Search Results for: John Bullard
Fishermen look to White House – John Bullard, NOAA’s Northeast regional administrator based at Gloucester’s Blackburn Industrial Park, scoffed at that idea.
By default and past experience, what slim hope remains to relieve the declared federal fisheries disaster before it consumes the surviving core of the groundfishing fleet in Gloucester and other New England ports has shifted from le
adership at the Commerce Department to the White House. ”I have not heard one word about fisheries from the president,”said Paul “Sasquatch” Cohan, the Gloucester fisherman who announced at the Warren meeting in Gloucester that he had nothing left to fight with. “I wouldn’t give up, but now I have to give up,” said Cohan, who operated a gillnet day boat. Read more
Cod quota rollover is tightened, too – “we intend to allow just under 2 percent” John Bullard
NOAA Regional Administrator John Bullard has agreed to extend a 10 percent carryover of uncaught fishing quota to the new fishing year — for all stocks except the Gulf of Maine cod, for which a carryover and potential bycatch would account for fishermen’s total catch under dire new catch limits due to take effect May 1. ”For all allocated groundfish stocks, except Gulf of Maine cod, where the stock remains in poor condition and there is a high risk of exceeding overfishing limits, we intend to continue to allow fishermen to carryover up to their full 10 percent unused quota in 2013,” he said. “For Gulf of Maine cod we intend to allow just under 2 percent carryover in 2013 to avoid a risk of exceeding the overfishing limit. Read more
NOAA Regional Administrator John Bullard bemoans state of groundfish at Explorium talk
The session, the third in the Explorium’s Global Voice speaking series, was low-key, especially compared to the last few New England Fisheries Management Council meetings where Bullard has taken a lot of criticism for his 
management decisions. Read more here
NOAA’s John Bullard to NEFMC on GOM Cod, GOM Haddock, SNE/MA Winter Flounder and Carryover Provisions
We are bound by what the law says, not what it does not say and§ 305(c) is clear on its face that interim rules are limited to no more than 366 days. It continues to be our position, therefore, that to be consistent with the plain meani
ng of relevant provisions in the MSA, and in light of the clear mandate of the MSA to end overfishing, a second year of interim measures in the case of GOM cod is not justified unless a change in circumstances has created a new emergency situation that would permit such action. At this time there are no new circumstances that would give rise to a new set of interim measures. Read the letter
“No one promises anyone in the fishing industry a job for life. It’s not a guarantee,” John Bullard
I’ve been thinking about Bullard’s statement about promises, “No one promises anyone in the fishing industry a job for life.“…….. Read more
John Bullard, enemy of porpoises?- or Is Carl Safina just a winey Enviro Wench?!
Bullard just gave those fishermen a free pass to ignore the law for another four months,” fumed Carl Safina of the Blue Ocean Institute in a sizzling commentary titled “As Fisheries Service Dithers, New England Porpoises Drown.” And Sufina is willing to sacrifice the remainder of New England fishermen. John Bullard upheld National Standard 8. Finally someone has the balls to do things right, and Safina the winey bitch is drooling with mad contempt while co-author Andrew Read, professor of marine biology at Duke University pouts with him. I think it’s time to land these porpoises, and process them for people to eat. I’m willing to eat it instead of wasting it. They like all other Marine Mammals are experiencing a population explosion thanks to the success of MMPA, a law pushed by environs and others in 1972 with no consideration of consequence. That being huge numbers of marine mammals! Bon Appetit!
November 02, 2012 12:00 AM, Steve Urbon-Three months into his tenure as the Northeast regional administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service, former New Bedford mayor John K. Bullard is being called a heartless porpoise killer and a pushover, or worse, for the fishing industry. And it’s not just anyone doing the accusing. It is a pair of prominent marine scientists, one of whom Bullard says he considers a friend from his earlier days at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121102/NEWS/211020324
Today John Bullard, New Leader of NOAA’s Northeast Region, earned respect
I was almost sure, JB was gonna do what fishermen in New England are used to. I just knew he would follow suit. He did not. He gave the netters a reprieve from extinction. Many would not have survived had it not been for Bullard’s common sense move. He is not in lock step with his superiors.
A renegade?
I hope!
Been listening to the council meeting for the past two days. I’ve heard John Bullard say a few times he should’ve thought things through when he took the job. I believe he could be right. I’ve heard plenty in the last couple of days to convince me that we don’t have a fishery failure. We have a fishery management failure compounded with fishery science that is not the best available, but the only science available.
