FISHERYNATION.COM

Warwick, RI -RI National Committeewoman Lee Ann Sennick sponsored a Resolution Supporting the Northeast Commercial Fishing Industry at the recent Summer Meeting of the Republican National Committee. Receiving widespread support, the resolution (full text of which can be seen here, click) was passed unanimously by the 168 person body.

Sennick, who has professional ties to the industry, has formed a Republican Fisheries Coalition along with Richard Fuka, President of the RI Fisherman’s Alliance and Meghan Lapp, political liaison for Seafreeze Ltd. “Rich and Meghan reached out to the RI Republican Party because they have serious concerns for the future of the industry and the economic impact on our state. Those concerns have not been satisfactorily addressed by RI’s Democrat Congressional Delegation,” stated Sennick.

“The resolution was the culmination of our research and activism, which has included working cooperatively with the new administration, and I am encouraged by the strong show of support from my colleagues at the RNC. Our next steps will be to actively use that support to advocate for passage of H.R.200 – Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act.”

Fuka spoke to the ramifications for the industry, “Since the beginning of the Obama Administration, our nation’s oldest industry, The North East Commercial Fishing Industry, has been under siege. Businesses and lives have been destroyed, a valuable food source has all but been eliminated and the Fishermen who remain ‘battle on’ to hold on to what they have been born and raised to do, feed a nation.”

He concluded, “The Northeast Commercial Fishing Industry Resolution speaks of biblical proportions to fishermen. It identifies and speaks directly to everything that has been inflicted on this great industry. Republicans adopting this resolution is a strong start to what can truly be achieved, WE CAN MAKE COMMERCIAL FISHING GREAT AGAIN.”

The Rhode Island Republican Party | 1800 Post Road, Suite 17-I, Warwick, RI 02886

 

Meghan Lapp the Fisheries Liaison for  Seafreeze Ltd. and is active in the process of fishery management, wrote this article that appeared in the Massachusetts Lobsterman’s Association Newsletter.

Last year, on September 3, an unexpected email announcement was distributed via NOAA’s listserve. It gave stakeholders a two week notice of a “Town Hall” meeting to be held on September 15, announcing that the Administration was considering designating several New England deep sea canyons as Marine National Monuments, for protection of deep sea corals. During this meeting, every participant was limited to a two minute time slot of verbal comments. However, we were not even sure what was being proposed, because no boundary lines had been drawn or even hinted at. We were asked to comment on the concept of a Marine Monument in the area, not an actual proposal with any defined boundaries.

Holding just this one public meeting to allow for stakeholder input, NOAA released a comment portal through which stakeholders were directed to submit further comment. Attempting to protect our vessels’ interests, I submitted not only written comments but proprietary information documenting our fishing activity in the area, to argue that our fishing grounds needed to be kept open. When I inquired, no one at NOAA could tell me how long the comment period would remain open, although the agency was administering the comment portal. Neither could anyone at the agency inform me how or why this discussion was initiated, if there was any specific process being followed, who would be reviewing our comments, who would be presenting them, and to whom.  As a company which has participated many times in public process, especially on fisheries issues, it is disturbing that we were left completely in the dark with an issue that has the potential to put us out of business.

This initiative came soon after the Mid Atlantic Council had completed a Deep Sea Corals Amendment designed to protect deep sea corals in offshore canyons, the same alleged justification for the proposed Marine Monuments. The MAFMC’s Deep Sea Coral Amendment process included extensive stakeholder input, including an interactive, collaborative workshop to draw boundary lines, in which Seafreeze was an active participant. This workshop involved many of the same individuals and environmental organizations who have been intensely lobbying for Marine Monument designation of the New England canyons.  The push for Marine Monument designations of the New England canyons also coincided with the New England Council’s resuming of work on its own Deep Sea Corals Amendment in the area in question, making it very clear that the same environmental groups which weeks before had been praising and receiving awards for participation in the MAFMC Corals Amendment’s collaborative process were not at all interested in true collaboration with the fishing industry moving forward. They clearly did not get what they wanted through a transparent and deliberative process, so moved to eliminate that process altogether by designation of Marine Monuments rather than engagement with the New England Fishery Management Council.

