, and was proud of her success managing her own counseling service. He and Kris are the proud parents of Alex, who will finish his last semester at  WPI this fall, earning a degree in engineering. Alex is an avid recreational fisherman, and he and Phil made several ice-fishing trips together in recent years. Phil’s summers were spent in his vegetable garden on the edge of the woods in Topsfield, MA. He repeatedly won awards, including best in show, for his vegetables at the annual Topsfield Fair.

In the office, we could always count on Phil for advice on the best places to eat in any city in New England. He was known for his affinity for canned seafood: sardines, octopus, squid, etc. He was a quiet friend to everyone in the office, but was not afraid to play practical jokes and had a keen sense of humor. Throughout his illness, he maintained his humor and optimism, and faced his struggle with dignity.

We are devastated by the loss of our friend.

Tom Nies

Executive Director New England Fishery Management Council

[email protected]

978-465-0492 ext 113

—————————————————————————————

New Assessment Concludes that Butterfish Are Not Overfished

Council Applauds Collaborative Efforts to Determine Butterfish Stock Status

A new scientific assessment of the butterfish population indicates that the stock is not overfished and that overfishing is not occurring. These findings were detailed in the 58th Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW) Summary Report, which was released by theNMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center last month after being approved by a panel of external peer reviewers during the Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) process.The results of this assessment are particularly significant because the status of butterfish had been classified as “unknown” since the previous assessment was completed in 2010 (SAW/SARC 49). Although the SARC 49 review panel had agreed that overfishing was not likely occurring, it did not accept the adequacy of the biological reference points (BRPs) used for stock status determination.

 

The high degree of uncertainty in the previous assessment was due in part to the biology of the stock. Butterfish are relatively short-lived and experience high rates of natural mortality. These factors make the stock size strongly dependent on recruitment, resulting in high variability in stock size estimates from year to year.

 

For the most recent assessment, scientists sought to reduce some of these sources of uncertainty by utilizing a new modeling approach that incorporated current research on estimation of catchability. This revised approach provided an improved basis for understanding the stock history and allowed for the successful estimation of BRPs. The reviewer summary found that the incorporation of new information from research studies “led to improved understandings of the population dynamics.”

 

In addition to determining that the stock was not overfished (at or above BMSY), the assessment also concluded that the stock had been above the biomass target for the entirety of the time series used (1989-2012).

 

“This assessment represents tremendous progress that’s being made through ongoing collaborative efforts to understand the dynamics and status of this fishery,” said Council Chairman Rick Robins. “Having a conclusive, peer-reviewed stock assessment is a major leap forward in this fishery.”

 

Support for the stock assessment was expressed by a number of Council members and other attendees at the Council’s most recent meeting in Montauk, New York. “A lot of people from many different disciplines played an integral part in the success of this, and I think the results speak for themselves,” said Greg DiDomenico, Executive Director of the Garden State Seafood Association. “This type of collaboration needs to be applied to other species.”

 

Meeting attendees also noted the contributions of Geir Monsen, an advisor to the Council who passed away last year. “Geir Monsen’s persistent encouragement to improve our understanding of this fishery has come to fruition,” stated Chairman Robins. “His efforts will benefit the resource, the fishery, and the Council.”

 

Although it has not yet been determined how the new assessment will affect butterfish quotas for 2015 and beyond, many fishermen are hopeful that higher quotas will allow for expansion of a directed butterfish fishery.

 

“From a practical standpoint, the outcome we have now is that there are enough fish for a directed fishery while still accounting for the forage needs of other species and accommodating the longfin squidfishery,” said DiDomenico. “The fact that we’ve got people in other countries eating butterfish caught by U.S. fishermen cannot be overlooked.”

 

A complete summary of the stock assessment results, including assessments for tilefish and northern shrimp, is available here.

<b>Comment here

CNMI Got ‘Jacked,’ Fishery Management Council Is Told 

HONOLULU (19 March 2014) The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, which has authority over federally managed fisheries in Hawai`i, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and the US Pacific remote island areas, began its week-long meeting March 17 and 18 at the Fiesta Resort, Garapan, CNMI, and will conclude the meeting March 20 and 21 at the Hilton Hotel, Tumon, Guam. As part of the Council meeting, a Fishers Forum on the Malesso (Merizo) community-based management plan and on shark management will be held Thursday night from 6 to 9 p.m. at the Hilton Guam. Council recommendations are transmitted to the Secretary of Commerce for final approval. For the full Council meeting agenda and background documents, go to meetings section of the Council’s website at www.wpcouncil.org.

CNMI Submerged Lands and Militarization

 

CNMI Gov. Eloy S. Inos opened the Council meeting Monday noting fishery-related issues of concern to the Commonwealth. Key among them was President Obama’s Jan. 15, 2014, Presidential proclamation that withholds the transference of submerged lands 0 to 3 miles around five of the 14 islands that comprise the Commonwealth, i.e., Farallon de Pajaros (Uracas), Maug, Asuncion, Farallon De Medinilla (FDM) and Tinian.

 

U.S. Public Law 113-34, enacted in September 2013, conveyed title to the submerged lands around the 14 Northern Marianas Islands to the government of the Commonwealth. But President Barack Obama’s proclamation temporarily withholds transfer of the lands around Uracas, Maug and Asuncion (i.e., the Island Units of the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument) pending an agreement for “coordination of management that ensures the protection of the marine national monument within the excepted area.” Similarly, lands around US military leases on the islands of Tinian and FDM will be transferred upon an agreement that “ensures protection of military training within the excepted area,” the Proclamation says.

 

Inos said it is possible for NOAA and US Fish and Wildlife Service to continually disapprove any management agreement so they can retain control over the submerged lands within the monument. He asked the Council to support Commonwealth efforts to have the submerged lands “presently being held hostage by the US Departments of Commerce and the Interior returned to their rightful owners.”

 

“CNMI got jacked,” noted Arnold Palacios, Council chair and Secretary of the CNMI Department of Lands and Natural Resources (DLNR). “They gave us the submerged lands and then they took it back …. I don’t think they [Departments of Commerce and the Interior] are interested in co-management. The Antiquities Act [used to create the monument] doesn’t allow the co-management that was promised to us by the White House envoy.”

 

The Marianas TrenchMonument was created by President George W. Bush by Presidential proclamation on Jan. 6, 2009. The monument includes 95,216 square miles (60,938,240 acres) of submerged lands and waters in various places in the Mariana Archipelago and no dry land area.

 

“We got slapped, NOAA got slapped,” said John Gourley, a CNMI resident providing public comment. He noted that the Department of the Interior has sole management of the Volcanic and Trench Units of the monument, which contain two-thirds of the monument area.” While the Council membership includes a representative from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, that person was not present at the meeting. “We were blind-sided and treated unfairly,” Gourley said, adding that the authority of the withheld submerged lands should be returned to the Commonwealth.

“I’m angry, disappointed and frustrated,” said Lino Olopai, a CNMI resident of Carolinian descent. The Carolinian along with the Chamorro are the two indigenous peoples of CNMI. Olopai noted that their ancestral land predates the legal teachings that came “out of the blue” and were imposed upon them despite the language barriers for those who still use their native language as their primary language. He noted that the ancestral land, which was understood to include the water, was “handed down generation to generation without legal title. … Why can’t the American government understand and give the submerged lands back to me and then we will sit down and share it together …Give back what is rightfully ours with or without a legal document.”

“It is encroachment,” noted Council Executive Director Kitty Simonds, referring to FDM. A prime bottomfish fishing ground that is accessible to Saipan residents, FDM was occasionally closed to fishing by the military out to 3 miles for live-fire training, then 7 miles and now 10 miles with talk of permanent closures out to 12 miles.

 

“We aren’t asking the military to leave [CNMI],” said Commonwealth resident Rosemond Santos, a member of Guardians of Gani, former CNMI legislator and attorney. “But they have taken enough. We want them to respect us.” Gani is a Chammoro term for the islands in the CNMI north of Saipan, including FDM, Pagan (another island the military has been considering for training use) and the other northern islands, including the three contained in the monument.

“We do not own the land and ocean around our islands, we belong to it,” said Genevieve S. Cabera, another Guardians of Gani member. “The primary concern now is militarization … the military pushing the envelope.”

CNMI resident Gary Sword noted that the militarized waters around Guam and Tinian take away huge fishing areas. He said the average annual income per family in CNMI is $23,000. “We are not rich,” he noted. He also pointed out that residents cannot fish within 500 yards around Naval ships that utilize 11 prepositioning sites offshore Saipan. He said the heavy chains and anchors are killing the reefs, which are habitat for the fish. “Our fishing industry is dying because we don’t have anywhere to go fish,” he said.

 

Sword continued, giving a short history of the military in the CNMI. He said the Battle of Saipan during World War II included 524 ships and 30 days of warfare, leaving only 300 Chamorro living in caves. Then they were put into internment camps for two years. “The people of the CNMI have suffered a lot,” he said. “We have given a lot.” He noted that Tinian is the island from where the planes left with atomic bombs to stop the war. “Can we get some recognition for that? … Our children’s future is at stake. CNMI is crying out.”

 

The Council directed its staff to work with the CNMI government in its efforts regarding the submerged lands restricted by the President’s proclamation. The Council will also request that the Departments of Defense (DOD) and the Interior provide maps to the CNMI showing specifically the placement of CNMI’s 3-nautical mile boundary and CNMI submerged lands throughout the archipelago. The Council also directed its staff to continue monitoring DOD activities in relation to fishing access regarding potential closures around FDM, Tinian and Guam and request that the DOD and other entities provide financial support to the Marianas Integrated Management Committee, established to facilitate communication between the military and communities.

 

The Council also will urge the DOD to review the placement of their prepositioning ships in the CNMI; collect additional information from existing anchorage sites, to review changes in the anchorage and non-anchorage zones; promote a permanent mooring system, which would minimize further damage to the benthic environment, thereby allowing recovery of coral reef habitat; continue to pursue avenues to mitigate damage to benthic resources; and revisit and revise memorandum of understanding between the US Navy and CNMI, which allowed the Navy to anchor  the prepositioning ships without payment to the CNMI but may be expired. The Council recommended that the DOD provide the aforementioned assessments to the CNMI government upon completion.

 

Coral Reef Fisheries Annual Quotas

 

The 2006 reauthorized MSA requires that all federally managed fisheries have ACLs. Exceptions include fisheries that are managed internationally, fisheries for species with life cycles of less than one year, and non-targeted species designated as components of the ecosystem. The MSA also requires that the SSC determine the acceptable biological catch (ABC) and that the ACL recommended by the Council not exceed the ABC.

 

The Council reviewed the ABCs specified by the SSC for coral reef fisheries in Hawai`i, American Samoa, Guam and the CNMI and recommended that the ACLs be set 5 percent lower than the ABCs. The reduction takes into account social, economic, ecological and management uncertainty. The ACL is associated with a 25 to 40 percent chance of exceeding maximum sustainable yield (MSY), depending upon the species complex. MSA allows up to 50 percent probability of overfishing. The ACLs will apply for fishing year 2015 to 2018. A complete list of ACLs for coral reef fisheries for 2015 to 2018 can be found on the last page of this document.

 

Conflicting Local and Federal Shark Regulations

 

The Council heard presentations about the conflicting local and federal shark management regulations. The CNMI laws forbid landing of sharks with fins but allow landing of sharks for subsistence use. The federal law forbids the landing of sharks without the fins naturally attached. During a Fishers Forum on the issue of sharks held as part of the Council meeting on Monday night in Saipan, CNMI Congressman Ray Tebuteb noted that the CNMI shark management regulations were developed under a short time with limited information. Council senior scientist Paul Dalzell presented on the continued problem of shark depredation that fishermen have reported since the 1940s. The Council directed its staff to facilitate resolution of the conflict between federal and local shark regulations.

 

 

CNMI Bottomfish

 

The Council heard presentations about the regulation that restricts vessels larger than 40 feet from fishing for bottomfish 50 nautical miles (nm) around the southern islands of CNMI and 10 nm around the northern island of Alamagan. It was noted that, in 2009, the regulation was established to address concerns that larger vessels would enter into the fishery, compete with small boat local fishermen and impact the stock. Given the healthy state of the stock, the impacts of the regulations on the local fishing industry and concerns about the future of the local fishery, the Council recommended that as preferred preliminary alternatives that the bottomfish area closures around the Southern Islands and around the northern island of Alamagan be removed. Before the next Council meeting in June 2014, Council staff was directed to conduct meetings in Rota and Tinian to review the alternatives with those communities.

 

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council: Appointees by the Secretary of Commerce from nominees selected by American Samoa, CNMI, Guam and Hawaii governors: Michael Duenas, Guam Fishermen’s Cooperative Association (Guam) (Vice Chair) ; Edwin Ebisui (Hawaii) (Vice Chair); Richard Seman, education and outreach specialist (CNMI); ); William Sword, recreational fisherman (American Samoa) (Vice Chair); Michael Goto, United Fishing Agency Ltd. (Hawaii); Julie Leialoha, biologist (Hawaii); Dr. Claire Tuia Poumele, Port Administration (American Samoa); and McGrew Rice, commercial and charter fisherman (Hawaii). Designated state officials: Arnold Palacios, CNMI Department of Land & Natural Resources (chair); William Aila, Hawaii Department of Land & Natural Resources; Dr. Ruth Matagi-Tofiga, American Samoa Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources; and Mariquita Taitague, Guam Department of Agriculture. Designated federal officials: Michael Tosatto, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office; Bill Gibbons-Fly, US Department of State; RAdm Cari B. Thomas, US Coast Guard 14th District; and Susan White, Pacific Reefs National Wildlife Refuges Complex.

