To return to the Fishing New Jersey site introduction page: http://www.fishingnj.org
To return to the current Garden State Seafood Association Weekly Update: http://www.fishingnj.org/currentupdate.htm
For the archive of G.S.S.A. Updates for 2001: http://www.fishingnj.org/updatearchive_01.htm

December 17, 2002

Latest Fall Bottom Trawl Survey results – NOAA Fisheries has made the latest survey results available at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/esb/fshrprt/Fall%202002/FBTS%20all.pdf in Adobe Acrobat format (all of the survey results conducted by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center and many other Center publications are available at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/). On her website Barbara Stevenson has made available charts of the annual fluctuations in trawl survey results for the commercially important species (both New England and the Mid-Atlantic) sampled going back to the early 80s. We strongly suggest that you take a look at them. They’re at http://www.bdssr.com/fisheries/science/trawl/trawl_survey_home.html. In a December 13 article on the fall survey results (Counts up for key fish species), New Bedford Standard Times reporter Jack Stewardson writes “Some dramatic surges in fish counts during a fall fish stock survey by a government research vessel have enflamed an already hot debate over government fish data. During its recent bottom trawl survey, the Albatross IV saw an increase of 19 percent in overall poundage caught for all species. But perhaps more striking were some dramatic spikes in catches of such commercially important groundfish species, such as codfish and haddock. The weight of codfish increased nearly 200 percent from the previous year and haddock numbers jumped by 50 percent, thanks to a few big catches in individual tows.”

On whiting (silver hake) management – From Lori Steele at the New England Fishery Management Council: “Framework 37 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP will be submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service today. This framework adjustment proposes to eliminate the Year 4 default measure for small mesh multispecies in both the northern and southern whiting stock areas, and to adjust measures to allow increased opportunities to fish for small mesh multispecies in the northern area. The proposed action includes: elimination of the Year 4 default measure in both stock areas; reinstatement of the Cultivator Shoal Whiting Fishery season through October 31; elimination of the 10% restriction on red hake incidental catch in the Cultivator Shoal Whiting Fishery; adjustment of the incidental catch allowances in Small Mesh Areas 1 and 2 so that they are consistent with those in the Cape Cod Bay raised footrope trawl fishery; clarification of the transfer at sea provisions for small mesh multispecies for use as bait; and minor modification to the Cape Cod Bay raised footrope trawl fishery area.” The submitted Framework document should be available by the end of this week on the New England Council website (www.nefmc.org) or by contacting Ms. Steele (978 465-0492).

A brief view of life on a dragger – The cover article in the current Public Health Reports, the journal of the U.S. Public Health Service, is a photo-essay by Earl Dotter of a trip taken by the Maine dragger Edward L. Moore (owned by New England Council member and webmaster Barbara Stevenson) just before Christmas last year. It’s available at http://www.bdssr.com/latest/Ear%20Dotter.htm and is another “must see” for anyone with an interest in fisheries issues.

And while you’re thinking about being offshore in December - In a December 5 posting to Fishfolk, Sima Freierman of Inlet Seafood on Long Island, started out by quoting the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Managment Act’s National Standard 10 "Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, promote the safety of human life at sea." She then went on “On Sunday, December 1, 2002 seven trawlers ranging from 65 to 90 feet in length left the port of Montauk at approximately 4 A.M. They traveled hundreds of miles through ten to twelve foot seas and temperatures in the teens in winds blowing at 40 to 50 knots in order to land loligo squid at least one more time for the year during the ten days (December 2 to December 12) that the fishery had been reopened by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Five days later, only two of those boats have returned. The others are three hundred miles offshore, about to be pounded by the storm that's dumping over six inches of snow in the northeast. Several industry representatives, myself included, called NMFS before they closed the squid fishery in November to protest that there was still quota left over. Fishermen who might have done inshore groundfishing at this time of year have used whatever days they had left lest they face another ‘use it or lose it’ ultimatum in the future. They can't fish in closer, traditional squid grounds because they have become 'gear restricted areas' in order to minimize scup discards. These boats, for whom squid is the primary fishery, will only fish less than half of the last 24 weeks of the season. The quota has been reduced almost 20% in the last decade for a specie that lives less than 18 months. Squid has never been overfished. This stock that used to put millions of dollars into fishing village economies now dies of old age while American users import more and more from overseas. The scup that are being protected by closure of closer, traditional squid grounds are no longer overfished. NMFS data analysed in 2000 showed that scup made up less than 2% of the loligo catch.” There’s nothing we can add, other than to condemn the foundation funded “conservation” groups who are using their donated dollars to force these kinds of situations.

December 8, 2002

More on fish oil and health - For the latest on the benefits of a diet rich in fish oil, the AAP Network (http://aap.com.au/) on December 6 reported in Oily fish may reduce asthma, says study "Cambridge University researchers looked at the link between oily fish (such as salmon and mackerel) consumption and asthma-related symptoms in 333 people with a history of the condition and 437 without asthma. They found that people with diagnosed asthma, who were experiencing symptoms such as wheezing, breathlessness or waking up with a tight chest, were much less likely to regularly eat oily fish than individuals without asthma symptoms." (From WorldCatch Wave - http://www.thewaveonline.com/ - a subscription news service for the seafood industry.)

Problems with recreational fishing data? - Nature's Science Update on November 20 (Fishy tales hide facts - Anglers' exaggeration scuppers fish conservation, http://www.nature.com/nsu/021118/021118-5.html) reports "Fishermen's boasts are making conservationists complacent, warns a Canadian ecologist1. The worse catch an angler has, the more he exaggerates his success. Managers use anglers' reports to gauge the size of fish populations. False information hides falling stocks until it's too late." The researcher, Michael Sullivan of the Alberta Fish and Wildlife Service, "… put observers on anglers' boats to see how many fish were really returned for every one kept. He compared this ratio with the take-home catches of unobserved fishermen. When the fishing is good - about one catch per hour - fishermen tell the truth, he found. As things get worse, their fibs get bigger. When the average catch drops to one fish every ten hours, anglers report four imaginary fish for every one they really catch. Time seems to cloud memories: responses to postal and phone surveys were even more fanciful than lakeside reports." Sullivan was quoted in the article "As an angler, I know that there's a tendency to promote your prowess - you don't want to admit that your neighbour caught a fish and you didn't…. Now I've measured that tendency, and it's huge." While his study was limited to fresh water angling and anglers, it would be interesting to see similar studies focusing on marine anglers, particularly considering how important recreational surveys have become in managing our coastal fisheries.

Federal Judge delays imposition of drastic management measures in New England's groundfish fisheries - US District Court Judge Gladys Kessler, responding to requests by NOAA Fisheries and a handful of "conservationist" organizations, has delayed the mandatory implementation of additional - and many are arguing, in view of rapidly rebounding stocks, unnecessarily - stringent restrictions on the groundfish fisheries for 9 months. The implementation of Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) FMP will now be in May of 2004. This delay, which is designed to allow adjustments to the regulations which might be necessitated by further analyses of recent survey data called into question by "trawlgate," is significantly less than the two years requested by the fishing industry.