In fact,  shortly after the single public meeting, fisheries media outlet Saving Seafood requested and obtained public record emails detailing strategic lobbying activity by a coalition of environmental groups including Conservation Law Foundation, National Resources Defense Council, Pew Charitable Trusts, Earthjustice, National Geographic, and the Center for American Progress, which included not only a concrete monument proposal  but also allusion to inside information, warnings about talking to the “outside world” about their campaign, and possible designation dates.   Although no designation occurred at that time, the onslaught of misinformation to the public and pressure on the Administration continues through these organizations.

Several attempts have been made by Congress to block any New England Marine Monuments and Presidential use of the Antiquities Act to designate them. Following the “Town Hall” meeting and environmental email scandal, the House Committee on Natural Resources held an oversight hearing in the issue and wrote a letter to the Administration requesting further information on its designation of marine monuments. Both focused on the lack of transparency, “apparent collusion and influence of environmental groups with regard to the Interior Department’s designation process”,   and lack of local input.  Congressmen Walter Jones (NC) and Don Young (AK) cosponsored a bill, H.R. 330 or the Marine Access and State Transparency (MAST) Act, which would prevent any President from unilaterally designating marine monuments without the approval of Congress and the legislature of each state within 100 nautical miles of the proposed monument.  Additionally, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has unanimously agreed that the New England Corals Amendment should be allowed to continue without Presidential declaration of a marine monument; but also that if the designation were to go forward, such a monument should be limited to waters deeper than 900 meters, thereby protecting important fishing grounds.  Unfortunately, disregard for the facts and impacts on New England fishing communities have led to another recent proposal for New England Marine Monument designation through the elected officials of Connecticut. This proposal would also severely damage New England fisheries.

Environmental claims that these monument proposal areas are “pristine” , “untouched” and in need of protection do not acknowledge the fact that extremely productive fisheries have been operating within them for decades. They also do not acknowledge that the marine life, including deep sea corals, that may live there still exist because we do not fish where they are.  The corals which may exist inside a canyon are protected by virtue of their habitat. As our vessels are trawl vessels, I will approach the environmental misinformation from that standpoint.
According to the National Resources Defense Council webpage, “one pass of a weighted trawl net scraping along a canyon wall can destroy corals”. The problem with this statement is that trawls cannot operate on canyon walls. In order to maintain the proper geometry necessary for a trawl to work, it cannot be towed sideways or horizontally on a canyon wall. Furthermore, nets are made of twine which, even if it could somehow be towed horizontally, would be shredded by the rocky canyon walls and the coral itself, costing tens of thousands of dollars in damage. Clearly, no fisherman would risk tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of damage to his gear. Trawls only operate on the top of the edges of canyons, where the terrain is flatter and smooth. These areas are not coral habitat but have been included in the proposed monument designations, apparently for no other reason than to prohibit fishing in the area.

According to National Geographic, the “canyons of Georges Bank” needing “protection” contain “rock [that is] so excavated out by all the living creatures that scientists call them ‘pueblo communities’”.  It is true that some of the canyons in question, specifically Oceanographer and Lydonia Canyons, are already closed to mobile bottom tending gear through the Tilefish Gear Restricted Areas (GRAs) due to their “pueblo habitat”.  However, this habitat is not rock, which is the preferred habitat of corals; it is clay.  “The complex of burrows in clay outcrops along the slopes and walls of submarine canyons, and elsewhere on the outer continental shelf, has been called ‘pueblo’ habitat because of its similarity to human structures in the southwestern United States”, according to the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan.   Furthermore, the clay pueblo habitat has already been protected by the GRAs through fishery management, so the areas are not in need of protection.

Many environmental organizations such as Conservation Law Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, and National Geographic are claiming that the canyons are “increasingly vulnerable to overfishing”, “under growing threat of destruction from overfishing”,  and “if the fishing threat isn’t permanently curtailed by the monument designation it could decimate the wildlife” such as “squid, herring…and other species”.  This is an outright lie. The Magnuson Steven Act of 2007, which governs federal fisheries, mandates that fishery management plans “shall…prevent overfishing”. Threats of overfishing are ever decreasing, not increasing. Additionally, claims that the “wildlife population densities around these areas ‘are like a time machine to the New England of 400 years ago’…before the onset of overfishing”   contradict themselves in the sense that not only do healthy fisheries currently exist in the area , but neither are they overfished.