COMMENT HERE

 

————————————————————————————————
To: Dr. James W. Balsiger, Regional Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region

& United States Commissioner,

International Pacific Halibut Commission

P.O. Box 21668

Juneau, AK 99802


March 5, 2014

Response to February 19, 2014 NEWS RELEASE from NOAA Fisheries: NOAA TIGHTENS HALIBUT BYCATCH LIMITS FOR GULF OF ALASKA GROUNDFISH FISHERIES.

Dear Jim:

While NOAA puts a public spokesperson name on the news release for Amendment 95, let’s face facts — you are the Alaska administrator, and a voting member of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. Accordingly, your news release was considered insensitive and not well received by disappointed GOA hook and line halibut fishermen: on line with other pro-trawler actions by the NPFMC and NMFS/NOAA.

Amendment 95 is not fair and equitable in practice. You and the agency and NPFMC are not doing what is feasible, not obeying the UN FAO precautionary principle, not balancing the economic impact among sectors, not doing what is best for overall national benefit and not serving USA consumers.

‘To the extent practicable’ — really?

It is high time NMFS and the NPFMC fully grasp that the directed halibut fishery has been reduced from 100% to 27% over the past ten years while Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska (BSAI, GOA) trawl fisheries continually receive extreme levels (millions of pounds) of halibut bycatch. How does your office square this with sixty (60) or more amendments to the North Pacific Gulf of Alaska Groundfish Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) since 1977 and the role of the far older bilateral agreement based International Pacific Halibut Commission — IPHC?

Does not the latter have treaty precedence over regional fishery management council (RFMC) FMPs or federal fishery legislation such as the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) and related second-rate law? In other words, how does the Secretary of Commerce and RFMC realm dominate over Congressional first-rate Treaty power?

As you know, the NPFMC June 2013 Groundfish FMP supporting document reminds in “5 Relationship to Applicable Law and Other Fisheries—5.2 International Conventions” of the “Convention for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the North Pacific Ocean and the Bering Sea (basic instrument for the IPHC)” of which you are a United States commissioner.

GOA groundfish Amendment 95, was a long time in coming, but about the phrase “to the extent practicable” — what does it mean to you in the dual-management course regarding the halibut specter?  Should we, and consumers, be insulted by how the term is applied or become reassured that continually unwarranted trawl bycatch can in any way help restore halibut stocks? NMFS and the Council seem to be totally impracticable; not only to us, but to any American consumer with whom we discuss halibut bycatch and bilateral legal intentions.

After all, the December 2013 expansion of GOA groundfish total allowable catch (TAC) by 52,000 MT has essentially removed any argument that there is still “a race for fish” that would warrant a trawl catch shares solution — giveaway allocations to the fleet imperiling halibut’s future. So why all this talk of allocation and so little about methods available to reduce bycatch, such as time and area closures, geographic multispecies problem identification and appropriate mitigation, etc.?  We hear the long dragged-out gear modification (excluder) discussion and can’t help but wonder, “when if ever?”

Jim, as NOAA’s representative on the NPFMC, and coinciding IPHC commissioner, we would appreciate you personally leading the way on strongly enforcing the real meaning of “to the extent practicable” in a multispecies, multi-sectored arena.  We expect you to be the strong voice at NPFMC when groundfishery amendments fail to protect the halibut and our directed fisheries. Otherwise, you represent the failure of NMFS on the frontline of destruction.

As the document says, “Many of the management measures contained herein are for the expressed purpose of mitigating a severe crisis in the domestic halibut fishery by recognizing a situation in which the trawl fishery (and possibly the sablefish setline fishery) could be a major contributor to declining halibut abundance.” And “the IPHC was created to conserve, manage, and rebuild the halibut stocks…”

Are you going to push the NPFMC and NOAA to reduce the bycatch of halibut, NOW!?  Does Amendment 95 even come close to making sense?  We’ve been taking huge cuts in the directed halibut fleet, year after year, while this small (almost insignificant) and easily attainable trawl bycatch reduction slowly comes into play by 2016.

Please, what are the real rates of GOA trawl bycatch, and reduction potential, after removing the gaming of the observer system? No one in the trawl fleet has ever come forward with the truth of what is possible, let alone what they actually bycatch. Observer coverage has now gone down from inadequate to miserably low.  Only government can force that fleet to be forthcoming, and NOAA has failed wholly in that regard.  Yes, wholly, because NMFS is still making “to the extent practicable” excuses.

Haven’t longliners have told you for 8 years that we’d pay for 100% trawl coverage? What could you have done to work for the consumers, for the taxpayers, for us and the halibut convention and providing best science, not best delay tactics?

It’s also galling that NMFS spits out in a news release, when stating — absent adequate scientific information and observer coverage — the damning-the-halibut-to-doom phrase, “while preserving the potential for the full harvest of groundfish in the GOA.”  What about preserving the potential for the full harvest of commercial halibut in the GOA and the BSAI, as well?

I meaningfully represent the voice of halibut directed fishers when I say that the trawlers must stop operating on a different playing field from us.  They never take any reasonable bycatch cutback while we take the brunt of the IPHC cutbacks.  Why can’t it be understood that the trawlers are deliberately committing a wanton destruction of our resources, and that is embezzling our IFQ wealth?

Trawlers cried about backing off a meager 7.5%, howled about an insufficient15%, but the real question is how we are going to get the trawlers cut down so that they cannot continue to decimate halibut stocks.  I.E. so that they cannot keep on operating irresponsibly, at the expense of other sectors’ incomes.

Do we run them out of business, since you’ve already ran us almost out of business?  Or can the Agency and Council turn this around while we still have a small chance to recover our halibut, crab and other multispecies stocks?

Optimum Yield means Multispecies:

What about our optimum yield (directed halibut): doesn’t it matter, too? Is it not also practicable to shut trawlers down to the same level as other sectors until they fish responsibly?  Again, I’ll remind you of our struggle to get 100% of the time observer coverage on all GOA trawlers so that the Council would know what is happening.  Not once has it been done; but just one season of 100% observer data would provide best science.

If it shows underreporting has been going on in the GOA compared to the BSAI, as we suspect, then stronger disincentives to abuse halibut are warranted.  If it shows the lower bycatch levels in the GOA are real, that had another effect, and gives the IPHC valuable, essential information to making its annual stock decisions.

Defining MSY re Amendment 95:

For now, there remains a demonstrably incomprehensible gap between the trawl sector’s balance of targeting and bycatch fisheries, when contrasted with the directed halibut fleet’s balance.  The former tilts toward wanton destruction of commonwealth and ecosystem collapse for halibut while the latter tilts toward consumer-serving and wealth producing sustainability. Shouldn’t the Council, with IPCH assistance, do Cost-Benefit analyses, and show value tradeoffs and comparisons, and how the nation and consumers fair under different management scenarios?

As G.P. Goodyear (NMFS 1996) said: “ … setting MSY as a management objective will often be insufficient for developing management advice unless the desire[d]

long-term age composition of the catch or some other qualifying factor is also specified. This is particularly true for the situation in which fisheries with inherently different selectivity compete for a resource …”

NOAA has ‘no data’ sufficiency, and lacks (i.e. we have yet to see) any “deterministic population simulation model.” Please feel free to correct me if that is not true. More to this letter’s context, as Joseph E. Powers states from NOAA’s Southeast Fisheries Science Center, “Perhaps, the most important implication is that before analysts can calculate maximum sustainable yield and associated parameters, management needs to define their desired mix of fishing and what “to the extent practicable” means.”

Powers reminds, “While Goodyear’s analysis was directed at the effects of target fisheries with different selectivities (such as commercial versus recreational), his comments are no less applicable when considering fisheries which discard bycatch of a particular stock in conjunction with other fisheries which target that same stock. The implications of Goodyear’s comments are that: MSY cannot be calculated until management has defined “extent practicable”! (underline added)

He talks in meaningful and reasonable terms, about “the dilemma faced by analysts when bycatch reduction goals (and allocations) are not defined. Additionally, metrics are suggested for evaluating ‘practicable’ bycatch reduction scenarios in terms of biological risk.” Finally, this note encourages debate on socio-economic, biological and ecological implications of bycatch reduction scenarios so that informed definitions of practicable bycatch solutions may be made.”

Imbalanced Public Input, as the GAO found out:

I have repeatedly sat through NPFMC discussions about bycatch and observer coverage, and generally heard scant discussion about such combined implications. The trawlers are unmistakably driving the regulatory boat, demanding first priority in GOA privatization, and

The problem started nearly 40 years ago by emphasizing GOA amendments are for groundfish, and relegating all the other multispecies to second class regulatory status. 60 amendments later, the focus is still on the trawlers’ brass polishing while halibut, crab and other interests clean the bilges and bureaucrats distance themselves from the hard work of going beyond looking at the cod ends, only. Maybe that’s a carryover from the initial focus on TALFF and foreign trawlers and motherships, as foreigners now own the shoreside groundfish plants instead. Trawler allocation focus takes up an inordinate amount of staff time, and budgets.

Jim, is there a calculation for the tens of millions of dollars this has cost Commerce as the NPFMC continues draining taxpayer coffers for this game?

It is primarily longline halibut directed fishers who get a mere 3 minutes, separately, to voice our concerns on the record — only to find the Council has pre-conceived its pro-trawler motion, guided by NOAA catch share mentality.  Therefore, 15% reduction, far too little and too late, instead of a 73% cutback like we have had to take in recent years.  What of the requirement to adapt the precautionary approach?

Over and over we are reminded, but cut short on “to the extent practicable” that 16 U.S.C. 1851-1852 MSA §§ 301-302; Public Law 104-297 outlines National Standard “(9) Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize bycatch and (B) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch.” It seems nothing short of draconian to reduce hook and line directed fisheries by 20 to 30% or more annually, year after year, because it is deemed practicable.  Well, to us, it is ‘practicable’ to also have trawlers to share by severe cutbacks in bycatch.

It’s clearly not for Safety nor to end a Race for Fish:

Canadian trawlers have to adhere to more imposing standards.  In addition, studies show that safety among trawlers after catch shares were awarded, decreased.  This contrasts also with the United States P.L. 104-297 Standard stating “(10) Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, promote the safety of human life at sea.”  Clearly it may not practicable to award quotas to trawlers, despite common perceptions that they serve safety at-sea.

Notably, the recent 52,000 MT increase in pollock TAC for the GOA essentially ended “the race for fish,” as recently confirmed in a Kodiak public fishery meeting by the Alaska Groundfish Data Bank (Julie Bonney), in a moment of truthful clarity.  So what, again, is the reason for GOA groundfish privatization?

The Precautionary Approach:

Returning to C.F.R. § 600.350 (J) Social effects, adds, “(ii) The Councils should adhere to the precautionary approach found in the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (Article 6.5).”  In addition, Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration of the UN Conference on Environment and Development and the 1995 United Nations Fish Stock Agreement strengthening the precautionary approach, combined, address “regardless of their jurisdictional nature, recognizing that most problems affecting fisheries result from insufficiency of precaution in management regimes when faced with the high levels of uncertainty encountered in fisheries.”

Recently, voting in favor of my/our proposal, the Alaska Board of Fish closed the final bays around Kodiak Island that were left open to hard-on-bottom trawling, and we hope someday they will exclude all trawling in state waters, like is done in SE Alaska. Halibut and salmon were on their minds.

What is precautionary about reducing overall observer coverage on trawlers from 30% to around 13%, and thereby hogtieing analysis from ever gaining legitimate data?  What is precautionary about a stepped cutback of only 15%, even 50%,

73% reduction, i.e. matching trawl reductions directly to that of the directed halibut ACL/TAC quota? Are you certain that NMFS is in compliance with Article 6.5?

“To the extent ‘able to be’” means…

Foremost, let’s just get clarity on what the adjective “practicable” means: capable of being done, effected, or put into practice, with the available means; feasible, capable of being used, designed or constructed for actual use; workable, achievable, attainable.  Practicable is that which can be done with the means at hand and with conditions as they are and given current and emerging technology, along with more area closures and time adjustments, under greater levels of observation, too.

To a hook and line fisher, regarding trawlers, practicable means trawlers can keep their nets completely off the bottom (not ride there on small disks in order to fake avoidance while knowing halibut stir and end up in their nets), they can not fish at night, and can move away from halibut grounds and find groundfish elsewhere; and they can take a 73% cut in their GOA (and more in the BSAI) fishery income, too.  Is it not feasible, ‘practicable,’ for them to also share with us the overall economic loss?

Bycatch Matters & Data Collection is Imperative:

§ 600.350 National Standard 9—Bycatch: (d) Minimizing bycatch and bycatch mortality, states “The priority under this standard is first to avoid catching bycatch species where practicable.”  It goes on to immediately state “Fish that are bycatch and cannot be avoided must, to the extent practicable, be returned to the sea alive. Any proposed conservation and management measure that does not give priority to avoiding the capture of bycatch species must be supported by appropriate analyses.”

Trawlers cannot return to the sea alive, to any reasonable measure, survivable halibut. And I have never seen anything close to “appropriate analysis.” Based on what expert data, may I ask you to show us?

Rather, we note that in combination with § 600.350, MSA 303(1)(11+12), tells us that you are responsible to “promote development of a database on bycatch and bycatch mortality in the fishery to the extent practicable.”  There’s that adjective again.  Does it have meaning or simply serve as an excuse for NPFMC failures?

To me, obtaining that data has long meant a proposal for100% of the time observer coverage in the GOA, preferably paid for by trawlers — but which hook and line fishermen have long agreed to fund: because we knew that absent that database, our future, now turned into the present — was solely politically doomed.