Peter Mullen, a mid-water herring boat owner asked about something I’ve brought up a number of times after reading an article written by Gloucester’s Carmine Gorga, PhD. He brought up the predator/prey issues that apparently, from the answer Mr Mullen received, have not been considered by the scientist trying to figure out fishery issues like cod and yellow tail. The Pew whores and their pixies are convinced herring is forage for cod, but would never consider codling would be forage feed for the superabundant herring.
The relationship is this. The larvae of the bottom fish need to go to the surface of the ocean in order to obtain food – plankton – and light. While they go up, they become a feast for the pelagic. When those larvae that survive become codling, they want to go back to their friends and relatives. While they descend to their native habitat, they become a second feast for the pelagic. a Fish and Future
Between an exploding number of predators, skate, dogfish, seals, and yes, herring, is it any wonder that fish stocks are in trouble, if they are indeed in trouble, while the regulators, pushed by the NOAA socio economic counted interlopers have allowed the ecosystem to become over run in the name of,,,,,,conservation.
If John Bullard has administrators remorse, who could blame him?
You hang in there John. You’re gaining respect. Something very unique when it comes to NOAA. BH
a, http://carmine3.newsvine.com/_news/2010/11/04/5408211-fish-and-future
BREAKING—-John Bullard comes through for Gulf of Maine and New England Gill Netters!
John Bullard, the new regional administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service, decides in favor of fishermen, justifiably so! A pending closure for an area of ocean extending from southern Maine to Gloucester, Mass., slated to go into effect on Oct. 1 to protect harbor porpoise, unintentionally caught in gill nets. Information will be forthcoming as it arrives!
NOAA Regional Administrator John K. Bullard Sticks to his guns over at-sea monitoring battle
Bullard’s letter on Tuesday to NEFMC Executive Director Tom Nies followed the same rejective tone as his letter about two weeks ago that rejected the council request — also made at its June meeting — for NOAA to use its administrative authority to suspend all groundfish at-sea monitoring for the remainder of the 2015 season. “While we do have authority to make administrative adjustments to the ASM program in-season, none of the options would be consistent with the current regulatory requirements and statistical standards, and as a result, we cannot take administrative action to modify the at-sea monitoring coverage for 2015,” Read the rest here 07:55
At Sea Monitoring – “Catch accountability for the groundfish industry is not optional,” NOAA Regional Administrator John K. Bullard
NOAA has denied the request by the New England Fishery Management Council in June to use emergency measures to immediately suspend at-sea monitoring for vessels in the Northeast multispecies groundfish fishery. In a letter dated July 30, NOAA Regional Administrator John K. Bullard said the council’s request did not meet any of the criteria for emergency action. The council’s request to suspend at-sea monitoring was viewed as long shot from the moment it was passed,,, Read the rest here 09:27
John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service to hold Constituent Call on Draft Resources Document for Groundfish Industry
On Monday, June 24th, from 3:00 – 5:00 PM, NOAA Fisheries National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Regional Administrator John Bullard will be hosting a public conference call to solicit feedback from fishermen and other stakeholders on the draft Working Document on Resources to Support the Northeast Groundfish Industry. details here from an agency that skews details! Like their official name.
Just Released – NOAA’s Intent on Groundfish Carryover in 2013 – John K. Bullard, Northeast Region Administrator
Today, as I promised the fishing industry I would do, I am announcing our intent to allow carryover of unused 2012 quota into the 2013 fishing year. Current fishery management regulations allow up to 10 percent of unused quota to be carried forward. This provides fishermen with some flexibility on when they fish — so they can avoid bad weather and take advantage of times of year when fish are available and prices are highest. Read more here
Looking back august 13, 2015 Fullabullard, By Jim Lovgren
Recently John Bullard was quoted as saying that fishermen are lying, and there is no proof that windmill factories are killing marine mammals. This reminded me of an article published in Fisherynation concerning Mr. Fullabullard from 2015. The article showed the cover of the New York Daily News reading, Fullabulard to fishermen, Drop Dead. Now eight years later Mr. Fullabullard is saying to the Whales, Drop Dead. Nothing has changed with Mr Fullabullard, he is, and always will be a lying politician/ bureaucrat, only too happy to say whatever the people paying him need him to say, since he has the credentials from his years spent destroying the fishing industry. Good job, John, I mean Alfred. Click to read The Harvey Haddock Report – Fullabullard to Fishermen, DROP DEAD! 18:04
No silver bullet Mr. Bullard?