The primary trawl fisheries occurring in the monument proposals are squid, mackerel, butterfish, and whiting, and since herring is specified by the environmental community I will address that species also.  All of these fisheries are managed and regulated by the Magnuson Act, and none are overfished.  In fact, squid populations are “booming” in New England according to a recent article by Science Magazine,  and squid and butterfish are projected to be “winners” in predicted climate change in the region.  Butterfish numbers are nearly twice the scientifically targeted biomass,   and mackerel is scheduled to undergo an assessment this year. The herring stock is at its highest levels ever recorded, and fishing mortality rates are at their lowest levels since 1965.    Both the northern and southern whiting stocks are healthy and experiencing strong recruitment.    Allegations of overfishing are clearly fabricated.

These areas are extremely productive and support countless fishery related jobs, in addition to a consistent supply of healthy seafood for the U.S. public. Federal fishing effort is catalogued according to catch by statistical area. From 2005-2014 the 10 year average annual harvest of squid (calamari), mackerel, butterfish, herring and whiting from the statistical areas proposed for monument designation was over 8.4 million lbs., supporting individual vessels, crews, dockside facilities and processors, restaurants and tackle shops, cold storage facilities, fishing gear and fuel businesses, and the list could go on. In addition to these species, other fisheries that occur in the areas include lobster, Jonah crab and red crab. Each of these fisheries supports their own economic activity and families.

Unilateral executive designation of marine monuments would devastate these fisheries and the Americans that rely on them. Contrary to general public knowledge, fishing vessels do not have access to the whole ocean and cannot just “relocate” their activity. The fishing industry is restricted by many area closures, gear restricted areas, seasonal quotas, area quotas, and other measures that limit where they can go, when they can go there, and what they can catch at that time, besides the fact that certain fish live in certain areas. Access to the area proposed for a marine monument is critical to the survival of these fisheries.

Although it will be the Administration that ultimately makes the decision with regards to whether or not a monument will be designated and where it may be, it has been clear from the beginning that this process has been initiated and propagated by the environmental community through a continual flow of misinformation. This is unacceptable. It is deceptive to the American public, Administration and lawmakers, and completely disregards the potential loss of healthy seafood, jobs, families, personal investments and life savings that fishermen have tied up in their vessels, and the communities that rely on them. Such environmental organizations should not be allowed to drive any governmental process.

A quote from the article Longstanding fisheries act doesn’t need changing says Hogarth and Murawski, click here   “Much of our recent success has stemmed from quick action and firm timetables for rebuilding, and that approach has clearly worked.”

Dick Grachek writes,

Well No, that’s not quite true… Allowable Catch Quotas are still shrinking each year for most fisheries in spite of NOAA’s declarations of eliminating “overfishing” because the stock population recovery is not living up to unrealistic timelines perhaps? And more than half of the local family fishing operations have been eliminated. Fishing ports along with shoreside support businesses are disappearing. So what exactly is the authors’ idea of having clearly worked?
I guess it depends on the goal of all this management.

East Coast fishing communities have been devastated by the legislated rigidity in the timelines for rebuilding historically varying fish populations. Even Jane Lubchenco, NOAA Fisheries Director admitted in a congressional hearing that there was no scientific basis for the rigid rebuilding timelines in the 2006 Reauthorization of Magnuson Act. She was a contributor to the infamous “Oceans of Abundance” treatise http://www.edf.org/sites/defau… This was an eco-political leaflet and primer sponsored by and filled with NGO lobbyist talking points aimed at the signers of the 2006 reauthorization that installed the rigid timelines.

The proposals for flexibility, transparency, predictability, fishermen representation, and taking into account the environmental and socio-economic aspects of fishery management in this current reauthorization bill before Congress are long overdue. And actually most of these current reauthorization proposals are simply reinforcing and making more specific several existing—but mostly ignored by management—MSA Standards relating to “setting catch limits based on science” and insuring that it’s the “best available science” through utilizing cooperative surveys and assessments from “other sources” (National Standard 2). Current proposals also reinforce the National Standards 1, 4, and 8, which account for the survival of the fishing communities along with the fish.