In that meantime, how many millions has NMFS spent on a slowly developing and far more costly Observer program that has had the effect of reducing Trawl observation by two thirds, to 13% — one ninth of what’s ‘practicable’ and cost effective.

Predictably, we now barely pay seasonal fishery expenses on the highly reduced directed harvest pounds.  It makes me sick to watch my vessels docked while trawlers not only in large part clearly caused the directed halibut quota drop (their propaganda to the contrary) while they got 52,000 MT more groundfish this year in the GOA, which only increases the pressure on destruction of our halibut.

Bycatch reduction is obviously not much of a NMFS or NPFMC priority, despite the many laws.

The October 9, 2012 NPFMC motion on ‘GOA Trawl PSC Tools’ contains many errors.  Regarding the Purpose and Need Statement: Surely safety will not improve just like Canada; and as we experience in BSAI crab, the processing plants will still tightly schedule deliveries and the fleet will continue to fish in questionable weather. It is also rather flagrant to state “This program will not modify overall management of other sectors in the GOA … which already operate under a catch share system.” On paper? What a convenient trawl-faced lie.  Because I can guarantee you that my entire business plan and quota management and accounting (cash inflows and outflows) and financial credit, for Area 3 and Area 4 annual halibut operations has been devastatingly modified. As is true for other halibut longliners.

Regarding the Goals and Objectives: there’s no concern for related species’ “fair and equitable access” or “consideration [of] the value of assets and investments” and what it means to our community when we bring home coast wide halibut income.  Is Goal 5 taken seriously — “Balance interests of all sectors and provide equitable distribution of benefits and similar opportunities for increased value” — by the NPFMC and your office?  How about Goal 13: “Minimize adverse impacts on sectors and areas not included in the program” — how is that happening?

Fair and Equitable would reallocate Groundfish and PSC to Longliners:

It is a simple observation that the NPFMC and Commerce are allowing the trawlers to conduct a massive directed fishery on halibut bycatch, within international jurisdiction.  It is an obvious conclusion that one redress for those harms would be to reallocate a portion of the groundfisheries and PSC — should a catch share system be emplaced, as is the apparently unstoppable political will of NOAA — to the harmed longline sector.

We’d find a way to hire a few clean fishing skippers and put to sea trawlers and crews that truly care about conservation and bycatch reduction.  Then you could compare our 100% observed clean practices to the existing devastation. Allow us to keep the marketable halibut and reward USA consumers with high quality protein, contributing to maximizing the net national benefits.

It would be ‘practicable’ to kindly answer to many questions posed within this letter.

As you know, GOA bycatch rates deviate inexplicably from the BSAI, and the public perception justified by that is “trawlers are raping the ocean.” Likewise, Bering Sea areas that are closed to longliners, to help rebuilding halibut stocks, remain open to trawlers. The top rapists — hard on bottom trawlers — are allowed to operate there. What good does that do?

They have no defense, no facts to warrant this welcome to the school yard management policy.  The facts are on our side, and we are bound to the IPHC convention while they scurry off to the shadows to massacre halibut as bycatch. It hardly needs mentioning again, PSC means “prohibited species catch.”

The trawlers fishing behavior will not improve until the government comes along, like in Canada, and says ‘you will change, now!’ And until they rush to put observers aboard, full time, and finally determine their true level of responsibility for halibut declines.

Government must stop them from fighting the 100% full time coverage, which can only be viewed by ‘a reasonable man’ as concealing the truth.

Jim, retirement approaches and you won’t be with us that much longer on the NPFMC. Isn’t it time you be the one to start pounding a shoe on the table and champion the cause of fair and equitable FMPs “mitigating the severe crisis in the domestic halibut fishery” and holding trawlers’ feet to the responsibility and accountability fire?

We’d like your help, Administrator. Commissioner.

Respectfully yours,

Lu

Ludger W. Dochtermann; F/V North Point, F/V Stormbird

P.O. Box 714; Kodiak, AK 99615

 

Comment here

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From the Moderator

We did some upgrades to Fisherynation
When you log on, it might look like the same ‘ole website, but if you’re using a phone or tablet, the first thing you should notice is it actually works on your device!
That’s because its a “responsive” site.
The next thing you should notice is the speed.
We optimized the site, so when you click on something on the menu bar, or the comment button, you get there fast. Real fast!
We changed the comment venue from the word press default venue and added the Disqus comment platform.
If and when you comment, and someone responds, you’ll get an email from Disqus with a button to click that will bring you right back to the comment section.
We’ve already gotten some feedback about the upgrade, and its good feedback
You should take the time to join Disqus, and it keeps track of your comment history, and is used in many comment sections. It’s the best comment venue available. I hope you like it.
One more item we installed is a photo gallery. You are welcome to submit any industry related photos for others to see and enjoy. Crew shots, both fish, and support industry photos are welcome, along with pictures of fish boats, and everything fishing industry.
There will be a few more changes, and they will be made to improve the site so you can have an enjoyable, and informative experience at Fisherynation.
Please pass the word that we’re here, and if you require goods and services, please consider the companies that advertise here. They make it possible for this place to be here.
Special thanks to Mico Laas
Thanks, and Best Regards, BH

————————————————————————————–

SUBMITTED:

Here’s an example of the operational tactics of the reprehensible BOEM as it leases tracts of Mid-Atlantic Squid fishing ocean bottom. 

“…the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has scheduled a public seminar in Baltimore, Maryland to provide an overview of its proposed auction format for a renewable energy competitive lease sale in federal waters offshore Maryland.”
Note the notice for this seminar to “…explain their leasing auction rules and demonstrate the auction process through meaningful examples.”  was sent out on Thurs. Jan. 23 at 5:58 pm in the “Afternoon” of the day before a scheduled seminar in Baltimore, Maryland on Friday Jan. 24 at 12:30 to 4:30 pm.

Nice work BOEM, clearly only “insiders” are wanted as attendees.

This “rinky-dink” childish kind of behavior is not unlike the Wind/Fishermen “stakeholder outreach meetings” announced in New Bedford over the last few years.  Typically the notice for a Monday morning meeting at 9:00 am would be emailed the previous Friday evening at around…5:58 pm or so.

Note to Stakeholders – January 23, 2014

Good Afternoon,

As part of the Obama Administration’s Climate Action Plan to move our economy toward domestic clean energy sources, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has scheduled a public seminar in Baltimore, Maryland to provide an overview of its proposed auction format for a renewable energy competitive lease sale in federal waters offshore Maryland.

The seminar will also explain auction rules and demonstrate the auction process through meaningful examples. Throughout the seminar, there will be opportunity for comments and questions regarding the Proposed Sale Notice and the proposed lease sale offshore Maryland.

Potential bidders and other interested stakeholders are highly encouraged to attend.  Information regarding the seminar is provided below:

Jan 24, 2014

12:30 – 4:30 p.m.

Johns Hopkins University

Homewood Campus

Hodson Hall, Room 210

3400 North Charles Street

Baltimore, MD 21218

Background

On Dec. 17, 2013, BOEM announced the publication of a Proposed Sale Notice in the Federal Register, which requests public comment on BOEM’s proposal to auction two lease areas offshore Maryland for commercial wind energy development.

The 60-day public comment period ends on Feb. 18, 2014. Comments received or postmarked by that date will be made available to the public and considered prior to the publication of the Final Sale Notice.

For additional details and agenda regarding the Maryland public seminar, click here.

Sincerely,

Tracey B. Moriarty

BOEM Office of Public Affairs, Renewable Energy

[email protected]

(703) 757-1571

About the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) promotes economic development, energy independence, and environmental protection through responsible, science-based management of offshore conventional and renewable energy development.

Leave comment here

———————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Updated: The photo has been removed because according to people, it’s not Marty Gorham. My apologies to all.  If anyone has a photo that they would like to see in is place, send it. BHPhoto/Art by Richard Schutlz Martin Gorham, a dragger fisherman, is just off his boat at Portland Fish Pier.
The loss of Fisherman Martin “Buckwheat” Gorham.

When tragedy strikes, it affects us in different ways.The events of the past thirty six hours or so, certainly effected me personally.My heart wasn’t in posting the news.I couldn’t seem to stop thinking about horror of a fisherman falling overboard off the coast of New England, and learning it was from the F/V Lydia and Maya. There is other news about the fishing industry, and for the first time, I just couldn’t do it. As my mind was pre occupied, and many of you know why, others carried on with life as they know it, with no ties to the news of learning that a fisherman was lost off the coast of New England.The day before this, there was news that a Montauk fishing vessel, F/V Caitlin & Mairead owned and operated by Capt. Dave Aripotch, had averted tragedy when they started taking on water. Skill and a sea bag full of luck, and the US Coast Guard combined for a positive outcome. With a sigh of relief from many, knowing they made it back, I didn’t envy the work ahead of them getting the boat ready to resume its purpose and function, fishing in the hazardous Northwest Atlantic.

Of course, the loss of David Oakes is still fresh on many minds.

As the Lydia and Maya arrived to their chosen fishing area, the crew was preparing to make the first tow of the trip. The weather was workable. There were four men on board. The net was deployed, and the guys were hooking up the doors. Things went bad when Marty fell over board. These guys were now in a very un routine situation of life and death.

They threw a life ring to him, but he did not respond.

Justin Libby chose life for Marty, as he dove into the water to retrieve him. A most unselfish reaction. Even to the point of gambling his own life, It was the ultimate bet he made on his own ability to do the impossible. Pretty long odds under the cold water conditions, and the wearing of the extra clothing for winter fishing worn by all on deck. But he did it anyway. He wasted no time by peeling out of his oil gear, or boots.

Some how, he got to Marty, wrapping his legs around him and swimming to the side of the boat, while the two left on board struggled to try to get them back aboard. I’m not sure why they couldn’t get them both aboard, but they barely got Justin Libby back from his brave journey into the bone chilling Hell of the winter Atlantic ocean. As unbelievable as this may sound, this could’ve been a whole lot worse, if that’s even possible to consider knowing that they couldn’t get Marty back, and knowing how devastating this is to his people.

I can’t begin to consider what was going on in Chris Odlin’s mind, but, having met him, I have no doubt about his ability to perform in a level headed manner during the chaotic event. I would want no other in that wheel house were I on deck.

Chris and Amanda Odlin and they are the best of people. Amanda has a heart as big as the State of Maine, and Chris is a hard working, quiet guy. Both of them would give anyone the shirts off their backs. Wonderful people, with two young daughters, of which the vessel is named. Chris is a fisherman, the son of a fisherman, a brother of fishermen. He had the trust and confidence in Marty Gorham to take the Lydia and Maya on trips as Captain.

I wanted to put a face to this story, and searched the web looking for a photo of Marty Gorham. This was not an easy task, because I couldn’t find one!

My Carol found one, and I realized I had seen it before while looking at articles for the site. I just never used it, for the subject matter was not conducive, so I thought. I’ll link the source at Yankee Magazine. I offer my apology to the forth un named fisherman in this piece. I hope he contacts me so I can include him, or if anyone knows him, please recognize him for us. This is also his story.

Comment here

——————————————————————————————————-
Today’s NEFMC Webinar

I was, again, invited to the dance, and my date showed up impaired.

Today’s webinar broadcast of the NEFMC meeting, (link posted at Fisherynation) is suffering the typical poor quality it is becoming renowned for.
It started out with a discussion about the executive meeting yesterday where they had discussed the Public Comment venue.
The committee seems to think change is needed!
They want to limit the time to three minstatic………..
And there it was. The beginning of the end!
That was around 08:35.
It’s now 09:54, and after closing down the webinar, having the attendees in listen only mode log out, and log back in, nothing has improved.
I was informed that some contentions issues were to be discussed today (what’s new?) and I really wanted to listen.
How can everyone else that uses the Webinar System have successful broadcasts, with the exception of the NEFMC?
It’s a conspiracy I tell ya! 10:05
Comment here

————————————————————

Learning of How To Fish? You Need Good Bait, Jonathan, and Yours Stinks!

 

Professor Jonathan H. Adler , published this 8/1/2011 titled Learning How to Fish.

This is my rebuttal.

Professor, you seem to confused about which fishery issue you prefer to discuss.

The world fishery is being  generically lumped in with the U S Fishery, and there are fundumental differences between the two, but after reading your article including reviewing the links, I assume your main issue would be the U S Fishery, as you refer to Congressman Walter Jones in particular, who as you say is on the warpath against rights-based management. (catch shares)

You open: Overfishing is one of the world’s more serious environmental problems, but it does not have to be that way. In 1974, less than ten percent of the world’s fisheries were depleted or over exploited, according to the FAO. By 1998, over 30 percent of fisheries were over exploited and depleted. At the same time, the percentage of fisheries under or moderately exploited dropped from 40 percent to 15 percent. There is an urgent need for better fishery management.

From the article: The fact that the ocean crisis is a made up story based on science that most graduates of the fifth grade should be able to recognize as not science at all means nothing to these people. They must have crisis in order to get paid. Their jobs depend on the public being fearful of a litany of impending disasters. Any attempt to introduce the actual science of fish stock abundance assessment and surveys into their dramatic storyline is met with the vehemence one can expect from people fighting  for their jobs. Selling the story and refuting all real scientific fact that shows it to be the over-dramatized fantasy that it is shows these self appointed saviors of the planet to be exactly what they are, environmental profiteers.

I find it to be a typical propaganda tactic. To call attention to the emotional aspect of the issues by starting your article with “over fishing” is one of the world’s more serious environmental problems. The standard cookie cutter opener of some of the most notorious environmental profiteer story’s. These alarmist statements, utilizing data and studies that are outdated and non accurate are tiring, and stale.

Over fishing may be occurring in some parts of the world, but not in the United States.   Overfishing in the United States officially ended in 2011, as claimed by the National Marine Fishery Service.