My response to Mr. Bullard. (A Message from John Bullard, Regional Administrator – There Is No Silver Bullet for Groundfish). Mr. Bullard attends many meetings, and as he said himself, it is his job. Also his job is to see that fish stocks rebuild, however if we are to believe NOAA scientific data our cod stocks and flounder are in the worst shape under his administration, even though he imposed tough regulations at the fisherman’s expense without any consideration of their welfare. Instead of coming up with a solution that fisherman and government can live with, he discourage us that are still left in the fishing industry. He does not offer any remedy for those that are left. He says we need more monitoring, but at who’s cost? He says we need more law enforcement. I can not see where any of this can increase the ground fish stocks. Now, I am not blaming him alone and rather than blame the government or our fisherman, lets look for an economic plan to see our fisherman make a living and a plan to see fish stocks increase. I gave my plan to our local politicians, that being the need for a Fish Bill. Like the Farm Bill, and yes they listen to but no one has taken the ball home! After a while, I feel discouraged and want to throw in the towel, but then I think, that is the easy way out. I find myself reading Fisherynation, Seafood news etc., to see what else NOAA going to throw at us! Maybe Mr. Bullard does not see a Silver Bullet perhaps we can open his eyes. Thank You for your attention Sam Parisi, Gloucester, Mass. 09:00
Bullard: The 200-pound trip limit for cod bycatch in the Gulf of Maine will remain in force
NOAA fisheries will not modify or remove any of the restrictive emergency interim actions governing Gulf of Maine cod it instituted last November, NOAA Regional Administrator John K. Bullard said Wednesday. Bullard, speaking during a meeting of the New England Fisheries Management Council meeting in Portsmouth, N.H., told council members that: The 200-pound trip limit for cod bycatch in the Gulf of Maine will remain in force despite a variety of requests by fishing stakeholders for it to be increased or eliminated. Read the rest here 08:09
BULLARD, SHELLEY, and COD: or Fish Being and Nothingness
“Returning Our New England Fisheries to Profitability”: “You’re doin’ a great job, Brownie” aka, Janie, Johnny, Petey. You should be proud. Mission Accomplished?
In her resignation email Lubchenco made the gravity-defying claim that she had made “notable progress” in “ending overfishing, rebuilding depleted stocks, and returning fishing to profitability”; but soon after, John Bullard “In an interview at the Times, Bullard said the telling figure was that the fleet caught only 54 percent of the allowed catch in 2012, and reasoned from that statistic that there is a dearth of inshore cod, a situation that warrants serious action to reverse.” Richard Gaines March 8, 2013 Gloucester Daily Times, “NOAA head explains stock stand”
http://www.gloucestertimes.
Peter Shelley of Conservation Law Foundation explains the Cod Dilemma in a wormy little video he so humorously named “For Cod’s Sake”. The video has him standing next to an innocently squeaky white board with a drawing of a cute little codfish (I guess the drawing was needed so his audience wouldn’t mistake this for the endangered Menhaden, Tuna, Abalone, or Sturgeon sales pitch). After some enlightening statistical scribbling next to a simplistic graph indicating a dive in landings over the last decades (except of course for the leveling off due to the effect of CLF’s beneficent suing of NOAA in the early 90’s), Shelley concludes from this that since the New England Fishermen landed less than 50% of their Total Allowable Catch it’s because they couldn’t find the other 50% and that “…the reason they can’t find them is because they’re not there” they don’t exist—they have devolved into the nothingness dimension through the overfishing portal. Feeling his oats and justified by his ever so rational and reasonable presentation, he stout-heartedly issues the coup de grace: the fishery should be completely shut down, a 77% TAC reduction just doesn’t go far enough. (Actually a complete shutdown might have illuminated the ridiculousness of the entire matter sooner than this slow death of a thousand bogus regulations.)
http://www.talkingfish.org/
Bullard’s and Shelley’s approach to stock assessment is reminiscent of the studies done by the eco-luminary fisheries-theorist authors of “Oceans of Abundance” fame, when they observed a decline in landings and “reasoned” from there that a global fisheries apocalypse was imminent; one which would be so severe as to render only jellyfish to harvest by 2048.
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, this reasoning cause and effect from sequence is an established logical fallacy, in this case an eco-logical fallacy. Because fishing and declining landings appear in sequence does not mean that fishing causes declining landings. (Or that decreased landings causes increased fishing—for that matter.)
Could it be that data from NOAA’s Oversized Research Vessel the O/R/V Much Too Bigelow and their admittedly inadequate survey attempts at a universal sample of all the species in the ecosystem, during one “cruise”, using the same net, might not be accurate and worthy of use in assessments? Or is the fact that fishermen are not landing their Allowable Catch the “Smoking Gun”, the “Mushroom Cloud” that would indicate the imminent danger of extinction, “…that there is a dearth of inshore cod, a situation that warrants serious action to reverse” says Bullard, and according to Shelley requires a complete shutdown of the cod fishery?