Joint Mid-Atlantic Council/Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission meeting - On December 10- 12, 2002, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Board (Board) will convene in Duck, North Carolina at the Sanderling Inn Resort & Conference Center (800 701-4111 or 252 261-4111) to develop and approve 2003 recreational management measures for the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries. The Council's Ecosystem Committee will meet Tuesday afternoon to begin a review of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) bycatch efforts and how it may impact the Council's management plans, provide an update on the national workshop of fishing gear impacts to essential fish habitat, and discuss the Commission's multispecies assessment. Following the committee meeting, the Council will be presented with the Monkfish SAFE Report for 2001 and take final action on Framework 2 to the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan (MP). On Thursday morning, the Council will meet to adopt Framework 3 to the Squid, Mackerel, Butterfish FMP to extend the Illex limited access moratorium for one year (through June 2004). The Council will also conduct its regular business activities as scheduled. (From a 11/20/02 Council press release)

November 23, 2002

The future of seafood marketing? – In an article in the New Hampshire Business Review (There's nothing fishy about EcoFish's concept, 11-01-02), New Hampshire seafood dealer Henry Lovejoy is quoted “Our mahi mahi is caught off the coast of Ecuador by hook-and- line from men in canoes.” Lovejoy’s company, Ecofish, “has strong ties to conservation organizations and their customers. Among the members of its Seafood Advisory Board are representatives from such organizations as the National Audubon Society, the New England Aquarium and the World Wildlife Fund….” who have “…developed criteria to determine which species have safe population levels and which parts of the world can maintain a sustainable harvest…. One of those sustainable harvest methods is hook-and-line fishing…. baited hook-and-line fishing can be tailored to a specific species of fish, does not disturb the ocean floor or surrounding environment and substantially decreases the amount of by- catch.” Needless to say, honoring such good intentions comes with a price tag, and with EcoFish, that price tag is substantial, particularly considering that EcoFish has pledged 25% of it’s pre-tax profits to “marine conservation.” But here we see yet another, probably purposeful, confusion of “sustainable fishing” with the so-called conservation community’s preferred alternative of “no impact fishing.” It’s probably true that Ecuadorian hook-and-line fishermen in a fleet of canoes have less impact on the environment than a fleet of state-of-the-art trawlers. But there’s little question about how far those Ecuadorians, even if joined by fleets of canoes from every other nation with a coastline, would be able to go in providing the hundred million metric tons or so of fish and shellfish that seafood consumers demand every year. And the inefficiencies of such artisanal production would undoubtedly raise the price far beyond what the vast majority of those consumers would be willing or able to pay.
 
At least the Australians are starting to get it – In “Swallowing the bait: is recreational fishing in Australia ecologically sustainable?” (D.F. McPhee, D. Ledbitter and G.A. Skilleter, Pacific Conservation Biology, Vol. 8) the authors come to the not so startling conclusion that it might be. In answering their question “Why have the ecological impacts of recreational angling not been addressed?” they write “First, angling lobbyists have generally been successful in shifting attention away from angling impacts and focusing public and political attention on other impacts, particularly commercial fishing…. Second, the sheer number of participants makes recreational fishing a difficult problem to tackle politically.... Third, there is a tendency for an impact to be looked at in isolation rather than assessing the cumulative result. It is highly likely that the impacts of a lone angler are less than that of a single commercial fisher. However, when the number of anglers relative to the number of commercial fishers is considered, the ecological impacts from angling can be substantial and, as discussed, may exceed that of commercial net fishing in some areas.”  This article should be required reading for anyone with an interest in public oceans policy, and particularly for those legislators who have bought into the “blame it on commercial fishing” hype.

A touch of sanity in the restaurant world – In Fish Politics - Endangered species, special interests, overfishing: How does a restaurant decide what to put on the menu? Washington Post reporter Judith Weinrob writes of the conservation community’s attempts to enlist chefs in their various campaigns to advance their anti-fishing agendas “Other chefs, however, have resisted taking public positions. Tunks is one of those. ‘I went to press meetings and did research, and saw that many chefs continued to have it (Chilean Sea Bass) on their menus,’ he says. ‘We were interested in researching responsibly. We refused to be pressured into it. If there's no federal boycott, and we're purchasing from responsible purveyors, I think we're doing what we can.’ Chef Bob Kinkead, whose Foggy Bottom restaurant, Kinkead's, specializes in seafood, also wouldn't sign up. ‘If a bunch of people say 'Ban,' I have to look at the issue very carefully, because they're usually wrong,’ says Kinkead. ‘And chefs shouldn't be the people who are the spokesmen or are determining policy. Swordfish was tough -- I spent a whole lot of time reading everything I could about it and talking to fishermen and wholesalers, and we cut it back but we didn't ban it.’’’ It’s unfortunate that more chefs aren’t willing to invest their time in this level of conscientious research. If they were, both their customers and the vast majority of fishermen who fish within the law would be much better served.

November 2, 2002

Enviros, NMFS request 9 month delay in implementing groundfish reductions – On the eve of the New England Fishery Management Council meeting which was shaping up as the focus of industry discontent over pending severe cutbacks in the various groundfish fisheries, serious flaws in the trawl surveys which provide the basis for estimating the condition of many fish stocks in the Mid-Atlantic and New England, and dissatisfaction with the way the government has handled industry concerns regarding these surveys, NMFS and four “environmentalist” groups announced they were going to seek a delay in the court-ordered imposition of the drastic cutbacks. The proposed delay until May 2004, which was to allow a further examination of the impact of the surveys’ deficiencies on the actual condition of the various stocks, is considered not adequate by various fishermen’s organizations and New England state fisheries departments. (Delay in fish rules sought, Daley, B. and G. Cook, Boston Globe, 11-06-02).

It’s not just about groundfish – All of the controversy surrounding “Trawlgate” and the industry’s response to how the government is handling it seems to be focused on the New England groundfish fishery. And considering that this fishery is at this point “under the gun,” facing the threat of further court-ordered reductions which will spread economic havoc through many New England communities, this is as it should be. However, the manner in which these surveys were conducted – as well as the process that is used to evaluate the impacts their seemingly myriad weaknesses – directly affects many more fishermen and fisheries. And the attitude of the agency charged with “counting” fish might affect every U.S. fisherman, both recreational and commercial. It is going to be tremendously important to the future of fisheries management that NMFS treat “Trawlgate” with the seriousness that the industry is demanding, not attempting to gloss it over as a one-time mishap of negligible consequence.

Now here’s a big surprise – A study by researchers at the University of California/Santa Barbara’s Marine Science Institute, which was based on underwater surveys and 20 years of federal data on nearshore catches, puts into proper perspective the impacts of recreational angling on fish stocks. In an abstract of the report of their research -  in “On recreational fishing and marine fish populations in California.” - the researchers, Donna Schroeder and Milton Love, write “a comparison of the relative proportion in nearshore landings between recreational and commercial fisheries revealed that recreational angling was the primary source of fishing mortality for most species. We illustrate the potential damaging effects of mortality associated with catch-and-release programs on long-lived fish populations. Based on this information, we recommend that legislators and natural resource managers reject the assumption of recreational fishing to be a low or no impact activity until specific studies can demonstrate otherwise.” Interestingly, in an October 22 article on the study the Santa Barbara News-Press (Anglers linked to overfishing) reported that there were 1.7 million recreational anglers in California, a state with almost 3,500 miles of coastline. With in the neighborhood of a half a million recreational anglers and a total coastline of under 300 miles, angling pressure must be at least an order of magnitude greater in New Jersey, yet recreational leaders keep arguing – and, unfortunately, some N.J. legislators swallow their arguments hook, line and sinker - that their sport has little or no impact of fish stocks, and it’s the “netters” that are killing all the fish. This seems to be a fertile area for some serious inquiries by New Jersey researchers.