BOSTON (AP) — For the first time in at least a century, U.S. fishermen won’t take too much of any species from the sea, one of the nation’s top fishery scientists says.

I find it interesting that just as this known milestone, would be greeted with EDF’s Catch Share Investment Scheme, purveyed by EDF’s own Jane Lubchenco, when Catch Shares save not one single fish!

But fishermen and their advocates say ending overfishing came at an unnecessarily high cost. Dave Marciano fished out of Gloucester, an hour’s drive northeast of Boston, for three decades until he was forced to sell his fishing permit in June. He said the new system made it too costly to catch enough fish to stay in business.

“It ruined me,” said Marciano, 45. “We could have ended overfishing and had a lot more consideration for the human side of the fishery.”

So after guy’s like Dave did what was asked of them to conserve, and rebuild, success was right at their fingertips, it gets snatched right away from them.

From this article:“If everything is so good, then why is everything so bad? A 112% revenue increase? Who? Where? Gimme the numbers! Accumulation limits, when enacted, will only cement the consolidation which is already taking place. By 2013, which is about as soon as anything of this magnitude can be implemented, the damage will already have been done. The guys who were fishing sustainably and moved off groundfish, as NOAA asked all fishermen of good conscience to do, have already paid the big price for their sacrifice. They have very little catch history and are falling by the wayside at a rapid rate. Notably, The Council set no control date, and only voted to develop the concept. Setting a retro-active date would be impossible and ultimately useless, as it would have no impact on what’s going on now and will continue until whatever hairbrained scheme they can cook up become a regulation. So this is the good news which is going to save the little guy? It is akin to delivering more lifeboats to The Titanic a week after she went to the bottom! After completely gutting The Common pool, It’s hardly a wonderment that the few survivors of that snake pit were forced into the sector sewer. Poor fellas, they actually trusted NOAA! Never again! Better, worse or anywhere in between, EDF is claiming victory after counting the first vote in an election which they rigged. There isn’t a legitimate statistician in the world who would manipulate a few months of preliminary data and contort in such a manner as to support this “scientifically sound, statistically supported”, Eco-fabricated position. The Worm really out did herself with this convoluted rationale for EDF’s pet project. Wonder what she’ll have to say once some real numbers come in, a couple years from now? Whatever it is, I’m sure it won’t be “Sorry”!

Maybe these are some of the reasons for Congressman Jones is on the war path! The Congressman is one of the bi partisan politicians involved in bringing NOAA to task and standing against the EDF Catch and Trade scheme. Barney Frank is another.

I find it curious that you would be perplexed that Congressman Jones would be “on the war path”, as you put it. As an environmental lawyer, I realize you must be  more concerned with litigation (big bucks, huh?) issues versus science issues, which is the basis for the Congressman’s concern. NOAA avoid’s it’s duty under MSA to utilize the “best available science” of which is taking a back seat to induce the EDF Catch and Trade scheme, while robbing close to $100 million dollars from the research budget, to inject Catch Shares into 270 separate US Fisheries.   I would wonder why someone such as yourself would not be alarmed with Dr Lubchencos squandering of research funds, but then, you are not a scientist. I would also believe, though,  you are knowledgeable of the 2009 Milken Institutes Global 2009 Conference in which EDFs David Festa stated profits up to 400% would be realized for outside investors.

Global X Funds Launches First Fishing Industry ETF (FISN)

Members of Congress, and fishermen are outraged that these decisions being made are not based on science. The science should be the deciding factor in fishery management and the only science being considered by NOAA, is investment science!

The science being used now is costing fishing communities, and local economies millions of dollars of revenue generated from we the peoples resource. My resource, and my fellow citizens resource.

The big thing from the environmental profiteers is to get this resource into commodity status, enabling Wall St to get their skim, investors to get theirs skim, the mailbox fishermen their ransom checks, with everyone dancing a jig on the Dave Marcianos of the industry, and supported by the common deck hand that has been screwed right out of his share . Screw that, buddy.

The environmental profiteers (environmental lawyers) EDF, CLF,NRDF, PERC, and so on, the catch share lobbyists, are not concerned with the fishermen, or the science, but what investment returns they will receive after the industry is privatized. All you have to do is review the real effects of Crab Rats to understand that the damage to New England, and every other fishery under Catch Shares is not really being addressed. It is so much deeper than any of you care to include in your pie in the sky opinions.

Truthfully councilor, we both know, this issue is really small potatos when we look at the big picture of ocean issues,eh?

 

Faith-based Fisheries

-food-water-watch-launches-national-campaign-calling-on-congress-to-end-catch-shares

http://bore-head007.newsvine.com/_news/2010/10/07/5253992-a-buddy-of-mine-had-something-to-say walter-jones-introduces-bill-to-require-regional-fishery-councils-and-science-statistical-committees-to-webcast-meetings

dr-steve-cadrin-discusses-the-insufficient-science-behind-noaa-fisheries-policy

noaa-head-lubchenco-wont-show-for-key-boston-hearing

fred-krupp-the-wealthy-edf-faux-corpoenviro-wont-come-to-the-catch-and-trade-invitational

sea-serf-sharecroppers-the-sea-lords

http://www.milkeninstitute.org/events/gcprogram.taf?function=detail&EvID=1599&eventid=GC09

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Environmental_Defense_Fund

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/PFRP/large_pelagics/Hilborn_2006(faith).pdf.

—————————————————————————————————
Use the $10 Million S-K money retrieved from the pilfering NOAA as a Fuel Subsidy for the little guy’s
After listening to the guidelines lay ed out at the SALTONSTAL​L-KENNEDY TELEPHONE TOWNHALL AND WEBINAR Thursday, August 8 from 3:00 to 5:00 pm that lasted all of thirty seven minutes, tieing up both my computer, AND my telephone, because some government employee wasn’t capable of presenting a webinar with a listen only setup, with a call in number for questions that could have been heard through the webinar, I realize what a sham this latest attempt was to help the government destroyed industry this is.
I saw the attendees list, and I recognized not one single name involved in the Northeast Multi Specie Groundfish industry, and as far as I know, it’s the Northeast Multi Specie Groundfish industry that was declared a failed fishery by the US Commerce Department.

 

Senator Warren was all gung ho about fishery aid to the Northeast ground fishery.

For the past two years, I have made many visits to Massachusetts fishing communities in New Bedford, Gloucester and the South Shore to hear about the challenges facing the industry. I’ve listened to boat owners and fishermen who face devastating catch allocation cuts, and I’ve spoken with net makers and icemen whose businesses depend on a strong fishing fleet to make ends meet. The message I’ve heard has been clear: The federal government needs to act quickly to provide disaster assistance for our fishermen, and we need long-term policy changes and better science to preserve this critical lifeline that has been part of the commonwealth’s economy and traditions for generations.

It is vitally important we support our fishermen in these difficult times, and I’m committed to being a strong advocate in Washington for Massachusetts’ fishing communities.

Senator Warren, if there is one shred of truth to your “commitment”, then I suggest to you, you make sure that these insignificant monies, in relationship to the scope of this government caused disaster which has become even more critical because of environmental issues that at the time of the disaster declaration were not known, go where they will do the most good for those you mentioned in the above quote.

Boat owners, fishermen, net makers, icemen, fuel men, machine shop’s, welders, railway’s vessel supplier’s, electronic shop’s, are the ones that need this measly $10 million dollars, which is a drop in the bucket that NOAA owes the fishing industry in S-K money.

Babbling John Bullard, a man that is not quite sure what his official title is, believes his agency of shame is bending over backwards to present “opportunity” for the beleaguered fleet is excited about dogfish as an important ingredient in the salvation plan, but today on Cape Cod, dogfish was 10 cents a pound to the boat.

That’s $10 dollars a box, 10 boxes, a thousand pounds is $100 dollars.

That does not even come close to paying the fuel bill that comes out of the crews share. How can the crewman pay his rent? buy groceries?

How can he buy gloves at NB Ship Supply?

How can the owner haul his boat out at the railway, when the pathetic, paltry $10 million S-K money that should be going to the industry is being divided into grant money through a competition for entities which are not directly fleet involved?

It is another slap in the face of those thrusted into the cruelty of administrative failure.

Is this how you help those you said needed help?

Captain Paul Cohan of Gloucester wrote a response to your op-ed posted at the Gloucester Daily Times, and Southcoast Today.

In it he wrote,

Do you realize who are going to be the beneficiaries of these “sustenance crumbs” which have fallen under NOAA’s banquet table will be?

The consultants, the grant writers, the lawyers who represent the consultants and grant writers, basically, the chiselers.

Senator, is this what you had in mind?

To get the best use of this money for those that need it the most, the money should be used as a fuel subsidy to those that are responsible to provide the raw material that drives this industry, the fishermen.

This fuel subsidy should be granted to the smallest industry members, the single and two vessel operation’s in the Common Pool and Sectors.

It’s the fishermen that need the help so they can keep everyone else going, and a fuel subsidy will bring them some relief.

Now. Let’s look ahead at the “Big Picture” in the next Go ‘Round, and Bust Up the Big Boy’s with a Buy Out.

Comment here

 

—————————————————————————————-

A Pathetic Joke Reaffirm’s that some Politicians are Clueless

So. I’m sitting here listening to the Webinar/phone meeting that has just ended, approximately 1 hour and 25 minutes early!
Can’t even imagine holding a webinar session with no sound, but, heh, that’s our government for ya!
If I wanted to listen, (I did) I needed to tie up my telephone! I did!
There were probably twenty five listeners, and three or four asked question’s.
Earlier in the week, Senator Warren wrote an op – ed piece about the $10 Million in S-K dough NOAA was gonna “grant” back to the industry.
For the past two years, I have made many visits to Massachusetts fishing communities in New Bedford, Gloucester and the South Shore to hear about the challenges facing the industry. I’ve listened to boat owners and fishermen who face devastating catch allocation cuts, and I’ve spoken with net makers and icemen whose businesses depend on a strong fishing fleet to make ends meet. The message I’ve heard has been clear:
The truth is, she didn’t get it, and there are a few poli bum kisser’s (they know who they are) that trumpet her message as progress, instead of leaning in hard and making her get it.
Ray Lamont at the Gloucester Daily Times is not one of them.
She did replace someone that did get it, and I’d bet Scott Brown would never patronize the fishermen he stood up for.
That’s all that op-ed was. Patronization of the desperate.
Grant is the key word here, and no clue when it comes to Liz Warren!
Today’s display of the S-K funding Folly was revealing to say the least.
Let the Competition Begin!
The guest list had nary a fisherman that needs relief attending the session, but plenty of professional grant hounds, with a few amateurs thrown in.
Today’s exercise was another example of fishermen getting the shit end of the stick.

 

 

Comment here

 

———————————————————————————-
Are you a survivor like John Aldridge?
 July 24, 2013 – John Aldridge, a crewmember of the 44-foot lobster vessel Anna Mary was last seen aboard the boat during his watch relief at 9 p.m., Tuesday, while the vessel was underway off Montauk, N.Y.

How many times have you read of or heard of a fisherman going overboard, only to watch an unsuccessful chain of events involving fruitless search and rescue operation’s to see them become possible recovery operation’s, and predictably, abandoned after a period of time, dictated by estimates of rate of survival and sea conditions?

Way too many.

Have you known anyone that has been lost? John Aldridge is not your typical fisherman that would find himself in an environment that, under those circumstances, would have mortal man in full blown panic mode, watching that 360 light disappear over the horizon, enveloped in darkness, feeling that cold water biting at every square inch of skin.

He had some things going for him, like the boot’s he used to keep himself afloat, and one thing we all think we have, self confidence. His attitude was his saving grace, along with the ability to improvise under extreme pressure, fighting to live, and when they found him twelve hours later, alive, we all know it was nothing short of a miracle.

The whole nation knows of John Aldridge because of his unusual survival story.

We all know how rare this is in the fishing industry.

Honestly, had that been me, I wouldn’t have made it. Think about your self for a few minutes, and assess your reality of the chances of coming through this as Aldridge did.Be honest. Would you have made it?

Contemplate the reactions of your wife, children, sister, mother, father, all your friends, dory mates knowing you’ve been swallowed by the sea.Hell. Think about your favorite bartender holding your tab till you settle up!

These incidents will never be eliminated, but there is some cheap insurance that can be purchased to stack the odds of survival and/or recovery in your favor, and one item in particular would increase the ability to be found.

The first is a PFD.Getting you guy’s to wear one will be scorned by many of you, but with the many styles, including co2 inflated, there is a huge selection available to choose from, and would at least make your chance’s of survival 100% better with than without.The second item is the Personal Locator Beacon. Same thing as the PFD’s.

Ocean_Signal_rescueME_PLB1_M webHuge range of selection and they all do the same thing. Tell the people looking for you where you are.

If Aldridge had one of these, they would have found him within a couple of hours, depending on how quick the Coast Guard could’ve gotten there, or even sooner by commercial vessels alerted by the Coast Guard.As I said, think about your wife, children, sister, mother, father, all your friends, dory mates, and your bartender!Get and use a PFD, and be sure it has a PLB in the pocket.

Comment here

 

——————————————————————————Richard Gaines, Staff Writer, Gloucester Daily TimesFor years, we found his byline under the headline of every major fishery article that we read at the Gloucester Daily Times.It told us to read on for the truth and an unbiased perspective that a great journalist presents regarding our livelihoods.

Richard’s articles provided the information to the public of the complexities that made up the convoluted issues surrounding the stories of the New England ground fishery — something that was just about impossible.Some of the articles would leave the public confused, but industry insiders knew exactly what he was bringing up.  At times, these controversial to insider articles would erupt, causing some noses to get out of joint, generating lively, pointed, and sometimes fierce debate.