Using the fallacious equation fish landings=stock health in an assessment and then as a basis for regulations, as employed here by the apparent new theoretical alliance of NOAA’s John Bullard and Conservation Law Foundation’s Peter Shelley, is a completely disingenuous argument; for it would then have to follow that just about all groundfish must be endangered including Haddock, Pollock, and Yellowtails, since those landings are down and haven’t fulfilled the Total Allowable Catch limits for years.
In fact, Black Back or Winter Flounder must be totally extinct since absolutely none have been landed in recent years (the fishery had been shut down for years by NOAA)
—they must be all gone then, right? If the fishermen have not landed them, then the fishermen couldn’t find them, and that must mean they’re just not there. Looks like they’ll trust fishing effort or CPUE as a reliable indicator of stock population as long as it can be interpreted to indicate no fish, I guess in that case the anecdotal information from fishermen becomes reliable.
Did it ever occur to Bullard or Shelley that many years of absolutely unnecessary and disproportionate over-regulation plus a totally dysfunctional catch shares management regime might have something to do with the amount of fish landed or in this case not-landed?
Consider the following specific situation: My vessel is an 80ft. dragger which I purchased in late 2005 and spent most of 2006 refitting. Once fishing, we landed approximately 300K+ pounds of groundfish per year for 2007, 2008, 2009, mostly Yellowtail and Haddock and Cod. However after the paltry allocation of catch shares in 2010 of less than 10% of what we were catching (the allocation was figured on landings records from the previous owner who did not fish primarily for groundfish during the 1996 to 2006 “qualification period”) after NOAA decreed that paltry individual quota for my vessel, she’s made only two groundfish trips both in 2010. They were both brokers due to leasing allocation costs and gambling the $10K fuel bill that the purchased fish poundage of Yellowtail would actually show for us when we happened to be on the Georges Bank grounds and then also that the catch would yield a decent ex-vessel price—neither of which worked out. My boat has not been back to Georges and has not landed any amount of groundfish since.
Now plug these facts into Bullard’s and Shelley’s simplistic equation of fish landings = stock health and the 1 million or so pounds of groundfish that my vessel has NOT landed for 2010, 2011, 2012 —not because the fish weren’t there; but because of catch shares and the ever-tightening trip and daily allocations previous to that. Then add to that the poundage that other vessels did NOT land since 2010 and before, vessels that were subject to the same choking daily and trip limits and got the same catch shares allocation “deal” that my boat got, and Eureka! There you have it. Through the fractured reasoning of Bullard and Shelley this decline in landings becomes an indication that the fish are missing and presumed extinct— and yes, more than ample proof that the fishery should be shut down completely—once and for all.
NOAA is busily trying to prove a negative, trying to prove nothingness. They are trying to prove that the fish if not landed have never existed, never possessed being. They are obsessed with showing the world that there’s no fish due solely to commercial fishing.
NOAA seems able to deal only in negations; constant destructive burrowing, diligently undermining an entire industry and way of life. But trying to manage from landings data takes the absurdity cake:
Some of the inherent management absurdities in emphasizing landings as an indicator of stock health for assessments and regulation:
- Increased landings: evidence of overfishing and stock depletion; therefore, more restrictive regulations needed.
- Decreased landings: evidence of overfishing and stock depletion; therefore, more restrictive regulations needed.
- Landings data exactly fits projections and holds steady: evidence of restrictive regulations working perfectly, overfishing effectively being thwarted; therefore, more restrictive regulations needed.
What this kind of destructive management buffoonery does to individual families and businesses is obvious, they cease being; but, it also has devastating consequences for the entire industry, the fresh fish market, and therefore the consumers’ ability to access the cleanest and healthiest food on the planet.
Since the market abhors a vacuum, enter then the foreign fresh caught product (but often frozen and thawed) and the uninspected aquaculture imports: Pangasius, Tilapia, Shrimp, and all manner of pond-raised chemicalized belly-bombs:
From Undercurrent News
US cod quota cuts have processors scrambling for supply
March 11, 2013, 3:43 pm
The steep cuts in US cod quotas have east coast processors scrambling for supply and planning to use more Pacific and Canadian cod, as well as imports from Norway, Iceland and maybe Russia.
With the 77% cut in the Gulf of Maine quota and the 55% cut in the George’s Bank quota, taking allocations down to 1,550 metric tons and 2,002t respectively, US cod processors have no choice but to switch supply, said Chuck Anderson, in charge of retail sales for New Bedford-based Pier Fish Company.