And another benefit from fish in the diet - A study involving 1,674 people, aged 68 and over, looked at how often they ate meat, fish or seafood and monitored their mental health over a seven-year period. Those who ate fish or seafood at least once a week had a significantly lower risk of being diagnosed as having dementia during this time, the researchers found. The study, published in the British Medical Journal, said that it might be that fatty acids in fish oils could reduce inflammation of the brain and play a part in brain development and nerve cell regeneration. (Eating fish cuts risk of dementia, says new report, Press Association via WorldCatch Wave, 10-25-02)

October 27, 2002

Trawlgate: There's the government interpretation and then again.... - According to a press release issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) Northeast Fisheries Science Center on October 25, "groundfish data collected during 2000 and 2001 using improperly marked trawl survey gear are not detectably different from similar data collected during other years, when subjected to exhaustive statistical analyses." Of course the spin the federal fisheries agency is putting on this is that if the "tainted" surveys are not significantly different from other survey's, then all's right with the world and the scientists can get back to "business as usual." Of course, as with so many fisheries issues, there's another interpretation - an interpretation, by the way, that's reinforced by the observations of commercial fishermen who watched the government scientists trying to catch fish. (Reports by New Jersey fisherman Jim Lovgren and Maine fisherman Bud Fernandes are available at http://www.fishingnj.org/trawlmesslovgrenreport.html and http://www.bdssr.com/latest/trawl/fernandes.pdf respectively.)

These fishermen, who were on board a "calibration cruise" to determine the effects of the mismatched trawl warps at the request of the government scientists, noticed a number of problems with the fishing gear on the research vessel Albatross IV beyond the cables: problems with how the net was rigged and with how it was fished. These problems had apparently been there for quite some time. So, the statistical analysis that shows no significant difference between surveys done post- and pre-"Trawlgate" might just as easily be interpreted as an indication of the entire series of bottom trawl surveys being compromised beyond use by faulty gear and methodology. In essence the trawl survey might have been performed so badly for so long that the current problems in its performance caused by the trawl cables didn't make a significant difference.

Confounding what is already a far too controversial situation, the government is now putting a great deal of emphasis on an "independent" review provided by what is called the Center for Independent Experts. But when we looked at the website of the Center for Independent Experts we found that it was part of the Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies (http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/groups/cimas/partners.html) at the University of Miami. The "cooperators" are the University of Miami and NOAA, and the Institute appears to be heavily funded by NOAA, heavily staffed by NOAA, and  "serves as a mechanism to bring together the research resources of the University with those of NOAA." If the government was looking for the appearance of independence in this critical review, perhaps they should have looked a little farther. (Guidelines for these independent experts are available at http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/info/fisheries_apply_2k.htm.)

While calling, along with other members of New England's Congressional Delegation, for a moratorium on additional restrictions on the groundfish fishery while this mess is sorted out, Maine Senator Olympia Snowe and Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy "have requested that the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce conduct a thorough examination of the manner in which NMFS maintains, inspects, operates, and verifies accuracy of equipment for collecting fishery data, including the timing and cost of these activities. This evaluation would include all regions, noting any gaps or inconsistencies between them, and will help NMFS develop standardized protocols for sampling gear to prevent similar problems in the future" (press release from Senator Snowe on October 24.) Amen to that!

This exceedingly unfortunate situation has not yet played itself out but a regrettable end result, a drastic increase in the level of distrust of federal scientists and science by the fishing industry, has already manifested itself. In a letter to NOAA head Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher, six fishermen who were on the Albatross IV cruise, who attended the subsequent workshop, or who took part in both, wrote "…to explain why we cannot at this time continue participating in your Agency's efforts to minimize the very serious effects of the clear mishandling of trawl surveys over recent years. On a moment's notice we took time from fishing, sent our men to workshops and out to sea with your employees, in the hopes that a fisherman's warning of clear negligence would have changed the attitude and approach of science professionals within NMFS and at Woods Hole, and brought us all improved surveys and science. Regrettably, that has not been the case." (The full text of their letter is available on Barbara Stevenson's website, http://www.bdssr.com/latest/trawl/trawlgate.htm, under the October 24 entry.)

Who saved the swordfish? – There was a recent announcement that the North Atlantic swordfish stocks had recovered to 98.5% of their optimum biomass and were continuing to rebuild. Needless to say, every NGO that could remotely connect itself, no matter how remotely, with this good news immediately went into overdrive to convince any receptive media reps that it was responsible. Hence, in a New York Times editorial in early October we read “In 1998, scientists and various conservation organizations — chiefly SeaWeb and the Natural Resources Defense Council — began lobbying the Clinton administration and the international commission that regulates swordfish.” Vikki Spruill, executive director of the Pew initiated Seaweb, added in a Natural Resource Defense Council release “All the participants in the Give Swordfish a Break campaign can feel incredibly proud that their actions helped make the difference for this fish.” And in an ENS release on October 7 we read “Many conservation organizations worked to save North American swordfish including the Ocean Wildlife Campaign, which consists of WCS, the National Audubon Society, the National Coalition for Marine Conservation, the Ocean Conservancy, WWF, and Oceana.” The “Give swordfish a break” consumer campaign, flagship of the NGO’s “we saved the swordfish” fleet, was started in 1998.

Not surprisingly, a cursory examination of the recent history of North Atlantic swordfish conservation paints a dramatically different picture. In 1990, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), the international organization charged with managing North Atlantic swordfish, adopted stringent swordfish management measures, including size limits, mortality reduction requirements for the fleets of major harvesting nations (including the U.S. and Spain), and a cap on the effort of minor harvesting nations. Since then there have been 7 reductions in the total allowable catch of North Atlantic swordfish. These reductions have been initiated and strongly supported by the U.S. commercial swordfish harvesters.

The current good news about swordfish has been long in the making. It started long before any of these “conservation” organizations were participating in international fisheries management. It started long before a few restaurant owners were mistakenly convinced that a consumer boycott in the U.S. would have any effects beyond hurting the same domestic fishermen who, years before, had taken the lead in real swordfish conservation, and it started without multi-million dollar funding from the Pew Charitable Trusts or other foundations. But public recognition of an effective swordfish conservation program that’s been in the works for well over a decade without the participation of “self-styled” marine conservation groups isn’t going to bring them any more paying members or foundation support. So it’s “we saved the swordfish,” regardless of who did what when. (Note that the Executive Summary of the October 2002 ICCAT Swordfish Species Status Report is available at http://www.iccat.es/Documents/SWO.pdf . The ICCAT homepage is http://www.iccat.es/ .)

What a surprise – From the October 8 “Cruise Note” on the most recent Autumn Bottom Trawl Survey by the Albatross IV: “At 1300 today the trawl was hauled back to reveal an enormously packed cod-end full of fish…. The catch consisted mostly of haddock, pollock, and cod…. The break down of number of fish and weights for these three key species came to 1,729 haddock at 3,280 pounds, 335 pollock at 2,318 pounds, and 203 cod at 1,491 pounds!!! The fish were caught… on the Northern Edge of Georges Bank.” (http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/albatross4/daily.html). This was a total of over 7,000 pounds of cod, haddock and pollock caught in one tow (this time using a properly rigged and, we assume, operated net) by the Albatross. Checking back over the data for previous fall and spring surveys conducted by the Albatross, we found that the total poundage of these three species in each of the last 5 bottom trawl surveys, with over 330 tows in each, ranged from 5,779 to 9,809 pounds. Of the more than 1500 tows in these 5 surveys, none caught over 2,300 lbs of the three species combined, two caught from 2,200 to 2,300 lbs, two caught from 1,500 to 1,600 lbs, one caught from 1,400 to 1,500 lbs, nine caught from 600 to 900 lbs, and the remainder caught less than 600 lbs (from our cursory examination it looked like over 90% of these ranged from 0 to 50 lbs).  Yet, as reported by National Fisherman, ex – NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator and current dean of the College of Life Sciences and Agriculture at the University of New Hampshire, Andy Rosenberg, , “dismissed criticism of the National Marine Fisheries Service's celebrated Albatross IV trawl surveys as irrelevant.”