Those were my favorites, and I know what Richard wrote was on the money, even though some would disagree, of course.

To those people I say, some of these issues will be raised again, because there has been no closure.

There’s a lot of unfinished business to be settled, and our literary warrior, Richard Gaines, forever rides with many of us in our hearts and minds. Many of us that will attempt to keep those issues alive.

There are some that won’t share in our feelings regarding our beloved friend and beacon of justice for the small boat fishermen, and for fishermen in general, and we understand this.ENGO’s and the “too big to fail” fishing conglomerates and even the bureaucracy of NOAA/NMFS, that includes OLE/OGC, may be breathing sighs of relief, or are even content to know that Richard Gaines won’t be watchdogging them.

While such agenda bound groups might find temporary relief in Richard’s passing, his crossing the bar merely reaffirms to us that we must each continue the struggles that are easier to walk away from than to stand and fight back.  To those bad players, we’ll steadfastly say, “As long as we draw a breath of existence, let it be known that our loss will not be your gain.”

I also realize that many who do understand what I’m trying to say are battle weary. For many, it’s been a decade’s long continuous fight, but it is a worthy one.

Richard Gaines created a standard that we all now expect in the esoteric arena of fishery journalism; but sadly, there is no one individual to carry on the legacy he left for us.  During this time of awakening to this cruel reality the question becomes, “How do we continue Richard’s work that still demands greater accountability to the resource and the public?”

We must find the way. Richard would want us to; and his bright beacon will forever guide us to that home harbor where truth and conscience tie up to the dock alongside integrity and grit.

Click to comment

—————————————————————————————————————-

When you lose something you can’t replace

South Coast Today reporter Steve Urbon did an article about Richard Gaines crossing the bar,”Reporter’s death silences voice for fishing industry” and the void that has become apparent to all of us that follow these issues.

It was a decent response to the fact that Richard Gaines was absolutely superior at his craft, and that we have lost the important ingredient of the compound of the glue that has held us together.

Richard was a gift to us all, not only from himself, but from his Editor, Ray Lamont, who enabled Richard to indulge deeply into the issues that would not have been known.

We owe the Gloucester Daily Times, and Ray in particular, a great deal of gratitude.

I have a running inventory the articles generated from the home team, and since February, 2010 , there are hundreds and hundreds of articles dedicated to Gloucester and New England fish reporting. Richard and the Times were all inclusive for all of New England with their coverage.

I also posted as many South Coast Today articles as I could, but being not as dedicated to the cause as the Gloucester Daily Times, there are but a fraction of the articles. For instance in March of 2010, Gaines published fifteen articles, Urbon published one.

There were also four Editorials published at the Gloucester Daily Times.

Not to mention, they have a pay wall after ten articles, leaving a void in available material for people that can’t afford to pay, but want to read the information.

Interesting enough, they also have articles that are not “keyed” allowing free access.

When it comes to information about the industry, and a publication is interested in getting the specific information to the people in the industry, the industry information should fall into that category. Not keyed.

Fishing industry news is not a money maker like a horrific crime, or a Nascar wreck, but sometimes some things are about more than money.

To exclude interested party’s from this information in the name of profit does nothing for the industry that has people in this day and age landing brokers, or losing everything they own.

Jim Kendall was quoted in the article.

“No one got into it like Richard,” said seafood consultant Jim Kendall. “It even got to the point where fishermen were (angry) at him for knowing too much about the fishing industry. He was like a brother or a cousin. You know the good and the bad. That didn’t bother him one bit.” He’s right,

The door is still open on a lot of the issues that the Times, and Gaines fearlessly published, much to the chagrin of some in the industry.

The ones that were angry were angry for real reasons, and for every angry fisherman, there were dozens that were grateful that the crap that would be preferred to be ignored instead, was being discussed in the “Front of the House”

The last sentence in Urbons article. “There is going to be a lot for the rest of us to do.”

A more accurate statement could not have been written.

The question is, who is going to do it, and can we count on getting the whole story like we have been getting?

“Lights will guide you home, and ignite your bones,,,,”

Comment here

Walmart will continue to sell Alaska Salmon that is not MSC certified, but not in the US!

Dear salmon supplier,

As you know, Walmart has an ongoing commitment to sustainable seafood sourcing. To meet our requirements for wild-caught seafood, the source fishery must be certified sustainable to the MSC standard (or equivalent*) or, if not certified, actively working toward certification. This latter scenario includes fisheries in public fishery improvement projects (FIPs).

Sources of MSC certified fisheries are currently available from Alaska, British Columbia, and Russia. If you are not already sourcing from an MSC certified fishery, please explore these options. Since these areas also have fisheries that are not MSC certified, it is critical you buy from companies or producers with MSC chain of custody.

Currently, there is only one public salmon FIP in the world. It is a very small project led by WWF for chum salmon in the Tugur River of Russia. However, we are aware there are discussions of other FIPs in Russia and Alaska. In order to meet Walmart’s requirements these FIPs must be made public and must have a comprehensive work plan available showing how it is working toward certification. If you would like to sell Walmart product that is from a fishery in a FIP, please work with the organization implementing the FIP to meet the requirements above before shipping any product to us. If you have questions about this or need advice, please contact me via email and copy Brad Spear([email protected])with Sustainable Fisheries Partnership, our NGO partner.

 

Although I’m not a Salmon Supplier, I am an American Citizen reading about Walmart dumping the Alaska Salmon Fishery as a supplier of Salmon at Walmart stores in the United States for the lack of some little blue ENGO sticker from Britain!

Walmart Corporation ignores the fact that all US fisheries are fished sustainably BY LAW.

The Walton Foundation has a history of financing destructive policies towards US Fishermen through collaboration with ENGO’s that are anti US Fisherman.

Once again, they remind me they are no friend of our Fishermen.

I remind you that the Walton Foundation financed the Pew/EDF/ENGO written “Oceans of Abundance” hogwash that has turned many politicians against US Fishermen, while financing the Corporate green washers they need to paint them as eco friendly.

I had to see who the MSC funders, backers, “partners” are, and amazingly, the Walton Foundation is among those that support the profit generating Marine Stewardship Council, along with an all star cast of “Ocean Champions”! Link

I’m curious about this, though.

It seems as though Walmart won’t stop selling Alaska Salmon.

They just won’t be selling it to US citizens!

Alaskan seafood now being imported directly

Alaskan seafood has begun being imported directly into Brazil this month via supplier Noronha Pescados. The products are Alaska salmon, pollock and cod and they are going straight to Walmart, Pao de AcucarCencosud and other Brazilian stores.

Michael Cerne, the executive director of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI), attributed the quick and relatively recent growth of Brazil’s interest in Alaskan seafood to ASMI’s marketing initiatives.

“The Brazilian programme for ASMI is relatively new. We just started about a year and a half ago,” said ASMI’s Brazilian marketer Jose Madeira, KMXT reports. “We’re like a beef country, but per capita consumption of seafood in Brazil has like doubled in the last decade.”

Until now, Brazil had only been exposed to Alaskan cod, but it was shipped through Portugal, where it was salted. Because of that midway point, Cerne explained that the fish could no longer be labelled “Alaskan” as there was a lack of traceability. 

But directly shipping the fish to Brazil does allow for the fish to be labelled as Alaskan, which paves the way for other Alaskan fish, Madeira stated.

“So we’re also exploring other opportunities with other species like salmon, halibut, black cod and some other species,” he said. “So we see great potential for Brazil; it’s a relatively new market, and we’re just starting to see the numbers moving up.”

Based on the price point, the target market will probably be middle class and upper middle class, according to Dru Fenster, a spokesperson for ASMI, The Cordova Times reports.

Madeira has been in charge of much of the marketing and promotion behind the scenes, which, as Cerne pointed out, is responsible for growth in the markets.

“We do a lot of promotion efforts with our partners in Brazil supporting the importers,” he said. “We do retail merchandizing, we have a very extensive programme for advertising, trade missions, participate in trade shows. We just organized a buyer delegation from Brazil to come to Alaska in July.”

He acknowledged that Alaska wild salmon is up against the very popular farmed Atlantic salmon in Brazil, although ASMI sees a lot of potential in the food service industry.

“We have a strong message about salmon, and I think eventually we’re going to break into the Brazilian market and get some very good market share,” he added.

ASMI has been working within Brazil since 2011 and conducted two trade missions there in March and December 2012. Its figures show that imports from Alaska doubled last year and Cerne expects the trend to keep progressing.

By Natalia Real  http://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?monthyear=7-2013&day=1&id=61852&l=e&country=0&special=&ndb=1&df=0  

They would deny US Walmart shoppers access to Alaska Salmon, but back door it to Brazil!

ASMI responds to Walmart letter on salmon; surprised Walmart would reject American fish

Comment here

——————————————————————————————————–

I was wondering,,,,,,,,,,,

It’s the weekend, and I’m wondering if the people that are interested enough in fishery related news and issues are taking the weekend off, like it’s only a Monday through Friday activity?

I’m wondering if the people that read about these issues, and pay to access pay sites, feel like they are getting their moneys worth, when Fisherynation.com gives them the same information or more without the foodie stuff, seven days per week, and post it as it arrives?

I wonder if John Sackton really expects anyone in the New England fishing industry to give legitimacy to his description of the hookers, who are having an identity crisis, like NMFS is with this NOAA Fisheries thing?

Finally, the Cape Cod Hookers are changing their name to the Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen’s Alliance, as more types of fishermen join the organization than just long liners.  No word yet on a name change for their annual ‘Hookers Ball’ which is a big fundraiser for them on Cape Cod.  The group was criticized in New England for its close association with environmental NGO’s during deliberations on catch shares, after it’s pilot program on cod shares became highly valuable and successful.

After all, you can put lipstick on the pig, but it’s still a pig, right?

I just finished reading Peter Shelley’s whine fest about the state of New England cod and the apologists for overfishing, and wonder if he realizes the ones that are over fishing the most are never include in the discussion?

I wonder if he just brushes aside the building wave of articles concerning the unregulated fishing community of Marine Mammals of all types that have blossomed following forty one years of protection, pretending not to see them?

Wondering if ‘ole Peter raises a garden, and if he does, do you think he’d just let the varmints just eat the vegetables he might be trying to grow because he would never put a fence around them to protect the vegetables?

I wonder if he has bird feeders around his property, and allows the pesky squirrels to empty them out, denying the birds feed?

I’m wondering what the anti shark fin bunch in Cali is thinking when they deprive cultural consumers of shark fin soup, turning the Asian community into pariahs, while expecting the fins from legally landed sustainable shark fisheries, to be wasted and not utilized?

Do enviro groups, like Oceana, the Center for Biological Diversity, Shark Stewards, and WildEarth Guardians discount the science of NOAA/NMFS unless it comes to using the questionable science to cleanse the ocean of fishermen?

Does it not seem as though this is what hypocrite Peter Shelley accuses the “industry apologists” of?

(Isn’t it interesting, by the way, how the same industry apologists who are so quick to savage the federal stock assessment science when it doesn’t say what they want to hear are so quick to rely on it when it does?) Peter Shelley

 In its decision, the National Marine Fisheries Service discounted the first peer-reviewed scientifically published population estimate of West Coast great white sharks which unveiled what listing proponents said are alarmingly low numbers of breeding females — numbers drastically lower than those of most other endangered species.

“The federal government simply made the wrong decision in the face of the best available science,” Geoff Shester, California Program Director for Oceana

I’m wondering when commercial fishermen will realize the benefit of utilizing Personal Flotation Devices as a cheap insurance policy following the death of another fisherman, Abbotsford fisherman Albert Arthur Armstrong in Prince Rupert ,BC.?

Not knowing the full extent of the situation, other than he was tangled up in a gill net, could it have made the difference?

After all, Commercial fishing is still the most dangerous occupation in the world, is it not?

I’m wondering why the most destructive corporation of Main Street America, Walmart, is willing to stop stocking wild caught Alaska Salmon just because another parasitic of the purest form ENGO, MSC, no longer carry’s the logo, but is lawfully obliged to fish as a sustainable fishery?

The bulk of Alaska’s salmon industry, you’ll recall, recently fired MSC — the London-based Marine Stewardship Council — as tedious, expensive and superfluous. DB

I’m wondering if you’ll join me as I reach out to the Norigs3 Coalition to oppose oil and gas drilling on any part of Georges Bank?

If you can answer these questions, or have some of your own, leave a comment or a question, will ya? BH

http://www.talkingfish.org/opinion/worst-times-or-just-very-very-bad-industry-splits-hairs-over-the-awful-condition-of-cod?

http://www.lakeconews.com:federal-government-wont-give-california-great-white-sharks-endangered-species-status

http://www.thevindicator.com most dangerous job

http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/213558841.html

http://deckboss.blogspot.com/2013/06/is-this-anything.html

http://www.thevanguard.ca/Business/2013-06-27/article-3293474/Norigs-3-wants-action-on-Georges-Bank-moratorium/1

Comment here

 

Let’s be fair John Bullard, You’re the Master of Folksy Feel Good Babble

John Bullard, NE Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, which is his official title, began his comments at the NEFMC meeting this Tuesday morning recalling his interactions with Richard Gaines, Staff Reporter, Gloucester Daily Times

The recollections of Bullard of a relentless technician of journalistic excellence were interesting, and are telling of the new revisionist history era that we are entering.

Always the Master of Folksy Feel Good Babble, Bullard recalled meeting the Gloucester Daily Times reporter when he landed job the running Northeast Regional Office, for an informal harbor side chat, and telephone conversations that would at times be long winded, as I’m sure Richard would give this guy the third degree, ripping and gouging to get as much information as he could get.