Times are very tough for US fishermen, he told Undercurrent News, because they are being hit with lower quotas that are not compensated with increased prices, because of the abundance of cod on the global market.
“We’re trying to work on solutions that work for the fishermen and us. We are all in this together,” said Anderson, at the Boston seafood show.
The company is also looking to gets it clients to use other US-caught fish, such as pollock, ocean perch, and haddock. However, the company has no choice but to look to alternative sources for some of its supply. Pier Fish is buying Pacific cod from Alaska-based suppliers, as well as importing more from other sources.
“It takes three days to truck fresh from Seattle, so we airfreight the fresh fish in,” Anderson told Undercurrent. The company is also buying more fresh and frozen product from Iceland and Norway, as well as looking for suppliers in Russia.
Using more farmed whitefish, such as pangasius and tilapia, is also a possibility. The company would prefer to use cod, preferably US-caught, said Anderson. (Underlines are mine)
Bullard seeks support for fishery initiatives (the conference call)
NOAA Fisheries regional administrator John Bullard conducted a conference call Monday to drum up interest in a collection of initiatives he hopes will help pull the groundfishery through its current crisis. But there was little discussion of the 20 items he had already placed on the list, and more about some frustrations about what is not on the list. Some of the ideas seemed to miss the mark. Low-interest loans, for example, drew criticism from seafood consultant Jim Kendall of New Bedford. “If a man is dying of thirst, you don’t offer him a loan. You give him a glass of water and a sandwich,” he said. continued@southcoasttoday
Letter to the Editor: Bullard’s spin on fishery doesn’t hold water – Sam Frontiero, Gloucester Ma.
After reading his letter, and following his actions, it shows just how destructive the views of NOAA Northeast Administrator John Bullard are. Throughout history, people leave their legacies, and his, I believe, will be as the tyrant that took down the fishing industry which has been around since the beginning of time. His orders on catch limits are taking down all related jobs and crippled so many families — all because of his so-called power. continued Bullard’s letter
BULLARD, SHELLEY, and COD: or Fish Being and Nothingness – Dick Grachek
“Returning Our New England Fisheries to Profitability”: “You’re doin’ a great job, Brownie” aka, Janie, Johnny, Petey. You should be proud. Mission Accomplished?
In her resignation email Lubchenco made the gravity-defying claim that she had made “notable progress” in “ending overfishing, rebuilding depleted stocks, and returning fishing to profitability”; but soon after, John Bullard “In an interview at the Times, Bullard said the telling figure was that the fleet caught only 54 percent of the allowed catch in 2012, and reasoned from that statistic that there is a dearth of inshore cod, a situation that warrants serious action to reverse.” Richard Gaines March 8, 2013 Gloucester Daily Times, “NOAA head explains stock stand” continued
BULLARD, SHELLEY, and COD: or Fish Being and Nothingness – Featured Writer Dick Grachek
“Returning Our New England Fisheries to Profitability”: “You’re doin’ a great job, Brownie” aka, Janie, Johnny, Petey. You should be proud. Mission Accomplished?
In her resignation email Lubchenco made the gravity-defying claim that she had made “notable progress” in “ending overfishing, rebuilding depleted stocks, and returning fishing to profitability”; but soon after, John Bullard “In an interview at the Times, Bullard said the telling figure was that the fleet caught only 54 percent of the allowed catch in 2012, and reasoned from that statistic that there is a dearth of inshore cod, a situation that warrants serious action to reverse.” Richard Gaines March 8, 2013 Gloucester Daily Times, “NOAA head explains stock stand”
Peter Shelley of Conservation Law Foundation explains the Cod Dilemma in a wormy little video he so humorously named “For Cod’s Sake”…..continued
Your View: Bullard has a responsibility to the law – Meghan Lapp
In recent weeks, with utter destruction facing the New England groundfish fleet, newly appointed NOAA Regional Administrator John Bullard, whom it was hoped by many would be a responsive voice of reason in the midst of governmental and scientific uncertainty and chaos, has instead used it to further demean and dismantle this nation’s hardworking families. Read more here
Fishermen fight NOAA penalty for accidental catch of porpoises – Bullard Meets NH Fishermen –
PORTSMOUTH — Seacoast-area fishermen told new National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Regional Administrator John Bullard on Wednesday that a pending “consequence closure” of a section of the Gulf of Maine could spell the end of the fi,,,,,,,,,Read More http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20120913-NEWS-209130409
Remembering New Bedford’s1985-86 Fishing Strike
“You fishermen over the years have been screwed royally,” said then-New Bedford City Councilor David P. Williford to a raucous crowd of union fishermen. “But you got sometimes nobody to blame but yourself because you never stuck together. You never had a leader. Well you got one now, and if you don’t stick together this time, you better hang it up.” It’s difficult to imagine America’s top fishing port slowing down for a moment, but in late 1985 the once-unionized seafaring workforce of New Bedford brought operations to a screeching halt when they went on a strike. Then-Mayor John Bullard said at the time that stoppage was costing the industry roughly $1 million per day. >click to read< 08:05