The idea that an accepted “world class” fisheries biologist, particularly one like Dr. Rosenberg who still remains both active and influential in Northeastern and national fisheries issues, can reportedly dismiss what seem to be very real and very serious deficiencies in basic research as “irrelevant” is both frightening and disturbing; particularly when that basic research is the foundation of a fisheries management system that determines the economic well-being of thousands of families dependent on dozens of fisheries from North Carolina to Maine.

More from Conservation Law Foundation – In a next step that’s hard to interpret as anything other than an obsessive drive to destroy the New England groundfish fishery – and the many communities that depend on it - the Conservation Law Foundation has now embarked on a campaign to convince consumers that the trawl-caught codfish they have been enjoying for the better part of a century isn’t environmentally acceptable (of course, the people at CLF don’t state this on their website. Rather, they proclaim “Hooked- caught cod is an environmentally friendly, tasty product…. For environmentally-conscious consumers, it may just be the perfect fish.”) However, in a recent taste testing in Boston (Hooked on cod, Doug Fraser, Cape Cod Times, 10/02/02), the supposedly environmentally superior, and 20 to 30% more expensive, hook-caught cod was ranked as inferior  to “a dragger-caught fish from Maine. The flesh was firm, the taste clean, not fishy.”

One-third of rivers in the U.S. unusable? – “More than a third of surveyed rivers, and about half of all lakes and estuaries are too polluted for swimming or fishing, the Environmental Protection Agency said Monday…. From 1998 to 2000, the percentage of polluted streams rose from 35 percent, to 39 percent; the percentage of polluted lakes was unchanged at 45 percent; and the percentage of polluted estuaries increased from 44 percent, to 51 percent.” (EPA says a third of rivers in survey too polluted for swimming, fishing, Associated Press [via Worldcatch Wave], 10/01/02). Particularly when considering that about ¾ of our commercially and recreationally important fish species are dependent on estuaries at some point in their life cycles, it’s difficult to imagine why so many so-called “conservation” groups put so much effort into persecuting fishermen while turning a blind eye to what’s really injuring our fisheries.

Maine’s Senator Susan Collins introduces legislation to put additional management restrictions on hold – Based on the ongoing disclosures about the inadequacies of the National Marine Fisheries Service’s survey program in the Northeast, Senator Collins that will put pending regulations that will further restrict groundfishing on hold for two years, In a press release on October 11, Senator Collins stated “When fishermen’s livelihoods depend on the quality of survey data, we owe it to them to get the data collection right.… There is no room for second rate science. The type of data necessary to develop fisheries management plans can be produced only after years of research that demonstrate long-term stock trends…Theoretical modeling of past data of questionable quality is simply not good enough to develop the regulations of a plan that will affect the survival of our fishermen.” It’s important to keep in mind that the NMFS survey that has directed so much attention towards potential shortcomings in the groundfish fishery is also the sole source of data for many Mid-Atlantic fisheries.

Adopt-a-boat program looking for participants – With the goal of using “commercial fishing boats as a vehicle for teaching the complexities of marine resource utilization, marine ecology, and life as a fisherman to K- 12 students,” this valuable program, which is funded by the Northeast Consortium and coordinated by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sea Grant program, is looking for participating vessels in southern New England. If you are interested, contact Cliff Goudy at MIT Sea Grant (617 253-7079). For more information, visit the Adopt-a-boat website (http://web.mit.edu/seagrant/adoptaboat/index.html).

Upcoming meetings: New England Council Skate Committee on October 22 at the Hampton Inn in Warwick, RI (401 739-8888); New England Council Monkfish Committee on October 23 and 24 also at the Hampton Inn in Warwick; New England Council meeting on November 5 to 7 at the Gloucester High School Gymnasium in Gloucester, MA; Effects of Fishing Activities on Benthic Habitats symposium on November 12 to 14 at the Doubletree Westshore Hotel in Tampa, FL.

October 5, 2002

NOAA Fisheries research: it's about more than the Bottom Trawl Survey - Much is being made, and rightly so, about the recent revelations of inadequacies in the last two and a half years of the Northeast Bottom Trawl Survey. This survey has provided the foundation "science" for assessments of the condition of most of the commercially and recreationally important fish species from Maine to North Carolina. In what has come to be known as "Trawlgate" in the fishing industry, it was found that since early in 2000 the most essential piece of equipment used in the survey - the net - was rigged in such a way as to call it's ability to dependably catch fish into question.

To its' credit, the federal agency responsible for fisheries research and management has treated this situation with appropriate gravity. At the close of a two-day workshop on the trawl survey last week, Dr. John Boreman, Director of NOAA Fisheries' Northeast Fisheries Science Center, admitted that the trawl survey was "broken" and made a commitment to fix it.

But, while all of the attention is focused on this one particular survey, and only for the last two and a half years, what about all of the other data collected by NMFS/NOAA Fisheries? Should we accept that faulty gear was only used once for an extended length of time without being noticed, and that all of the other surveys of all of the other fish stocks in the Northeast and all of the other regions provide an accurate estimate of the fish populations? What of the data underlying the recently announced severe cutbacks in the west coast groundfish fisheries? How about snapper/grouper management in the Gulf? How reliable is the "science" underlying management decisions affecting fisheries that generate billions of dollars of economic activity every year?

There was some indication of that on the three-day "calibration" cruise by the research vessel Albatross IV that was completed the week before last. This was a cruise arranged by NMFS/NOAA Fisheries to determine how the faultily rigged net was actually fishing, and half a dozen commercial fishermen were invited along as observers. In the words of Jim Lovgren, Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council member and one of the industry observers, "Matt (Stommell, another industry observer) observed the net had a tangle as a few floats on the head rope became tangled with the sweep and footrope on one wing. Matt waited until the last moment when he was absolutely sure that the deck crew had not noticed this obvious screw up and the doors were about to be set, before he pointed out the problem, at which the net was hauled back aboard enough to straighten it out. When a float becomes stuck between the sweep and the headrope it rarely comes out by itself, the resulting tangle will cause the sweep to lift off the bottom and the headrope to close to the sweep. Depending on where the tangle occurs it will have varying degrees of effect upon the tow from serious to disastrous." (Captain Lovgren's full report on the cruise is available at http://www.fishingnj.org/trawlmesslovgrenreport. html. Captain "Bud" Fernandes, New England Council member and another industry observer on the trip, echoed Captain Lovgren's observations in his report at http://www.bdssr.com/latest/trawl/fernandes.pdf.)

On a short cruise which was under a great deal of public as well as agency scrutiny, and with a group of carefully selected commercial fishermen onboard and monitoring every action taken, at least one of the sampling tows by the Albatross IV would have been fouled and would have almost certainly "undersampled" (and wear on the floats indicated that this was a recurring problem). What does this say about the reliability of the gear - and the data it was used to generate - on the thousands of tows in the past 40 years that haven't received this level of scrutiny? And what about surveys by other NMFS/NOAA Fisheries vessels in other regions? For decades the Northeast Bottom Trawl Survey has been touted by fisheries scientists as the "ultimate" fisheries management data source. If this is the best we've got, how reliable is the worst?

We applaud Dr. Boreman and other NMFS/NOAA Fisheries staff for quickly and forthrightly recognizing the recent problems in the Northeast Bottom Trawl Survey. We trust that the effects that this now highly suspect survey data had in creating the "crisis" in the New England groundfish fisheries will be addressed in an equivalent manner. We equally applaud those members of Congress from New England who are attempting to fix the Magnuson Act so these problems don't recur, either in New England or elsewhere. Fisheries management decisions supported by unreliable data do more than waste millions of dollars; they destroy the lives of fishing families and the communities that they live in. That can’t be acceptable.