John Bullard’s recollections were shared in a humorous, folksy friendly way.

Something Bullard said, though, was interesting, and it was about Gaines and that he wasn’t fair, but was an industry partisan, which is accurate. He was industry partisan for a reason, and for anyone connected to NMFS administration to complain about fairness, is ludicrous.

“Was Gaines fair? Hell no he wasn’t fair” said Bullard.

Gaines exposed just how unfair the history of this agency is to fishermen from the yellowtail letter, to the pilfering of the Asset Forfeiture Fund for exotic, and other questionable travel by a bunch of government servants that operated as they answered to no one, because they didn’t.

Larry Yacubian, the disgraced former scalloper from New Bedford that lost everything he ever worked for because the NMFS OLE and OGC could tell you how fair they were, and the ALJ helped them prove it!

The notes and emails to Swartwood coordinating the meeting reflect the active involvement of Cam Kerry, chief counsel for the Commerce Department, and his deputy Geovette Washington, as well as Monica Medina, NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco’s principal deputy. Their initiative was aimed at clearing the reputation of the Coast Guard judges via the secret meeting.

Although fragmentary, the notes obtained by the Times describe an impassioned effort by Joseph Ingolia, then chief justice of the U.S. Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge System,to resurrect the reputation of the system that suffered severe damage in Swartwood’s 236-page report last April examining four dozen cases referred to him by Zinser.

By the date of the hour-long meeting in Swartwood’s Boston office on Nov. 15, Ingolia, who has since retired, had negotiated a NOAA press release exonerating the system in exchange for its agreement to complete cases docketed prior to Sept. 8, 2011.

The press release of Nov. 10, five days before the meeting, was shown to Swartwood, while, according to the notes, Ingolia and Megan Allison, the court system administrator, emphasized that the chain of command at the Commerce Department and its subordinate agency NOAA had agreed it would be best for Swartwood to retract his allegations.

“I don’t think that anybody has to be damaged by this,” Ingolia is reported to have said. “You took testimony about facts, you carried out your duties with respect to what you were asked to do — used testimony — that testimony is wrong — you can come out with something, re-evaluate with new information, and with the respect to Coast Guard ALJ (administrative law judges), you say what you want by way of correction — if that happens, it aligns everything …. “

From Crooked Cops, to Catch Shares and Camelot, the “best available science” of questionable stock surveys based on admitted purposeful negligence to utilize the trawl gear as designed for use on the Good Ship Big and Slow, there is nothing fair about John Bullard’s agency, or trustworthy.

What he did not say is also noteworthy.

The fact is, that much to the horror of every NOAA/NMFS bureaucrat is that got their noses stuffed into the poop pile, Gaines was brutally honest, and that has absolutely nothing to do with fairness.

It has everything to do with courage.

John Bullard’s agency can’t even be honest about who they are, and this is also recognized on the West Coast as there is no such agency titled NOAA Fisheries. John is not the Administrator of that non existent agency.

John Bullard, NE Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service

Link to quote

Comment here

—————————————————————————————————————–

One scandal of the National Marine Fishery Service, unknown, but for Richard Gaines

Some that read this, will know of Richard Gaines. Some may recognize his name from the hundreds of articles seeded from Gloucester Daily Times (gloucestertimes.com) to this newsvine community of ours, as well as other outlets of fishery news.  The name is recognized in every circle of this industry from Maine to Alaska, and internationally in the fishing world as well. Fishing people  know who he is and they are glad to know him, or of him. He has been chronicling the current chapter of  fishery history, that will be cited in fishing history books to be written in the future, using the news archives of the Gloucester Daily Times as many authors have before.  Richard Gaines is continuing the tradition, as the Times has recorded fishing history since 1888.

There are hundreds of books and publications that site the Times in reference for the subject matter of the fishery that has been the back bone of Gloucester. This famous and historic seaport which is the home of commerce in the new world is this place. Europeans came here to fish. Gloucester is fish!

The recent admittance of two very powerful government agency’s that NOAAs National Marine Fishery Service was exposed by the US Commerce Departments Inspector General Todd Zinnser forced the apology. While using and abusing their authority in a very unprofessional manner and shown to be extreme while performing their duties, and down right lying and covering up their activity, someone has had to answer for this mess. In many opinions these abuses are no less than criminal.

Director Jane Lubchenco, had slid her hand along a spoke of the wheel, to steer her ship, NOAA, and picked up a splinter. That splinter consisted of many years of abuse and was later found to have a source of unlimited party money from a bottomless pit. The Asset Forfeiture Fund. A fund that was compiled of fines generated in the enforcement of the nations fishery laws. The splinter has caused an infection. Her agenda to drive the fisheries of the nation to the commodity market, is has inflamed many, to include growing members of the US Congress. There will be plenty to answer for.

If you were employed in the process of enforcing these laws, you were a direct benefactor as these funds went largely unchecked and were found, through the IG investigation, to have been abused. Performance bonuses were awarded regularly from the fund. Abused were the people who generate the raw product in the fishing community to turn into a tangible product that fuels the commerce of the community. In effect, these Federal employees removed millions of dollars from the community. In a four and one half-year period, they removed $100 million dollars from the community. With the economic multiplier of x6, that’s a lot of money removed from the community, not just from fishermen, but from the local economy. I would dare say that more than a few teachers salary’s would have been afforded.

To be fair infractions were committed, but, through the investigation, many of these fines were found to be generated by confusion of the misunderstanding of these laws. A complicated tangle of regulations that require a law degree to understand, and even then, it’s a good possibility a barrister could also misunderstand.

But Jane’s splinter went in very deep, and she thought she could ignore it and move forward without addressing the issue of her law enforcement branch. She was denied.  And she, at the end of this chapter was forced to do something that I’m sure made her ill. Apologise to fishermen that were abused by her NMFS agency. Her boss Gary Locke also apologised. He missed the chance to make right for his mishandling of other overlooked debacles related directly to his decision-making.

From this vantage point, they also owe the community of Gloucester an apology, as well as the other outposts of New England’s ground fish fleet. They have a few more apology’s to go. And the compensation returned is far from satisfactory.

There has been one constant that fishermen have been able to count on through this episode of history that they have lived through that will be written about, just as  fishermen before them have from this historic place.

Who in the Hell is Richard Gaines?     Richard Gaines, Staff Writer, Gloucester Daily Times.

I can guarantee, that the members of the New England Fishery Management Council know him. Everyone at NMFS surely know of him. I know Dr. Jane Lubchenco of EDF/NOAA fame knows who Richard Gaines is! Hell! even US Commerce Secretary Gary Locke knows who he is. I’d bet even President Obama  knows of him.

These are some  that wished they hadn’t.

I would dare say that for the last two years, or so, thanks to Richard we should all be very grateful to know of him, for if it not for Richards determination to bring this information to the public, there is a real chance that things would be the same as they were. Disgustingly dysfunctional. This journalist has single-handedly brought these fishery issues to the attention of the citizens of the United States, and the world!

There has been a noticeable lack of media coverage of the major networks, and print media, but thankfully for the sake of justice for all, the determined Richard Gaines, with his editors support, Ray Lamond, the misdeeds and injustices of two very powerful government agency’s, NOAA/NMFS, and US COMMERCE have been exposed.

With special thanks to Joey C, creator of GoodMorningGloucester who did an interview with this humble gentleman on a dock in Gloucester Harbor, we all get a chance to know Richard a little better, and to understand why he stayed focused. It’s in him.

Although I doubt he would agree, We all owe Richard Gaines our Gratitude. He brought us all Justice.

Richard GainesThe Interview Part I | GoodMorningGloucester   Jun 7, 2009

 

Richard GainesThe Interview Part II | GoodMorningGloucester  Jun 7, 2009

—————————————————————————————————————————-

Lookin’ Back: Capt Dave and F/V Hard Merchandise to make television debut!

(originally published @newsvine.com

Tue Feb 7, 2012 5:33 AM

I had heard the rumors. There was to be a new series about fishing, along the lines of Deadliest Catch, and Lobster Wars, and others like it. It appears that the tv viewing public really enjoy these types of shows.

There have been some interesting fishery issues concerning the New England ground fishery, and I decided to contact Gloucester Fisherman Captain Dave Marciano, and discuss our shared concerns.

During the conversation, I asked him what he had been up to.

He mentioned that he had been busy filming with National Geographic Channel’s upcoming TV show, “Wicked Tuna”.

One newsviner was in the Discovery series Lobster Wars. F/V Excalibur, and Capt. Dave is now the second!

Wicked Tuna, meanwhile, hails from Piligian’s Pilgrim Studios (Dirty Jobs)and will explore the business of bluefin tuna fishing in Gloucester, Mass., as crews set sail for the elusive fish that can fetch between $3,000 and $15,000 in peak season.

“Commercial tuna fishing is brutally competitive. With its limited season, the intelligence and prowess of the fish, and the sheer fact that they’re worth so much, the livelihood of each vessel’s crew can be made or broken in a month,” Piligian said. “Pairing that kind of pressure with the harsh environment of Gloucester makes this one of the most intense and compelling series Pilgrim has ever produced.”

The series is attracting plenty of attention and there already have been articles written about the show and featured in numerous sport-fishing blogs and in a couple of Huffington Post articles.

Carl Safina, not your ordinary fellow but is a MacArthur fellow, Pew fellow, and Guggenheim fellow, had a very predictable reaction, being anti-fish, and staying loyal to the Pew philosophy. I don’t know much about Mr. Safina, but Pew Fellow says plenty to me.

National Geographic Channel, In Race for Bottom, Adds Killing Endangered Species to New Season Entertainment Lineup

Well, people, what an incredibly long drop it’s been since the electrifying National Geographic TV specials of my youth, whose mere opening theme notes would raise the hair on my neck.

Oh oh.

It seems almost like the scenario of a post-apocalyptic surrealist satire, unimaginable just a few years back: National Geographic Channel has been bought out by Fox, is “joint-venturing” with the disgraceful and disgraced Rupert Murdoch, and creating programming to push Bill O’Reilly’s books. And, well — National Geographic Channel will be killing endangered species for entertainment.

Anyone that’s read my Fox articles know that this fellow and I do have some common ground, and I think O’reilly is a nut, but much to the chagrin of Safina, Blue fin are not an endangered specie.

They’ve just announced the new unscripted show: Wicked Tuna.

Oh. My Gawd!

Awesome, eh? Already, we have: a smiling face and a dead, rather small, bluefin tuna.

Here, in 2012, I find the premise revolting. Despicable.

Get a grip, Carl.

And therefore, it’s bound to be a crowd pleaser as National Geographic Channel aims to lead in Cable’s race to the bottom.

Every ones a critic!

The thrilling tagging of giant fish as scientists track their migrations across oceans might have provided the show’s rationale, but that’s clearly too intellectual (though all the other elements of cable success are there: adventure, personal drama (the tagging involves grad students), seasickness, profanity). Read the rest here!

I wish it was video instead of print. Visions of bulging eyes an pulsating veins!

He does semi-snap out of it in his next article at Huffpost, leaving plenty of controversial remarks that I personally found quite offensive, and un truthful, but that is to be expected from a Pew crusader. I digress.

Will National Geographic TV’s Wicked Tuna Be Better Than Advertised?

Following National Geographic Channel’s announcement of its upcoming TV show, “Wicked Tuna,” and my consequent slam, I received a phone call inviting me to Nat Geo headquarters. Our discussion seemed a big improvement over their press release. Yes, really. As announced, this show will feature commercial fishing for bluefin tuna. With or without the cameras, those boats kill fish,,global bluefin tuna enterprise,,in the world,,problem arises,,global union of conservation scientists,,perfectly legal,,enormous nets,,Atlantic,, Mediterranean,,people use rods-and-reels,,killing relatively few fish,, but let’s move on.

Whew!

What I heard was: National Geographic is committed to the big picture. Conservation concerns will be part of the project. That’s their promise so let’s take them at their word. But can they weave it all it into a compelling show that will make viewers take their fingers off their remotes? That’s a taller order. The website they’re building for the series may turn out to be the better vehicle for the deeper story, and a wide range of opinion — which there will be.

So we’ll see. But after getting such a bad sense from their initial announcement, it was good to have my expectations raised.

Carl Safina has maintained my expectations of a Pew soldier fellow. Fanaticism.

Another critic, Virginia Willis, author of Bon Appetit,Y’all!, a third generation Southern cook ala Paula Dean style is absolutely outraged! Wicked Tuna: A Deal with the Devil. She feels “betrayed, heartbroken, and sick.”

From her blog, we get a sense a beginning and end of a wonderful relationship and her generational heritage with National Geographic which, until now, was a part of that.

 There were two magazines we weren’t allowed to play with when I was growing up: Southern Living and National Geographic. They were the “important” magazines. They were special. Now, an adult and a chef, I know Southern Living undoubtedly helped fuel my love of food and cooking. But, the magazine that has always been closest to my heart is National Geographic.

Southern Living and cooking also led Paula Dean into cooking some pretty tastey, but very unhealthy chow! And Diabetes.

She describes her youthful recollections and cherished memory’s of the publication, and shares some childhood history.

My grandparents loved to travel in their motor home. Often, my sister and I or a cousin would travel with them. We’d go away for weeks and months at a time every summer. My older cousin Sam went with them to Alaska, a trip I still yearn to take. The next year, they took me to Newfoundland. While on the ferry off the Nova Scotia coast I witnessed a pod of whales rolling in the deep blue water. Later, my sister and I traveled from Georgia clear across the Southwest then north up into the Canadian territory of Saskatchewan before we headed back across the entire United States to Georgia. A stack of National Geographic magazines with the familiar yellow spine and the appropriate maps for our travels, accompanied every trip. In high school, I remember having the National Geographic map of Europe tacked up on my wall; it seemed a million miles away from my red dirt road in South Georgia, but I knew I wanted to go there, and eventually, I did.