Jack Spillane: A Shakespearean tragedy on the New Bedford waterfront
How corrupt is the New Bedford waterfront? John Bullard seems to think it’s more than a little corrupt. Jon Mitchell seems to think it’s corrupt mostly with one top guy. And Jim Kendall seems to think it’s hard for the working guys — fishing boat captains to be specific — to be anything but corrupt when the big evil guy that controlled so many boats (Carlos Rafael) also controlled the ability of so many captains to make a living. “It’s a case of what choice did they have?” asked Kendall in a heart-wrenching Standard-Times story Saturday morning. As a working-class stiff who has worked for “the man” all my life, I can very much identify. Mayor Jon Mitchell pointed out in the Saturday story that prosecutors and regulatory authorities endanger the people’s confidence when they overreach. They risk bringing down the whole system when they crack down on too many working men and women who get swept up by a guy like Carlos Rafael. >click to read<
Drag Net – New Bedford shocked by NOAA’s latest move in Carlos Rafael case
Jim Kendall sees fingerprints on NOAA’s most recent allegations that go beyond Carlos Rafael and loop 22 of his captains into the agency’s non-criminal civil action. “I’ll tell you right now, you can print it or not, but I think John Bullard still has his thumb on the scale,” the former fishing captain and executive director of New Bedford Seafood Consulting said. Kendall backed up his claims by saying, “because I know John. He’s a vindictive SOB.” Bullard is the former mayor of New Bedford, but in this case more importantly acted as the regional administrator for NOAA when Rafael was criminally indicted, pled guilty and was sentenced. Bullard also imposed a groundfishing ban on Rafael-owned vessels. “A comment like that is insulting to all the people who do very important and hard work in the enforcement arena,” Bullard said. >click to read<20:12
What a disappointment. It seems Senator Markey is still holding out on Bill S1322, American Fisheries Advisory Committee Act
What a disappointment. I just got a call from Bruce Schactler of the National Seafood Marketing Coalition, and it seems Senator Markey is still holding out on Bill S1322…the American Fisheries Advisory Committee Act.
Senator, I have always supported you because you were there for us with regards to fisherman. I am a retired Captain and we have met in the past.
I have reached out to you many times recently regarding this important bill by Senator Sullivan of Alaska who has a bill that we want passed, and expect you to support.
This bill would create an advisory board to select those who apply for S-K Grants from taxpayer dollars that NOAA has been in charge of, and under their authority, our fisherman are being left out.
I understand you are meeting Monday with a lobbyist, I think his name is Todd who needs your support to have the bill presented to Congress .
Senator, myself and some high profile members of the Gloucester fishing community, and from other New England fishing communities support S1322.
The esteemed Mayor of Gloucester has sent you a letter. Gloucester Fisherman’s Wives Association Angela Sanfillpo has sent you a letter. The Northeast Seafood Coalition has sent you a letter. Jim Kendall of New Bedford Seafood Consulting has sent you a letter. Senator, We, your constituents, trust you will support us in our quest to see this bill passed without further delay.
Sam Parisi, Gloucester, Mass.
—————————————————-
Background, and Sam’s original appeal to the Senator.
Good Morning, Sam Parisi asked that I send this Bill and some backup information to you as we seek passage of this Bill out of the Senate where Senator Markey seems to have a hold on it thus lengthening and complicating the passage of the Bill. Please see the attached Bill S1322…the American Fisheries Advisory Committee Act. (AFAC) and below please find some background information. If you can support this bill, we would all appreciate a strong letter of support to Senator Markey ASAP. It would be quite helpful if you would please send us a copy of your letter for our communications with the Senator’s office.
The written purpose of the Saltonstall Kennedy Act of 1954, (SK Act) was “…to aid the American commercial fishing industry by promoting the free flow of domestically produced products in commerce and developing and increasing markets for those products.” Further, “The Act authorizes the use of the SK funds to provide an educational service and market development program and to conduct research in the fields of technology, biology and related activities”
The America Fisheries Advisory Committee (AFAC) was created to advise the Secretary of Interior about problems in the commercial fishing industry that should be addressed by the SK grant program. This committee of “19 industry experts from all segments of the industry across the country” was dissolved with other such committees in 1972. NOAA / NMFS took control of the program in the mid 70’s and until fairly recently, most of these ever increasing SK funds have been used for their budget and not for the originally intended purposes of the Act referenced above.