For more information on this situation as it continues to develop -

Barbara Stevenson’s website (includes virtually all of the media coverage, industry perspective and political reactions - Follow the Trawlgate link): http://www.bdssr.com/
Northeast Fisheries Science Center Trawl Warp and Gear Performance Review: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/survey_gear/
Garden State Seafood Association (follow the Bottom Trawl Survey link): http://www.fishingnj.org/
 
 

September 25, 2002

More on the NMFS Bottom Trawl Survey – Because of the discovery of the faulty rigging of the net used by NMFS in the New England/Mid-Atlantic for surveying many species of finfish, agency scientists, commercial fishermen expert in the use of trawl gear and state fisheries management reps will take part in a research cruise next week that will attempt to estimate by how much the past two-and-a-half year’s surveys were off. While the NMFS leadership is apparently looking for some kind of “correction factor” that agency scientists will be able to apply to all of the suspect data, the probability of reproducing the performance of a net that wasn’t rigged right in the varying conditions encountered for over two years and then accurately adjusting all of the accumulated data seems fantastically remote. And possibly more to the point in the long term, what of all of the other data that NMFS has collected in the past?

And on the subject of NMFS data – In an article in today’s Boston Herald, Kay Lazar quotes Commonwealth of Massachusetts fisheries scientist David Pierce “I wish that we would more often question scientific information because, even though it is the most recent information, it may have a lack of credibility because the samples are too small…. Because the port sampling has been so poor we are losing confidence that the (federal) analytical assessments are giving us a true picture of the abundance of cod and other species.” Lazar continues “The data in question are collected by National Marine Fisheries Service staffers, who visit ports throughout New England to determine the weights and ages of a representative number of fish in the fishermen's hauls. But the feds' own records show that, for the past decade, the number of such port samples has declined dramatically. NMFS says that is because it lost about half of its port samplers to retirement, and is working hard to boost staffing.” The foul-up with the trawl survey is having the salutary effect of drawing public attention to the entire federal fisheries data collection system.

Speaking of which…. – Maine Senator Olympia Snowe has introduced legislation (co-sponsored by Maine Senator Susan Collins) – the Fisheries Research Improvement Act – which provides that ‘‘The National Academy of Sciences shall review and recommend measures for improving National Marine Fisheries Service ’s procedures for ensuring data quality in the data collection phase of the stock assessment program….” and establishes “a national cooperative research and management program to be administered by the National Marine Fisheries Service, based on recommendations by the Councils. The program shall consist of cooperative research and management activities between fishing industry participants, the affected States, and the Service….” Twenty five million dollars would be appropriated to fund the first year of cooperative research, with the figure increasing to thirty five million in year four. The proposed legislation would also add some much-needed flexibility to stock rebuilding periods, which are now strictly defined regardless of any extenuating factors. The present situations regarding the trawl survey, the port sampling (and fisheries research in general), and the anti-fishing group’s continuing lawsuits based on unrealistically strict interpretations of the Magnuson Act all argue compellingly for the need for Senator Snowe’s legislation, and it can’t be adopted too quickly. The legislation is available in Adobe Acrobat format on Barbara Stevenson’s website, as is the most up-to-date information on what the New England industry is referring to as “Trawlgate,” at http://www.bdssr.com/snowe.htm. NMFS has also set up a website to, in their words, “provide updates and information on activities underway to address the recent discovery of offset 50 meter marks on cables used to tow sampling gear in the Northeast Fisheries Science Center's groundfish surveys. It’s URL is http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/survey_gear/.

Mid-Atlantic Council meeting – October 1 to 3, Holiday Inn, Claymont, DE (302 791-4603). On October 1 public hearing on skates (conducted by NE Council) from 7 to 9 pm // On October 2: spiny dogfish from 8:30 to 11:30 am, monkfish from 11:30 to 12:00 am, Ecosystem Planning Committee from 1:00 to 3:00 pm, Enforcement Committee from 3:00 to 5:00 pm, Public Hearing on Amendment 13 to the Surfclam and Ocean Quahog FMP from 7:00 to 9:00 pm // On October 2: Squid, Mackerel, Butterfish Framework 3 (Meeting 1) from 8:30 to 10:00 am. (Note that times are only approximate).

September 14, 2002

The "Best Available Science" isn't anywhere near good enough - An article in the Boston Herald on September 11 (Feds setting tough fishing regulations may be using bad data, says NMFS scientist, Kay Lazar) reported that "A top scientist (in the National Marine Fisheries Service) will publicly acknowledge today that there may be serious errors in the data federal fishing regulators have used to create tough restrictions on New England's struggling fishing industry."

The "serious errors" occurred from 2000 onward in the rigging of the bottom trawl used in the Spring and Winter Bottom Trawl Surveys. These surveys are conducted annually in the waters from North Carolina to Maine and are considered the primary - in instances the only - data sources for the assessments of the condition of most of the important commercial and recreational fisheries in New England and the Mid-Atlantic. According to NMFS, the rigging error - mismatched towing cables which would cause the net to not fish properly - occurred before the Winter Survey in 2000 and is only now being rectified.

The most immediate question this foul-up raises is what its effect was on the assessments of the various stocks of groundfish? These assessments provided the foundation for the federal court decision that is at this moment (or will be within the next six months or so) destroying fishing and related businesses and wreaking havoc on the lives of commercial fishermen in the groundfish and other fisheries from northern New Jersey to Maine. If the trawl survey wasn't accurately sampling the groundfish stocks; if, as virtually every fisherman in New England has been saying, the stocks are in far better shape than the assessments indicate; then millions of dollars have been drained from the coastal economy for no purpose and thousands of fishermen and their families have been made to suffer needlessly.

The farther ranging question is just how much credence can we now place in any of the surveys conducted by NMFS? The Winter and Spring Bottom Trawl Surveys have been the "flagships" of the NMFS research effort in the Northeast. Extending back 40 or so years, they have been extolled as the "best available science" on the various fish populations sampled because they provide a long-term picture of how those populations are fluctuating over time. Yet here's an elementary mistake, according to commercial fishermen who make a living with that kind of gear, in rigging a net that should have never been made in the first place, but once made should have been discovered and rectified almost immediately. It was allowed to influence - to an extent we'll never know - the eight surveys (each involves sampling at about 400 stations) that are most critical to determining the status of fisheries that easily support a billion dollars a year or more of recreational and commercial fishing. And, according to some reports, the problem was brought to the attention of NMFS at least a year ago. If we can't trust the Bottom Trawl Surveys done in the last two years - when everyone involved knew how extremely important they were - which of the hundreds of other surveys done by NMFS in the past can we trust? And how much faith can we put in the assessments those surveys support?

This all boils down to the fact that the legislation that governs fishing, fisheries management and fisheries research in federal waters has no requirement for research used to support management decisions other than it be the best available. Decisions affecting tens of millions of dollar worth of economic activity can be - and obviously have been - made based on data that appears to be highly inadequate.

What should be done? Some ideas (though certainly not an all-inclusive list):

· The Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act must be amended so that NMFS is forced to provide science adequate to the job rather than science that is only the best available.

· Recognizing problems with the various surveys conducted by NMFS, the fishing industry has initiated side-by-side projects in which commercial fishing boats take samples in the same locations under the same conditions as the NMFS survey vessels, providing "ground truth" for the surveys. In each of the northeastern fisheries where this was done (surf clams, summer flounder, monkfish, sea scallops), the commercial boats caught significantly more per station than the NMFS vessel. These side-by-side surveys should be mandatory for every survey/fishery.

· Someone expert (in commercial production rather than research) in operating the gear being used for the species/species complex being surveyed should be included on every survey cruise.

· The National Marine Fisheries Service should be provided enough funding to replace its research program based on "best available science" to one that is based on science adequate to the needs of the fishery.

· The current emphasis being placed on cooperative industry/agency research must be strengthened and the fishing industry must have a much more significant role in its design, management and evaluation.