Flexibility and transparency as stated in the House Proposals does not mean the elimination or undermining the necessity of catch limits based on science and flexibility in rebuilding timelines is not “…a slippery slope back to unsustainable fisheries.”

Flexibility in dealing with naturally varying fish growth and recovery rates is intelligent management practice. The current House Bill proposals clearly do not reverse or “gut” any of the basic fish replenishing tenets of the Magnuson Stevens Act:

Please see original proposals from the House Natural Resources website: http://naturalresources.house….

The draft proposal, while maintaining the key themes of the Act, would make the following improvements:

• Provide flexibility for fishery managers when rebuilding depleted fisheries
• Provide flexibility for fishery managers when setting annual catch levels
• Provide more transparency for fishermen and others in both science and management
• Provide more predictability and stability for fishermen and fishery-dependent communities
• Allow fishery managers to take the economic impact of their decisions into account when setting harvest levels and developing rebuilding plans
• Allow fishery managers to take environmental conditions into account when establishing harvest levels and developing rebuilding plans
• Allow fishermen in regions where catch share programs have been controversial to have a say in whether a new catch share program will be implemented and to be provided better information when considering such a program
• Provide a schedule for obtaining better fishery dependent and fishery independent data especially for data poor fisheries and provide greater protection for confidential information submitted to regulatory agencies
• Authorize appropriations for an additional five fiscal years at current funding level

None of the proposals are an attempt to “…loosen effective protections that have been so successful in eliminating overfishing and rebuilding stocks”.

All the proposed changes are suggesting is to include the fishing communities in the process and some common scientific sense regarding rebuilding expectations . After all this is “Fisheries” management, not “Fish” management, right?

For additional reading on the MSA proposed improvements please papers by Meghan Lapp and Dr. Brian J. Rothschild

The Magnuson Stevens Act and its Ten Year Rebuilding Timeline: Science or Fiction? By Meghan Lapp  http://centerforsustainablefis…

IMPROVING THE MAGNUSON STEVENS ACT,  Brian J. Rothschild (11/3/13)   http://centerforsustainablefis…

The first day, May 14, 2015, getting settled and geared up to begin a nine day venture  to get some film, see some fish, lots of fish.

The owner of  the 82-foot F/V Justice is Danny Eilertsen.

The Captain is Ronnie Borgeson. Ronnie has the F/V Angenette, which is his own boat. Crew is Tim Barrett of the F/V Odessa, Al Gerry of the F/V Raptor, and Meghan Lapp of Seafreeze Ltd.

The SMAST team is Dr. Kevin Stokesbury, Erin Adams, Travis Lowery, and Eli Powell. Also on board is Don Cuddy of the Center for Sustainable Fisheries.

This article from Posted Nov. 8, 2013 at 12:01 AM at Southcoasttoday   Another try at video-counting the fish, Testing is underway for a radically different method of counting fish, a notoriously difficult thing to do, but the thing that everybody says they want and need.

We will be receiving daily updates from the vessel, and here is todays:  received May 16,

13:22, 5/15/2015Yesterday was first day of fishing. Started just inside Closed Area 2 at 60 meter depth contour and followed it north towards Hague Line. Did three 1/2 hr closed tows, one 2 hr open tow, another 1/2 hr closed tow, then one 2 hr open tow. Today finishing 60 m contour, then will head east to 70 meter contour and follow south.

22:03, 5/16/2015Started off this am to finish 60 m contour. Did 3 30 minute closed tows, 1 two hr open tow, 3 more closed and then started an open. During that tow, crossed doors. Trying to get them uncrossed something happened to camera/wire/connection, not sure what prob is. Will try to fix. Not seeing as much fish as last time, but had 3 tows w lots of herring, never had that before.

21:08, 5/17/2015 –  No Luck with Cameras, Because we only got the cameras built just before the trip, we didn’t have the necessary equipment with us to troubleshoot the camera problem. So we are finishing the trip with sets of 3 closed tows in every location we had done a closed tow last spring. The sets of 3 closed tows are being used for testing spatial and technical accuracy of the technique we are using. One of the SMAST students on board will be doing his thesis on this. Great calm weather.