The US fisheries are not in great shape and are in need of new development, more competitive products, new fisheries (species), and expanded markets. With 90+% imports dominating the market, our “domestically produced products” are being reduced to the value of the lowest commodity.
Increasing our markets, values and overall fisheries with new development, will bring back our working waterfronts, increase jobs across the entire industry and get more people eating more of our seafood, more often and at a higher price.
Passing S1322 will re-create the American Fisheries Advisory Committee and that Committee will redesign and reinvigorate the SK Competitive Grant program to once again take on and help solve the economic development problems of the US seafood industry. This will be done because the Industry rather than the government agencies, will identify and prioritize the needs and problems of the industry that will and must be dealt with in real time by the this SK grant program.
This bill does not effect the NOAA or NMFS budget nor does it take any funds from their budget account. The only effect on the many past recipients of these grants, such as our universities and research institutes, will be a larger variety of grant proposal subjects. This is simply because the US Seafood Industry as a whole, through the AFAC will decide the direction of the research from nationwide input considering everything from biological research to market education and will work on these needs in real time as the industry dictates to the committee what is really needed to “move the needle”. This will positively effect seafood producers and users from across the wide spectrum of the industry from the “boat to the throat.”
Please feel free to share these notes with others for their support to Senator Markey with letters and calls.
Regards,
Bruce Schactler
National Seafood Marketing Coalition
Sam Parisi Writes.
Senator Markey,
Last year I sent a letter to you regarding SKG money and that our fishermen have been left out of the process, and that NOAA decides who will receive these funds.
I know of fisherman who have submitted and have not received any consideration. I wrote how hard it was for the average fishermen to fill out all the paper work and you had to be a genius to do it!
Well that got the attention of GARFO Administrator John Bullard who responded, and said his staff would help with the paper work.
Two years ago I was selected by NOAA to severe on a panel with ten others from the industry to go to Saint Petersburg, to review those who applied.
Before I left town, a Mrs. Olsen gave me sixty applications to review and that I had to present five in Saint Pete. I looked them over and found there was no one from here that applied, even though I knew the Gloucester Fishermen’s Wife’s Association and two others, one a seafood company and one from a fisherman I know, had applied.
Any way, off I went to Saint Pete, and I sat on both panels for two days .
The panel selection was good and there were fisherman like me.
After each application we had to grade them, and when we were done, we were not told who was selected.
After about two months at home, it was announced in our local paper that a Gloucester Seafood company was awarded by NOAA $350,000 to process red fish, and get this! They got this money two years in a row . Then, it dawned on me. Mr. Bullard at a city meeting was promoting red fish as the future.
I called a Mr Newmyer the head man in Saint Pete and asked how this could happen when it was not presented in front of the panel.
He said it was presented on a different day, which is untrue. I was there both days it never was presented.
I firmly believe the deck is stacked by NOAA, and its time to end the dirty dealing.
This has to stop and why we need Senator Sullivan’s Bill S1322 to pass. It is the only way our fisherman will see these funds
The bill calls for an Fisheries Advisory Panel made up of those from the industry, please call your local senators in your area .
Here some who are in favor. Gloucester Fisheries Commission, Gloucester Fisherman’s Wives Association, Northeast Seafood Coalition, and others.
Thank You Sam Parisi, Gloucester, Mass.
Senator Markey seems to have a hold on American Fisheries Advisory Committee Act – S1322
Good Morning, Sam Parisi asked that I send this Bill and some backup information to you as we seek passage of this Bill out of the Senate where Senator Markey seems to have a hold on it thus lengthening and complicating the passage of the Bill. Please see the attached Bill S1322…the American Fisheries Advisory Committee Act. (AFAC) and below please find some background information. If you can support this bill, we would all appreciate a strong letter of support to Senator Markey ASAP. It would be quite helpful if you would please send us a copy of your letter for our communications with the Senator’s office.
The written purpose of the Saltonstall Kennedy Act of 1954, (SK Act) was “…to aid the American commercial fishing industry by promoting the free flow of domestically produced products in commerce and developing and increasing markets for those products.” Further, “The Act authorizes the use of the SK funds to provide an educational service and market development program and to conduct research in the fields of technology, biology and related activities”
The America Fisheries Advisory Committee (AFAC) was created to advise the Secretary of Interior about problems in the commercial fishing industry that should be addressed by the SK grant program. This committee of “19 industry experts from all segments of the industry across the country” was dissolved with other such committees in 1972. NOAA / NMFS took control of the program in the mid 70’s and until fairly recently, most of these ever increasing SK funds have been used for their budget and not for the originally intended purposes of the Act referenced above.