(The Northeast Science Center release, NOAA Scientific Survey Gear Inspected, Error in Rigging Found and Corrected - Re-evaluation of Data Underway is available in Adobe Acrobat and MS Powerpoint format at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/press_release/warp.ppt)
 
 

September 9, 2002

Petition to declare Atlantic white marlin endangered denied by National Marine Fisheries Service – In a report released on September 3 the NMFS White Marlin Status Revue Team declared that it did “not consider the estimates of population decline or current stock size to be consistent with imminent risk of extinction” and denied the petition. Not surprisingly (at least to those of us who bother to look past the political posturing at what’s really going on in fisheries), the Status Review Team also recognized “that management measures implemented by the U.S. alone will have a negligible impact on the Atlantic-wide stock.” This puts pending federal legislation (an amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens Act offered by New Jersey Congressman Jim Saxton) in it’s proper perspective: a “symbolic” gesture that will punish an entire commercial fishery while having negligible impact on the fish that it is supposed to saved. (The entire report is available on the National Marine Fisheries Service website at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/species/fish/white_marlin.html).

Director of NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife to retire – It was announced at the NJ Marine Fisheries Council meeting last Thursday that on January 1, 2003. Bob McDowell will retire as the Director of the Division in the NJ Department of Environmental Protection that is charged with managing the State’s marine fisheries (within 3 miles of the coastline).

Surfclam/Ocean Quahog Amendment 13 (new surfclam overfishing definition; fishing gear impacts to essential fish habitat; multi-year quotas; suspension of the surfclam minimum size limit; and a vessel monitoring-type system) hearings: 09/24/02 at U. of Maine, Machias, ME, (207 255-1289), 09/30/02 at Clarion Hotel in Atlantic City, NJ (609 272-0200), and 10/02/02 at the Holiday Inn in Claymont, DE (302 791-4603). Hearings start at 7:00 pm.

New England Council meeting - September 10-12, Biltmore Hotel, Providence, RI, 401 421-0700. Discussions of particular interest:
 Tuesday at 10:30 AM (State Department Issues) – “Discussion of the European Union's request to negotiate a governing international fisheries agreement (GIFA), with particular implications for the Atlantic herring fishery….”
 Wednesday at 8:30 AM (Groundfish Action) – “Review and approval of draft text for the status determination criteria section to be included in the Northeast Multispecies FMP Amendment 13 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS); staff will brief the Council on progress to date on DSEIS development and clarify any outstanding issues”
 Wednesday at 2:30 PM (Whiting Committee report) – “Presentation of 2002 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report for small mesh multispecies and discussion of recommendations from the Whiting Monitoring Committee…. the Council will select management options for analysis that may modify or eliminate the Year 4 default measure for small mesh multispecies….”
 Wednesday at 6:00 PM (Monkfish Scoping Hearing) – “on Amendment 2 to the Monkfish FMP. The Councils are considering revising the monkfish limited access permit system to allow vessels that landed monkfish after the original control date in the southern end of the fishery to qualify for permits.”
 Thursday at 1:00 PM (Scallop Committee report) – “Approval of final action on Framework Adjustment 15, the annual adjustment to the Scallop FMP; options under consideration for the 2003 fishing year include but are not limited to: An adjustment to the annual days-at-sea allocations for vessels with full-time, part-time, and occasional limited access permits, ranging from 45 full-time days (no action) to 120 full-time days (status quo) and other amounts that meet the mortality objectives of the FMP; Continuing the controlled access program for one or both of the Hudson Canyon and VA/NC Areas or no action (re-opening the areas to general scallop management); the controlled access program changes include raising the scallop possession limit to 21,000 pounds meat weight and allocating trips to limited access vessels based on a high or low mortality target for these rebuilt areas; other provisions of the controlled access program would continue unchanged; A days-at-sea tradeoff exemption procedure for vessels that fish in the Hudson Canyon and VA/NC Areas controlled access program, but whose trips are terminated early due to weather, illness, equipment failure or other reasons.”
 
 

August 24, 2002

White marlin endangered? - Several months ago an "environmental" organization petitioned the federal government to list white marlin, a popular recreational "big game" fish, as an endangered species under provisions of the Endangered Species Act. White marlin, along with other marlin species, sailfish and several species of tuna, are the offshore quarry of anglers who either own ultra-expensive fishing boats - ranging in price from $50,000 into the millions - or can afford the $1,000 to $2,000 a day charter fees. These fish are caught by the same methods, in the same areas during the same seasons and with the same gear. Needless to say, white marlin can't be excluded from the catch, and what little research has been done indicates that the catch and release mortality (in spite of all of the hype to the contrary, nowhere near all of those released fish "live to fight another day") of marlin ranges in the neighborhood of from 15 to 30%. If listed as endangered, it seems inescapable that this offshore big game fishery would have to be either closed down completely or severely restricted. Yet how endangered are white marlin? In an Ocean City marlin tournament that ended a few weeks back, over 1,100 were "caught and released" ( http://www.whitemarlinopen.com/ ), and the Atlantic City Press reported that a boat owned by a local angler had caught 16 in one day (http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/sports/081502SHEPFISH815.html). And, with estimated catch and release mortalities ranging from 150 to 300 in a single tournament (there are dozens each year) or from 2 to 5 for one boat in one day (from a fleet that numbers in the thousands), the big game fishing advocates and their friends in Congress should begin to seriously rethink their knee-jerk habit of throwing stones at commercial longliners.

Runoff from everyday household chemicals affects fish reproduction – Researchers at the University of Maryland’s Biotechnology Institute reported at the annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Reproduction that “Compounds in many detergents, plastics, pesticides, some medicines, and even thalates that keep vinyl soft in cars were shown to disrupt the sexual development of juvenile zebra fish in experiments at UMBI's Center of Marine Biotechnology (COMB) in Baltimore.” The experiments used concentrations of the compounds, which apparently have the same effect as the more widely studied endocrine disruptors (some insecticides, PCBs, etc.), which approximated levels now occurring in the Chesapeake Bay (Household Chemicals Harm Chesapeake Bay Fish, ENS, 08/21/02, http://ens-news.com/ens/aug2002/2002-08-21-09.asp#anchor2).

The New York Times and whale harvesting – In a thoughtful op-ed piece on August 20, Nicholas Kristof suggests that it might be time to resume the harvest of those species of whales whose populations have made in some instances quite astonishing comebacks since severe restrictions were placed on commercial whaling beginning in the 1970s (followed by a ban on the practice put in place in 1986). “The U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service estimated in 2000 that there are more than two million sperm whales worldwide. The International Whaling Commission calculated years ago that there were more than 900,000 minke whales and 780,000 pilot whales worldwide, and the numbers are higher now. Milton Freeman, a whaling expert at the University of Alberta, estimates that the number of minke whales has trebled over 30 years and that humpbacks are exploding at a rate of 12 to 17 percent annually. Indeed, the number of gray whales (which came off the endangered species list in 1994) surged so much in the late 1990's that hundreds of dead ones began washing up on West Coast beaches, so emaciated that their ribs showed. The best guess is that the numbers of grays grew, the food supply shrank and Malthus had his way. The bottom line is that while most large whales remain at risk, for some species we can no longer argue that we need to "save the whales." They've been saved. At a time when there's talk about overfishing, it's also worth pointing out that whales now eat at least 300 million tons of marine life, three times as much as humans….” (Harvest the Whales, N.D. Kristoff, 08/20/02). While this isn’t the place for a discussion on the pros and cons of the resumption of commercial whaling – though there reportedly were active whaling ports in South Jersey in the 19th century – it’s extremely edifying to see recognition in the Times of the huge amounts of fish and other marine life consumed by whales. We should also draw attention to the fact that the resurgence in the populations of some whale species coincided with the beginnings of the declines of fish species that are generally and simplistically attributed to “overfishing.”