21:07, 5/18/2015 – We did 9 closed tows, 3 sets of 3, at closed tow locations from last spring. Went well, but not many fish, no volume. A month and a half later w survey his spring than last, probably season has lot to do with it. Lots of scallops though, one tow w 29.5 bushel of scallops.  Now in open area, will do more closed tows in open area tomorrow.

22:36, 5/19/2015 – Heading in – Today had successful day, 9 closed tows- 3 sets of 3- got a lot done. One tow pure dogs, had to let go. Lots of fluke, not too many yellowtails. Should be in tomorrow afternoon. Then you can get full scoop from Kevin.

Leave Comments Here

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Crew

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The third wire winch for the wire that goes to the cameras.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Loading on everyone’s gear.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The net with the tube that mounts the cameras and keeps the coded open.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is one of the cameras.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By Meghan Lapp

Introduction

 

                  Under the Magnuson Stevens Act (MSA), regional Fishery Management Councils must develop a rebuilding plan for every overfished fishery, and must “specify a time period for rebuilding . . . that shall be as short as possible . . . and not exceed 10 years.”[3]  Not only is this ten year time frame completely arbitrary and not based on any scientific reasoning, it is riddled with legal, operational, and other scientific issues.  This paper is designed to briefly outline some of those issues and analyze the proposed redrafting of the rebuilding provision in the United States House of Representatives’ Discussion Draft issued on December 18, 2013.

 

                The arbitrary nature of a ten year rebuilding requirement is not a new issue. No scientific basis or analysis was involved at all in choosing a period of ten years.[4]  The requirement was a purely political decision. In fact, there are no scientific grounds for justifying any specific value as a standard for a fish stock rebuilding time.[5]  For the past several years, scientists, fishermen and Congress have highlighted the need for reconsideration of this provision. In both 2010 and 2012, in an effort to invoke reform, thousands of commercial and recreational fishermen from across the nation rallied in Washington, DC. [6] Additionally, legislators have made multiple attempts to introduce more flexibility into the law, through such proposals as the Flexibility in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act 2009[7] and the Flexibility and Access in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act of 2011.[8]  While no change to the current law has yet been enacted, awareness of the issue has been continually heightened. Most recently, on December 18, 2013, the U.S. House of Representatives released a Discussion Draft called “Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act,” to address MSA reauthorization and needed changes to the Act. Among the several proposals in the Discussion Draft is the elimination of the ten year rebuilding period and acknowledgement that depletion of fish stocks may owe to factors other than fishing.

Legal Issues

 

                 One of the initial problems with a mandatory ten year rebuilding timeline is that it creates conflict within the law itself. Taking into account that a defined rebuilding schedule cannot be justified by science, a ten year requirement, or any time specific deadline at all, is contrary to the MSA’s stated purpose to “promote domestic commercial and recreational fishing under sound conservation and management principles”[9] through “the best scientific information available.”[10]  The MSA’s intended policy to utilize “the best scientific information available; [which] involves, and is responsive to the needs of, interested and affected States and citizens”[11] is impossible to realize and is violated when an arbitrary ten year timeline overrides those needs of affected parties.

 

                A rigid rebuilding schedule cannot coexist with socioeconomic impact considerations, as required by National Standard 8.[12]  The two concepts are at odds with each other and, as a result, true balance is impossible to achieve. In fact, the ten year rebuilding timeframe is considered by the agency to be the only management option available, thus leading to meaningful alternatives not being considered.

                Perhaps the starkest example of this can be found within the New England groundfish industry. In the case of the New England groundfish fishery, the combination of the  ten year timeline and highly controversial rebuilding targets, has both in the past and present required measures so draconian as to virtually guarantee the permanent non-participation of some of this country’s oldest fishing communities to be considered as the only management options available.[13]  This has currently led to the Secretary of Commerce declaring an Economic Disaster and Congress appropriating disaster relief funds to the area. What is even more concerning is that there is no indication that jobs lost in New England are being found in other fishing ports outside the region.  The pace of rebuilding, not the rebuilding itself, is what drives this type of impeding economic and social devastation.[1]