The US fisheries are not in great shape and are in need of new development, more competitive products, new fisheries (species), and expanded markets. With 90+% imports dominating the market, our “domestically produced products” are being reduced to the value of the lowest commodity.
Increasing our markets, values and overall fisheries with new development, will bring back our working waterfronts, increase jobs across the entire industry and get more people eating more of our seafood, more often and at a higher price.
Passing S1322 will re-create the American Fisheries Advisory Committee and that Committee will redesign and reinvigorate the SK Competitive Grant program to once again take on and help solve the economic development problems of the US seafood industry. This will be done because the Industry rather than the government agencies, will identify and prioritize the needs and problems of the industry that will and must be dealt with in real time by the this SK grant program.
This bill does not effect the NOAA or NMFS budget nor does it take any funds from their budget account. The only effect on the many past recipients of these grants, such as our universities and research institutes, will be a larger variety of grant proposal subjects. This is simply because the US Seafood Industry as a whole, through the AFAC will decide the direction of the research from nationwide input considering everything from biological research to market education and will work on these needs in real time as the industry dictates to the committee what is really needed to “move the needle”. This will positively effect seafood producers and users from across the wide spectrum of the industry from the “boat to the throat.”
Please feel free to share these notes with others for their support to Senator Markey with letters and calls.
Regards,
Bruce Schactler
National Seafood Marketing Coalition
Director
Sam Parisi Writes.
Senator Markey,
Last year I sent a letter to you regarding SKG money and that our fishermen have been left out of the process, and that NOAA decides who will receive these funds.
I know of fisherman who have submitted and have not received any consideration. I wrote how hard it was for the average fishermen to fill out all the paper work and you had to be a genius to do it!
Well that got the attention of GARFO Administrator John Bullard who responded, and said his staff would help with the paper work.
Two years ago I was selected by NOAA to severe on a panel with ten others from the industry to go to Saint Petersburg, to review those who applied.
Before I left town, a Mrs. Olsen gave me sixty applications to review and that I had to present five in Saint Pete. I looked them over and found there was no one from here that applied, even though I knew the Gloucester Fishermen’s Wife’s Association and two others, one a seafood company and one from a fisherman I know, had applied.
Any way, off I went to Saint Pete, and I sat on both panels for two days .
The panel selection was good and there were fisherman like me.
After each application we had to grade them, and when we were done, we were not told who was selected.
After about two months at home, it was announced in our local paper that a Gloucester Seafood company was awarded by NOAA $350,000 to process red fish, and get this! They got this money two years in a row . Then, it dawned on me. Mr. Bullard at a city meeting was promoting red fish as the future.
I called a Mr Newmyer the head man in Saint Pete and asked how this could happen when it was not presented in front of the panel.
He said it was presented on a different day, which is untrue. I was there both days it never was presented.
I firmly believe the deck is stacked by NOAA, and its time to end the dirty dealing.
This has to stop and why we need senator Sullivan Bill s132 to pass ,it is the only way our fisherman will see these funds
The bill calls for an Fisheries Advisory Panel made up of those from the industry, please call your local senators in your area .
Here some who are in favor Gloucester Fisheries Commission ,Fishermen’s Wife’s Northeast Seafood Coalison and others.
Thank You Sam Parisi
Post Rafael, New Bedford Fishing Industry Looks to Move Forwad
For perhaps the first time, at least publicly, fishermen on Carlos Rafael vessels sat in the same room Wednesday as John Bullard, the former regional administrator for NOAA, who implemented a groundfishing ban for those vessels. Bullard, wearing a blue NOAA jacket, sat in the front of four-person panel brought together by Rhode Island Public Radio The fishermen, wearing baseball caps and New Bedford Ship Supply sweatshirts, sat to the left of the panel, which discussed fishing in New Bedford after Carlos Rafael at Star Store.>click to read<21:16
Opinion: Time for NOAA and Sector IX to strike a deal
Eighty New Bedford groundfishermen. They’ve had no work now for almost three months. In the end, those are the guys and it is their families who are paying the biggest price for Carlos Rafael’s longtime conspiracy to falsify fishing records and smuggle the cash overseas. But since Rafael was the big guy on the New Bedford waterfront, the guy who owns the majority of the boats in Sector IX, the fishermen have been out of work since Nov 20 when regional NOAA administrator John Bullard ordered the sector to stop fishing. >click to read< 10:57