Louisiana commercial fisherman sues Secretary of Commerce over imbalance on Gulf Fisheries Management Council – “U.S. Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans violated federal law this year when he failed to appoint commercial fishing representatives to the panel that oversees Gulf of Mexico fisheries, a Buras fisherman claims, in a lawsuit that seeks to have those choices declared invalid. Attorneys for the fisherman, 62-year-old John Thompson, also want a federal judge to declare whether a consultant for an aquaculture firm qualifies as a member of the commercial fishing industry under the provisions of law that govern appointments to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council.” (U.S. fisheries agency sued over panel balance, J. Desantis, Houma [LA] Courier, 08/24/02, http://www.houmatoday.com/news/stories/14831001003n6.html)

August 17, 2002

NASA/NOAA detect declines in phytoplankton levels in the world’s oceans – Comparison of two sets of satellite data performed by National Atmospheric and Space Administration and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists – one set from July to September for the period 1979 to 1986, the other from 1997 to 2000 - reveals that the levels of phytoplankton have declined by an average of 8% over the last 20 years. Phytoplankton is composed of the generally microscopic, free-floating plants that are the foundation of the ocean’s food web. The declines, which are most pronounced in the North Pacific (30%) and the North Atlantic (14%), were not balanced by increases in the phytoplankton levels in the waters nearer the equator (“…summer plankton concentrations rose by over 50 percent in both the Northern Indian and the Equatorial Atlantic Oceans…..”). One of the researchers, Margarita Conkright, a scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Oceanographic Data Center, Silver Spring, Md., said "This is the first time that we are really talking about the ocean chlorophyll and showing that the ocean's biology is changing, possibly as a result of climate change," The study didn’t determine whether the variations are due to a longer-term climate change or a shorter-term ocean cycle. (Satellites see big changes since 1980S in key element of ocean's food chain, Goddard Space Flight Center, 08/08/02, http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020801plankton.html). Interestingly, it appears as if these phytoplankton  declines correspond with declines in some important commercial fisheries.

New England Fishery Management Council seeking Advisory Panel members – Advisory panel members are appointed by the Council and will serve for a two-year period. As those appointments expire, members currently serving on the Advisory Panels can reapply for their positions. These seats also become open to new applicants. Advisory Panel members generally meet no more than four or five times a year and are compensated for travel expenses for all meetings. Applications are now being solicited for the following positions:

Dogfish Advisory Panel (2) Open Seats
Enforcement Advisory Panel (2) Open Seats
Groundfish Advisory Panel (4) Open Seats
Herring Advisory Panel (1) Open Seat
Monkfish Advisory Panel (3) Open Seats
Red Crab Advisory Panel (4) Open Seats
Skates Advisory Panel (5) Open Seats
Whiting Advisory Panel (2) Open Seats

If you are interested in serving as a member on one or more of the Council's Advisory Panels, please submit an application to the Council office. Applications can be obtained by contacting the Council office at 978/475-0492 or online at http://www.nefmc.org. The Oversight Committees, as well as the Council’s Executive Committee will select new members, in closed session. Applications must be received by Friday, September 20, 2002. (From the New England Council website).

Fish and seafood production in Northeast surpasses $1.1 billion in 2001 – Commercial fisheries and aquaculture production in the ten coastal states that make up the Northeast Region – Virginia to Maine – reached a record level in 2001. Maine was at the top of the list, with production approaching $370 million ($116 million was for aquacultured Atlantic salmon). New Jersery ranked fourth, with a total production valued at $119 million.In the region the lobster fishery was the most valuable ($254.8 million), followed by sea scallops ($172.6 million). Rounding out the “top ten” were Atlantic salmon, blue crab ($70.9 million), monkfish ($43.9 million), hard clams (439.7 million), surf clams ($39.6 million), cod ($32.1 million), menhaden ($27.8 million), and ocean quahogs ($23.9 million). Ranked by the ex-vessel value of landings, Cape May/Wildwood was number four with $33 million, Atlantic City was number seven with $25.2 million, Point Pleasant was number nine with $18.7 million and Barnegat Light/Long Beach was number eleven with $14.4 million. (Commercial fisheries and mariculture revenues for Northeast coastal states surpass $1.1 billion in 2001, NMFS/NER press release NR002-09, http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/press_release/news02.09.html).

August 10, 2002

Who are “The Public?” – In a column in today’s Newark Star-Ledger, columnist Al Ristori addressed what he sees as a developing problem in the recreational scup (also known as “Porgy”) fishery. As a prelude to what is becoming New Jersey recreational fishing scribes’ favorite bellyache (and defense of recreational angler’s developing habit of exceeding their quotas) – commercial fishermen being allocated too many fish – Mr. Ristori writes “Thus, commercial interests will be able to land 12.47 million pounds (of scup next year)…. Meanwhile, the public (recreational anglers) gets 4.03 million pounds….” Now, all of us – except, perhaps, Mr. Ristori and the Star-Ledger’s editors – figured out quite some time ago that commercial fishermen don’t keep and eat the fish they catch. In fact, they sell them. And the folks they sell them to have always been considered by just about everybody to be part of “the public.” Evidently in the Star-Ledger offices they aren’t. According to Ristori and company, New Jersey’s almost eight and a half million people aren’t the public, those people who can afford to fish recreationally are. And they are supposed to be the ones who deserve all the fish. While we can certainly appreciate Mr. Ristori’s zeal to support his angling readers’ penchant to catch more fish every year, we suspect that he might be more effective if he adopted a strategy for doing so that didn’t involve taking fish out of the mouths of over 8 million consumers – the real “public” – and allocating them to his readers.

And, while we’re looking at New Jersey recreational fishing writers…. – In a for the most part sensible column in the Asbury Park Press last week (Quotas need to be revisited, 08/07/02), John Geiser wrote of summer flounder allocations for next year (who’d of guessed it) “However, with the New England and Mid-Atlantic fishery management councils both dominated by commercial fishermen, and the National Marine Fisheries Service under the political thumb of the industry, the management travesty will continue for a long time to come.” He was addressing the fact that the recreational fluke quota is going to be exceeded yet again. But, looking at the list of the Mid-Atlantic Council’s appointed members, we find six with ties to the commercial fishing industry and six to the recreational. The other members, who are either state or federal employees, are there representing the public (that would be the real public, not Mr. Ristori’s version). As far as the National Marine Fisheries Service being “under the political thumb of the (commercial fishing) industry,” anyone who is remotely familiar with what’s been going on in fisheries management over the last decade can attest to how ridiculous that statement is. The facts seem to be fairly straightforward: there are more summer flounder out there than there have been in many years; because of what seem to be major inadequacies in the existing management plan the recreational anglers have been catching far more than their allocation for the last five or so years; and the commercial fishermen (fishing for the public) have stayed within their quota. The recreational overages are now costing both the recreational and commercial sectors millions of pounds of landings each year, and we should all be looking for ways to improve management so they won’t occur any more. (Last week the Mid-Atlantic Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission both voted to reduce the fluke quota by a million pounds. They also approved a motion to come up with ways to allow recreational overages to be deducted from quotas in subsequent years.)