NatGeo gets dumped into the outhouse from there.

It’s an absolute disgrace. It’s wicked in the true sense of the word, evil and morally wrong.

National Geographic is capitalizing on and exploiting the very species they have declared to be on the verge of extinction.

The Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch states consumers should “Avoid” all bluefin tuna, referencing the near collapse of bluefin populations worldwide.

Last year, the Center for Biological Diversity submitted a petition to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration seeking an endangered status for the fish, claiming the species faces possible extinction because of overfishing and habitat degradation.

Ocean Conservancy states the species is overfished.

The Pew Charitable Trust states, “Some species of tuna, such as the valuable Atlantic bluefin tuna, are dangerously over-exploited.”

Pew’s Global Tuna Conservation Campaign is urging countries fishing for tuna to “enact strong measures that will lead to the recovery of severely depleted Atlantic bluefin tuna population, including suspension of the fishery and prohibit take of Atlantic bluefin tuna on its only known spawning grounds.” The list of organizations against bluefin fishing goes on and on and on.

As a chef and food writer, I care about the food I prepare, the food I eat. I work to educate my students and readers about responsible and sustainable food. As the National Geographic Society mission states, I work to inspire people to care about the planet.

John Fahey, Chairman & CEO of the National Geographic Society should hang his head in shame.

Well, Hush my puppies! Ah do declare! Virginia (i love that name) could be a writer for the Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ)

UPDATE: 1/24/12 MANY OF THE COMMENTS BELOW ARE FROM HARD-WORKING FISHERMEN WITH FAMILIES TO SUPPORT. VERY CLEARLY, WE DISAGREE ON CERTAIN POINTS. THE DIALOGUE HAS BECOME QUITE HEATED. WHILE I DO NOT APPRECIATE NAME-CALLING AND PERSONAL SLURS, I DO APPRECIATE THE PASSION AND EXPERIENCE THAT THEY BRING TO THE CONVERSATION.THANK YOU FOR READING.

I give her a lot of credit, ton’s, for her dialogue with fishermen at her blog, and there is a lot of information in her comment section that should enlighten readers about the fishery. The U S fishery, that always gets buried under “world” fishery issues. U S Fishermen are always over shadowed. Purposefully.

Between Carl, and Virginia, the oil money created Pew Charities agenda is clearly stated with many Pew recipients mentioned.

I enjoyed Virginia Willis’s recollections of traveling cross country in Gramp and Grans motor home, something Daves kids don’t have the luxury of, and viewers will get the chance to meet his kids. They are a working class family, trying to get through.

Captain Dave was active in the comment sections of these articles, and there is a difference between emotional anti fish comments and informed pro fish comments. Should you read them, you can decide for yourself how you feel about them, and the issues.

Talking to Dave, I get a sense we will all learn from this series, which will make it worth watching.

Carl Safina will learn that US Fishermen are more concerned about the tuna than he gives them credit for.

After all, if the fish were gone, the fishermen also would be gone. They want to fish forever.

Don’t worry about Carl. As long as Pew has oil money to toss at Pew Fellows, his existence is assured.

Link

————————————————————————————————————————

Waking up with Wicked Tuna on the Morning Buzz, WHEB the Rock stationmaciano

Captain Dave Marciano, and mate, nephew Jay  Muenzner are in the studio of The Rock station WHEB  yucking it with Greg and the Morning Buzz crew.

I’m sitting here this morning trying not to wicked pissah my pants! These frigging guy’s are off the grid, Man!

“There’s no guarantee’s out they-ah” And so it begins! Click here to listen

Greg Kretschmar is a fisherman groupie. He loves them all!

He’s a big Deadliest Catch fan doing shows with them on air, and on the arena circuit.

Kretschmar just played the Barry Manilow  song Copa Cabana with some very creative lyrics about Dave, Jay and Hard Merch. I’m sure when you hear it, life will never be the same! Click here for the song

I’m typing this as I listen, and Paul Hebert just joined them by telephone. These guy’s are hilarious! Click here to listen

They were cutting it up pretty good, but there were also some serious moment’s in the un scripted round table conversation.

One thing is clear. Fame has not changed these guy’s.

When Paul describes the opportunity’s the show has delivered to them, and he highlight’s the charitable event’s, that’s a damned good indicator that they are the real deal.

It has brought opportunity to Jay. A quote from the show, “He’s getting more ass than a toilet seat”.

The chicks are crawling all over the wharf’s of Gloucester looking for him!

This Wicked Tuna crew is by far my favorite but you gotta like Paul and his crew. They were late to the show last filming season, but they are just getting ready to start filming season three, and I’ll bet we’ll see a lot more of them. I can’t wait!

I’ve met Dave in person, and  thing’s looked very bleak for this commercial fisherman, but wow, have thing’s turned around for him, and honestly, it could not have happened to a nicer guy. What you see I what you get.

In another conversation last year, he was telling me a story about a limo driver that cracked me up.

He was going to some promotional event, somewhere, and the limo pulled up to the door. He, of course, gets out like real people would, walks to the back and pulls his bag out of the trunk, prompting the driver to say, “um, you’re making me look bad.”

Dave, “well, wadda ya mean?!!”

The driver say’s looking around at the other limo drivers, and he say’s, “You’re not letting me do my job.”

The story came to mind this morning when they were talking about Dave’s “people”. Agents and planners.

Myself, I see someone who has become an ambassador for the fishermen that they so badly needed, and this too, was not planned. It just happened because of Dave’s personality, and this show, and the fan’s that follow these guy’s.

Public knowledge about US Fishery’s is sadly almost non existent, and the Wicked Tuna fans have increased awareness in discussions with friends and other fan’s.

Prior to season one, we talked on the phone, and he said he would be mentioning the regulatory short falls that affect fishermen, and he has done that. He has also shown that this fishery is a responsible fishery. By law, every US fishery is.

The show was also receiving push back by members of the environmental crowd that see fishing as something that should be eliminated, using dire predictions about the tuna stock’s that was alarmist, and not quite in tune with today’s outlook of the tuna stocks, the star’s on the show.

Back then, no one ever dreamed that this phenomenon of a show would even exist, and there would be no way to believe if it did, the show would be so successful. The reason for success is the people on the show.

Comment here

—————————————————————————————————————————————————–
On May 1st, the allocation for cod will be cut by as much as 78% , and drastic cuts to yellow tail flounder and other species, will all but finish off New England’s storied fishing fleet, and jeopardize the nation’s most lucrative fishery, the scallop industry.
Following these articles and reading endless proclamation’s of politicians stating their outrage, and pledging help, along with economic relief, just as was heard today from Senator Warren at the Boston Fish Rally today in the Eleventh Hour, one realizes the perverse “system” is more than broken.
It is a system of failure on a number of front’s ranging from the ineptness of multi species fishery regulators that are lawyers and accountants, mixed in with environmentalist’s that would capitalize on climate change with the exception of this issue of course, and blindly ignore it, when in reality, that is what has changed a fishery that was until two years ago, on target to be rebuilt by 2014.
As we are subjected to the opinions of expert’s in the science end, the faction everyone wants fishery management based upon, say they aren’t sure why there are such a low recruitment of stock’s, I can’t help but to listen to NEFMC council member David Goethal bring up the fact that the fish have reacted to the warming waters off our coast, in an excellent presentation at last week’s council meeting, and think about the scuba diver that found a Blue Crab in Gloucester Harbor last summer.
There is also the lack of crab this spring in the Chesapeake. Are they too marching northward?
I also cannot ignore the anecdotal evidence of an old Newfie fisherman say he has never seen so many ground fish in fifty years of being on the water!
Interesting enough, Newfoundland no longer has the infrastructure, manpower, or markets to take advantage of the situation, and as on the Cape, the fish will surely be taken care of by the 9 million harp seals they have no market for, and are under assault by the EU anti seal product people who have no common sense, or awareness of the predator/prey model of life.
The seals consume 12 to 14 Million tonnes of marketable fish which is 50 times the commercial fish harvest.
Eco based fishery management can’t come soon enough!
The environmentalists like the idea. I wonder if they realize what eco based management exactly means!
I read this today.
The Pew Charitable Trusts says Atlantic cod stocks are at “perilously low  levels,” and suggested that even the best fishing boat captains in the fleet  couldn’t find enough cod during the last fishing season to meet match their  quotas.
Pew also said the same law being used to replenish the ground fish stocks was  successful in rebuilding the scallop fishery, keeping New England fishing  revenue strong.
“The cod population is clearly in free fall, and if we over fish then we may  push them into extinction,” said Jeff Young, a spokesman for The Pew Charitable  Trusts.
If I didn’t know any better, and I don’t, this sounds like the words of Regional Administrator John Bullard.
“Even if we could find that flexibility, we really have to rebuild these  fisheries,” Bullard said. “That takes very painful measures to cut back these  stocks and that’s what we’re going to do.”
My question is, and I hope I’m not alone is, what are you clown’s talking about?
Truth is, the cod are not in free fall, but they are on the move, and just because they have moved, in what fantasy fairytale are you living in thinking fish that are not here will rebuild here?
Jeff Young, that is about the stupidest statement I’ve ever read on this subject.
John Bullard, it’s painful knowing with your lack of depth, along with your inability to think for yourself, that you are the ENGO/EDF Regional Administrator that makes Pat Kurkul look like she was competent.
And the politicians just keep saying what we want to hear, duping us into believing they can do something for fishermen, while they beat the Obama drum for Cape Wind.
I am disgusted.

 

comment here

 

——————————————————————————————————————————-

Just chop the vegetables and shut up, will ya?

Chef Holly Smith of Café Juanita in Kirkland is one of dozens of local chefs that have joined “Chefs for Seals,” part of the Humane

Society of the United States’ Protect Seals Campaign. 

What is it about these chefs that makes them think the seals are going to support them as they serve up tilapia and Asian farm raised shrimp?

The seals will not tolerate eating that crap, no matter how hard the cook try’s to mask that swill.

Even seals have standards!

I realize that parody may offend the chefs but, shrugs, who care’s?

The Humane Society of the United States’ Protect Seals Campaign., and the chefs, who appear to be snobby towards people, and prefer to raise an issue strictly based on vanity, and decorative icon’s.

If the chefs are doing this to take a stand, why won’t they take a stand against world hunger?!

As the new trend in fishery management is eco based management, the seals cannot be removed from the equation. They are now a primary predator in the eco system because of a number of reasons, one in the United States being the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and another being the un palatable appeal of environs, pro and amateur, and the anti fur movement.

I know that the idea of eco based management will appeal to them in the spirit of being “in tune” with the eco system.

It will be interesting to watch them try to separate a top predator in the eco based management system in the name of vanity, because this is apparently what they have taken a stand against, to the point of a boycott of Canadian fish products.

They will now be forced to accept the fact that seals will be on the menu, as there is an over abundance of this resource having a detrimental affect on other species in the eco system.

To focus on fur products and ignore the protein that seals would provide, utilized by the hungry people of planet that don’t get enough of it will expose the chefs as just trendy interlopers looking for attention or humanitarians toward their fellow human beings.

Comment here

————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

The contentious issue of seals, marine mammal population’s and public comment ignorance.

Posting link’s to story’s for fisherynation.com viewer’s today, and over the past few day’s, some issues stand out and I thought I’d address them. These are my opinion’s, and mine only.

If you agree, or disagree, you have an opportunity to present your opinion. Submit them through the contact, located on the blue menu bar, and they will be featured. Keep it civil, and on point, please, with no insults or vulgar language.

During the week, I posted three articles about “Study shows depleted fish stocks can come back from the brink”, with the claim cod will never recover in Canada because there are no management measures in Canada to foster a recovery, and besides, it’s to late for them.

Two articles contained the doom and gloom analysis of fisheries scientist Jeffrey Hutchings at Dalhousie University.

In two articles, it appears the authors who interviewed Mr. Hutchings were content to accept his opinion without questioning of any other factors related to the cod issue. These were “blame the fishermen”, ignore the problem’s forums.

The third article posted about the study, appeared at Pys.org.

It was like I had never read the first two!

I am used o the articles that are pointed. with the fisheries being the only factor when it comes to fish stock’s, even though I suspect it’s more complicated, but almost simple enough for me to understand.

Why is it that the scientist’s, and the environmentalists choose to ignore the thing’s we can control to increase cod stock’s in the North Atlantic, east and west? They can’t be in denial forever, and they will be forced to deal with reality if they want to eat fish, or if the fishing industry is going to survive.

We are on this sustainability thing, right?

Marine Mammals are increasing in numbers that are now detrimental to the fish stock’s we prefer to see the populations of, increase.

There are seal issues along the Western Atlantic, and on the East Atlantic, also.

Alaska with the exploding populations of Sea Otter’s is having problem’s, getting the Wanted – “Dead or Alive” posters ready.

They too are having a negative effect on species we desire to harvest and consume.

The population has doubled in the last decade which would mean it would double again in five years.

These stock’s and various species provide livelihoods that are even further in jeopardy if these issues continue unabated.

We will discuss the other predatory species of cod herring, dogfish skates and lobster another time.

An interesting event occurred in American Samoa regarding a predatory specie, and three US Government agencies, decided that eradication was worth implementing as the Crown-of-Thorn starfish became a threat to coral, and it was decide euthanasia was the only option. This is a precedent setting event.

A predatory species is predatory species, whether it’s a starfish or a marine mammal.

The comments at the article “EU ban on trade in seal fur set to be overturned” – European court expected to back attempt by pelt traders and sporran makers to reverse 2010 ruling, are a good indication of the general publics’ opinion.

What they tell me is, these people, all of them food consumers, have no sense of the gritty reality of food production, or, life in general.

These are the people that would say eat more chicken, or just vegetable’s, but if they invested 25 minutes into Ray Hilborn, and they were honest, they’d realize fish consumption in a burgeoning human population cannot be replaced. It’s irreplaceable!

The basis for the opposition to harvesting marine mammals is shallow.

To them, it’s about human vanity. Why else would the headline focus on fur and sporrans?

All I see is references to outrage over vanity,

No outrage for the people in Nambia that eat these seals to survive, as the Seals of Nam’s group threatens Adventure Travel and Trade Association (for the upcoming travel summit in Namibia in October); the Namibian embassy in the United States; the Henties Bay municipality; Namibian Ombudsman John Walters; the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources; and numerous other businesses, travel agencies,” to further their shallow campaign.

I really doubt the African nation of Nambia, or it’s hungry people care about the fur, or even sporrans for that matter, but leave it up to people that have warped senses of purpose to threaten a country of poor people by holding back “tourist” dollars!

Based on,,,,,ideology?

Let’s talk about cruelty!

EU ban on trade in seal fur set to be overturned

Namibia: Seal Campaigners Continue With Harvest Protest

Stopping spread of crown of thorns is to kill it

Draft SE otter population assessment out

 “Canada’s cod, and many other depleted fish, unlikely to recover”

“Study offers bleak outlook for fish recovery” 

Study shows depleted fish stocks can come back from the brink

Comment here

———————————————————————————————————————————

NOAA Fisheries Service? No such agency!

First off, I’m a cranky old person.

I wasn’t always like this, but time and events have taken their toll.

I’m not ready for the dirt sandwich, although, ya never know!

For quite a while now, something has really been bugging me, and it has nothing to do with my crotchetiness.

NOAA, and the National Marine Fishery Service have pulled a MMS.

Recall before Deep Water Horizon, the agency overseeing the offshore drilling operations were under the MMS moniker

Following revelations of cozy industry / agency interactions of lewd behavior, the administration abandoned MMS and changed it to BOEM, trying to erase it’s shameful past.

I guess strippers, drinking bashes and cocaine abuse between regulators and industry had something to do with that if I recall correctly.

In NOAA’s case, the shameful OLE debacle of NMFS must have had the same affect.

It appears NOAA is ashamed of the National Marine Fishery Service name, and avoid using it when ever possible.

They can’t though, and every time I get information about anything, it is communicated through an un official agency called NOAA Fisheries Service, an agency that does not exist!

Looking at the attractive logo, and the ease of pronouncing NOAA Fisheries, it reminds me of slick tobacco packaging.

You know, pretty colors with attractive font’s and graphics, hiding the negative impacts, or in some cases , death from it’s use.

I wanted to know when the official transition had taken place, because they have websites all over the place with the “un official” logo and non name, and as close as I’ve become to them, I didn’t recall any notices about it.

I made an inquiry.

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 1:45 PM,  <[email protected]> wrote:

I would be interested in seeing the official documentation regarding the shift to the title “NOAA Fisheries Service”Thank you.

I received this.

from: Allison McHale – NOAA Federal <[email protected]>

to: [email protected]

cc: Paul Jones – NOAA Federal <[email protected] _mce_keep=”true”>

date: Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:24 PM

subject: Re: inquiry

 Important mainly because of the words in the message.

Our official name is still the National Marine Fisheries Service.  NOAA Fisheries Service or NOAA Fisheries has for many many years been our common use name since we are the fisheries part of NOAA.

Thank you, Allison, for the response. I appreciate that. BH

I knew that the official name is still National Marine Fisheries service because every time I get a notice with the fancy logo, directly below, it usually announces, “The National Marine Fisheries Service” today,,,” You get it.

With sequestration causing the agency to shut down, yes shut down – The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration plans to shut down most agency operations for four mandatory furlough days in July and August in response to sequester-related budget cuts, according to the agency’s acting chief. continued!, I can’t help but to wonder how much money has been spent on converting all the websites, all the stationary, all the everything’s it has been un officially attached to.

That’s one thing cranky old people do. Bitch about the cost.

Comments can be made here

—————————————————————————————————————————————-

As grim fishing year approaches, industry tries to deal with new catch limits

BOSTON –  Deep cuts in catch limits will  hit New England’s fishing fleet in less than three weeks, and there’s little  hint any real relief is coming. But regulators and fishermen are still seeking  ways to lessen a blow fishermen warn will finish them off.

As time grows short, Gloucester’s Al Cottone said he and his fellow fishermen  seem to be facing the future in a sort of “state of shock.”

“Everyone’s in denial. They still think, you know, someone’s going to come in on  their white horse and save us,” he said.

“What are people doing to help the industry?”

I’ve tried to mount up and be a rider. I have not been successful.

What I see is herds of black horses being ridden by hypocritical green cowboys riding rough shod over a bunch of un organized fishermen, manipulating natural phenomena, and cherry picking snippets of information to further the cause of the anti fishing conservation groups.

I’ve watched an endless parade of politicians exclaim they would do everything possible to preserve a 400 year old industry that’s reputation has been skewed by a well organized highly financed special interest sector that operates as an army of non profit, tax deductible lawyer assholes who believe they have all the answers. To everything.

Which leads to this.

Plan to open no-fishing zones faces opposition

Allowing commercial fishing in closed areas would bring stocks even closer to ruin, said John Crawford, science and policy manager for the Northeast Fisheries Program of the Pew Charitable Trusts, which is spearheading an effort to slow down NOAA’s approval process long enough to ensure that in-depth environmental impact studies will be done. More than 70,000 residents up and down the Atlantic Coast and 100 scientists have expressed opposition to the plan in comments to NOAA.

“The habitat has to be protected,” Crawford said. “This is the opposite response of what a rational person would have.”

That’s seventy thousand progressives that had nothing better to do than respond to a mega campaign staged by Pew, and  CLF non profit, tax deductible, NOAA insider Peter Shelley, and his for Cods Sake appeal where he ignores facts about the Cod Stocks, as in like, they move?

The big mystery has been solved by an old fisherman in Newfoundland, and he has the answer about where the cod went. His back yard!

Hasn’t seen fishing like this in almost fifty years!

Of course, Shelley’s in denial, and would rather utilize the short comings of the fishery “science”.

“The habitat has to be protected,”

Unless Crawford opposes offshore wind farms along the New England coast, he should keep his Pew mouth shut.

Your View: Polluter blockade of New Bedford wind jobs finally falling

The senior communications manager for the National Wildlife Federation decided he should communicate his feelings about his support of habitat destruction.

Ocean Industrialization is exactly that. Habitat destruction.

I realize Miles Grant, another green energy, crony envirocapitalist, thinks he knows what’s best for the planet, but that’s only because as a communicator, he’s not a listener, or a researcher, because if he were, he would clam up and oppose the destruction caused by pile driving, cable trenching, and chemical spills associated with the construction he endorses.

His masterpiece of hypocrisy is literary pollution in it’s purest form.

Same with Peter Shelley. I’m quite sure he’s a Cape Wind rah rah kinda guy.

I know his boss is!

Which lead’s to this.

Meet John Kassel CLF President / Cape Wind Shill / Advocate of Ocean Destruction, and a crappy blogger, too.

Also included in his article,

Just as there is no doubt that our oceans are treasures, so too is there no doubt that they are being damaged. Bottom trawlers damage huge swaths of the ocean floor with their heavy chains, doors and dredges, likened by some scientists to a bulldozer scraping the delicate floor of a pristine forest. New England’s oceans are rising much faster than predicted. They are also becoming more acidic from harmful greenhouse gas emissions. Recent record increases in precipitation may even be fundamentally altering plankton production, jeopardizing the very productivity of our marine web of life.

As it stands, the commentary of ocean acidification is a legitimate argument.

As far as fundamentally altering plankton production, Kassel mentions nothing of pollution, like estrogen, and chemicals flushed through our bodies being injected into the ecosystem via sewerage treatment, which also have negative affects.

He does hammer away at the fishing industry’s methods of modern day harvesting methods that he finds unpalatable.

I will argue, the notion is unfounded, while he bulldozes his Cape Wind preference as a harmless project that with just the right amount of pixie dust sprinkled on it, will deliver energy to New England with no environmental consequence!

11 years. That’s how long we’ve been waiting for the promise of Cape Wind: clean, renewable energy; new, green jobs; reduced air emissions and carbon pollution; energy at a predictable price over the long-term; and energy security. At a time when the evidence of global warming is overwhelming, and the need for jobs critical, unleashing the potential of this home-grown offshore wind project can only be a good thing.

Now this is rhetorical hyperbole at its finest!

I wrote that on Oct 4, 2012

I posted this on April 14,2013

Which lead’s to this.

Noise Pollution from an Ocean Idustrialization Shill

Your View: Polluter blockade of New Bedford wind jobs finally falling, Miles Grant lives in New Bedford and is senior communications manager for the National Wildlife Federation. Offshore wind energy can and must be developed in a wildlife-friendly manner. Plenty of baloney in this guys display case! Read it here.

Miles Grant’s article has an uncanny familiarity to it. Like it reads like Kassel’s!

Barbara Durkin tie’s this up this loose end nicely.

Which lead’s to this.

BARBARA DURKIN – Your View: Cape Wind offers only empty promises so far. Spanks the communications manager of National Wildlife Federation

April 16, 2013              ENGO, Letter to the Editor, New England, Offshore Wind/Industrialization

Her response to this drivel.  Your View: Polluter blockade of New Bedford wind jobs finally falling continued

NWF makes jobs claims on behalf of Cape Wind that are unfounded. For 22 months, from April 1, 2011, to Dec. 31, 2012, the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center Wind Technology Testing Center has created zero jobs, according to the federal government’s Recovery Tracker. The MACEC ratepayer surcharge program is the source of the $13.2 million used to develop the testing center. The center also received a $2 million DOE grant, and funding by U.S. taxpayers through ARRA stimulus of $24.7 million. We have no jobs to show for our $40 million spent. continued

Supporting article by Menakhem Ben-Yami  https://fisherynation.com/battlefrontoffshore-wind-industrialization

Nothing will destroy habitat like ocean industrialization. What’s it going to be Mr. Crawford?  Mr. Shelley? Mr. Kassel? More hypocrisy?

(calling Dr. Moe, Dr. Larry, Dr. Curley)

The politicians, if they were honest instead of opportunistic vulture pretenders would realize there is no possible way to support two industries that are non conducive, but because of pie in the sky green wet dreams of “free “energy which is not cost effective, driven with tax incentives, they say the right words hoping they can fool everyone into thinking they can be all things to all people.

Ya know what? They can’t be.

They need to be put on the hot seat, and grilled.

They need to decide.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/14/as-grim-fishing-year-approaches-industry-tries-to-deal-with-new-catch-limits/print#ixzz2QRsrXkJd

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130414/OPINION/304140310

http://www.pressherald.com/news/fishermen-questioning-plan-to-open-new-areas-_2013-04-15.html?pagenum=full

http://bore-head007.newsvine.com/_news/2012/10/04/14224982-meet-john-kassel-clf-president-cape-wind-shill-advocate-of-ocean-destruction-and-a-crappy-blogger-too

Noise Pollution from an Ocean Idustrialization Shill  https://fisherynation.com/archives/7260

Leave comments here

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

Industry Transformations

I used to jump like an electricians apprentice getting his first jolt every time I’d get an email alert from certain places.

I’d drop everything and post it on newsvine, and in the beginning, fisherynation.

I’m not so jumpy anymore.

I got one today about The Gulf of Maine Research Institutes Trawl to Table rsvp for permit holders and Captains to rub elbows with chefs, restaurant owners, and food service professionals for the day.

The permit owners and captains that do any kind of reading must realize that fishermen and chefs in recent times have meant chefs ripping and gutting fishermen as unsustainable louts, at least in Europe and in Canada, anyway, not to mention the Save the Swordfish days.

The mission is to build awareness of the sustainability of the groundfish ground fish resource and improving the  profitability and resilience of fishing businesses.

There will also be interactive gear displays, the latest in gear research and quality handling technology, and important information on accessing restaurant and food service markets, with an emphasis on the value of promoting underutilized species!

The chef’s will show off the latest in potato peelers, the latest latex glove for safe handling, and pass on important information!

The permit holders will be wondering how to squeeze a couple of extra nickel’s from of a pound of a shrinking commodity, and will be eager to find that margin advantage. Where will it come from, and who will pay for it? That is the question.

One thing you’ll notice about the fishing industry is richness of statistics. For everything, but, here’s one I did not know.

Restaurants sell 70% of the seafood consumed in the United States.

This from the email alert:

Chefs and restaurant owners influence what consumers want. Successful  chefs are most concerned with quality of product, traceability, and  sustainability. Yet, they often lack access to the latest and most  accurate information on Gulf of Maine seafood and the industry that  harvests it. This is your opportunity to have a conversation with chefs  from your area about the importance of sourcing locally and supporting  Gloucester’s fishing fleet.

So. Back to the question. Who is going to get filleted for that margin advantage?

From my seat, it looks like the auctions are the ones that are about to see a drastic transformation.

There is already a drive for fishermen to increase their profit margins by selling direct to savvy consumers.

There are innovate company’s that are offering alternatives to fishermen that remove some of the risks of being a hero, or a zero, depending on whether they “hit the market” or not.

We have been watching this industry transform rapidly.

Which industry entity will experience the next transformation?

I think it will be the fresh fish auction.

Leave comments here