Federal government goes to court over applicability of NEPA in the EEZ – The Bush Administration is arguing that the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 does not apply beyond territorial waters, which generally extend from the shoreline out to three miles. While the argument is being made in a suit dealing with the Navy’s use of sonar in the Exclusive Economic Zone (the waters from three out to two hundred miles), it could have broad applicability to fisheries management issues as well. The Act, which was signed by President Nixon in 1970, requires that all federal governmental actions must be reviewed and analyzed for their effect on the environment. In recent years it has provided the basis for a number of suits brought be various environmental groups against the federal government. (U.S. Seeks to Limit Conservation Law, K. Seelye, NY Times, 08/10/02)

$70 million in aid to Alaska fishing industry – “The Bush administration has agreed to an aid package worth more than $70 million for Alaska fishermen and fishing communities hard hit by low prices or bad runs. The package is patterned after government programs to help displaced Northwest loggers and after long-standing assistance for farmers, say Alaska's two U.S. senators, who negotiated the agreement…. "This is a substantial, I think, response to the concern about what are we going to do about Alaska fisheries as we go through this interim-period adjustment of trying to compete with foreign, farmed salmon," said Sen. Frank Murkowski, who is running for governor as a Republican. Bristol Bay, scene of the state's most valuable commercial salmon fishery, suffered its worst season this summer since the wipeout years of the early 1970s. The problem was a low catch of about 10.5 million red salmon, coupled with a weak price of 40 cents per pound. Overall, the fishery paid fishermen $25 million, compared with more than $200 million a decade ago. (Alaska fishing aid deal exceeds $70 million, Anchorage Daily News – via WorldCatch.com – 08/02/02)

August 5, 2002

The most recent findings on fish consumption and coronary health – An article in HealthScout (http://www.healthscout.com/ as reported by the WorldCatch Wave on 08/01/02) covered the latest findings by Australian researchers on how a diet high in fish oils helps to maintain cardiovascular health. According to this research, omega-3 fatty acids help to keep arteries more elastic. Study author Dr. Paul Nestel, head of cardiovascular nutrition at the Baker Heart Research Institute in Melbourne says that’s important because "the arteries need to expand with each heartbeat to accommodate the output from the heart,… With age and diseases such as diabetes, arteries become stiff and this process leads to hypertension and coronary heart disease." Dr. Nestel’s report, which was published in the August issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, utilized 38 male and female subjects, all of who had high cholesterol levels. Members of the experimental group were given daily supplements of the two fish oil fatty acids - eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) or docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). Arterial elasticity increased by 36% in the EPA group and 27% in the DHA group. These oils, which are found in all fish, are found in the highest concentrations in salmon, mackerel, tuna, sardines, trout and herring. They are also available to consumers as fish oil supplements produced by the processing of menhaden. (Note that the segment of the menhaden fishery that supplies this part of the business has been banned from New Jersey waters by obviously ill-advised and short-sighted legislation pushed by “we want it all” recreational fishing activists. These same activists are now maneuvering for similar bans in other East coast states that have menhaden fisheries – it’s hard to imagine a more blatant example of the “public be damned” attitude.)

Stock assessment science inadequate, according to National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration – “A panel of senior scientists from the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has concluded that existing data and life history information are too sparse to provide useful assessments for more than 60 percent of regulated, U.S. marine fish stocks.”  (Scientists conclude existing fish stock data is too 'sparse' to be useful, WorldCatch Wave, 08/01/02). From a NOAA press release on the panel’s findings: “It devised a three-tiered method for advancing assessments, which includes better use of existing fishery data; moving to advanced data collection and analyses; and creating more sophisticated assessments incorporating interrelationships between species and their environment. The panel report details how expanded partnerships and staff would boost the agency's data collection and analysis capabilities and to present results to fishery managers in a timely manner. The report indicates that modernization of stock assessments will require at least 600 additional positions.” (Scientific Panel Identifies Goals For Next Generation Of Fish Stock Assessments, NOAA 2002-097, 07/30/02) New Jersey’s commercial fishermen, and fishermen from virtually every state with a commercial fishery, have been and continue to be involved in cooperative research programs to improve the assessment process and we urge the Secretary of Commerce and Congress to provide the funding necessary to allow fisheries management to be pursued based on a solid statistical foundation. (The panel’s report, Marine Fisheries Stock Assessment Improvement Plan, is available on the NMFS website at http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st2/saip.html or from Mark Chandler, NOAA Fisheries Office of Science and Technology, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD, 20910 (301) 713-2363 ext. 152.)

Will the newest groundfish regulations be the death knell for the New England groundfish fishery? – At it’s meeting last week in Portland, Maine the New England Fishery Management Council announced the additional restrictions that would be imposed on the groundfish fishery in May of next year. “’Every option is nothing but an obituary,’ fisherman Eric Anderson told about 50 members of the Northeast Seafood Coalition who met last night to talk about what, if anything, can be done to fight off regulations that fishermen say will wipe out the inshore fleet.” (Fleet vows to fight new regs, B. Taormina, Gloucester Daily Times, 07/30/02). The regulations will impose another 50% cutback in the number of days that fishermen will be allowed to fish – resulting in some boats ending up with under 40 days a year at sea – as well as additional closures. The saddest part of this situation is that almost all of the stocks being managed under the Groundfish Management Plan have been increasing in recent years and there is absolutely no indication that, given the current rate of fishing, they won’t continue to increase. This, however, wasn’t good enough for the several envirorgs that went to federal court to “speed the recovery.” Unfortunately, if this dismal state of affairs is allowed to continue to its court-mandated conclusion, there will be an ocean full of fish in New England with no fishermen left to catch them. It’s increasingly difficult to believe that this isn’t the goal that the so-called “conservationists” had in mind all along.

July 28, 2002

Good news about scup and summer flounder – In a late July press releases detailing findings of the most recent Stock Assessment Review Committee meetings the Mid-Atlantic Council announced that “projections indicate that the (summer flounder) stock biomass will exceed the biomass threshold during 2002 and at that time the stock will no longer be overfished. By January 1, 2003 the biomass level is projected to be about 10 million pounds above the current threshold of 117 million pounds. Spawning stock biomass has increased seven-fold since the low value estimated for 1989, and in 2001 it reached its highest level in the time series” (Summer Flounder Continues to Rebuild, 06/24/02, MAFMC press release). In another release the Council announced that its “management system is working as intended…. some abundance indices for scup are the highest ever re-corded. The results of the most recent spring trawl survey, conducted by the Northeast Science Center, show that the stock has exceeded its biomass index threshold and, as such, is no longer considered overfished.” (Scup No Longer Considered Overfished, 06/24/02, MAFMC Press Release). Unfortunately, due to continued recreational overharvesting it is likely that, in spite of high levels of abundance, the summer flounder landings will be re-duced next year. (For more information contact Marla Trollan at 302-674-2331  x. 32

And why, if it does, the recreational sector will have exceeded its target quote – Al Ristori, fishing columnist for the Newark Star Ledger, commented in his July 25 column (Fluke regulations may tighten) “Even with ever-higher minimum sizes, recreational fishermen have been exceeding their quotas every recent year because the fewer fish landed are heavier and discards become more of a problem as the minimum increases. The biggest problem is that when managers split the fishery, they changed what had traditionally been a 75-80 percent rec-reational fishery and made it 60 percent commercial by using as base years those in the 1980s when draggers were destroying the wintering stocks offshore -- leaving few to move inshore. As a result, it's virtually impossi-ble to hold the sportfishing catch down to artificially low levels no matter how high the minimum is pushed or how severely seasons are restricted. Until that basic inequity is corrected, there's no hope the public will ever be allowed to harvest a public resource under reasonable conditions.” Anyone who’s even vaguely familiar with the management system will know that allocation decisions are made only after long and painstaking deliberations with public input allowed at just about every point in those deliberations. Mr. Ristori suggestion that the summer flounder split was “unfair,” seems a good indication that he needs to become reacquainted with a management system he used to be a part of. As far as the “public” being “allowed to harvest a public resource,” it seems that he is equally confused about just who the “public” is. In New Jersey, the public isn’t the thousands of people with the time, the money and the desire to harvest their own seafood; it’s the millions of people who depend on commercial fishermen to do it for them – and that’s something we should all keep in mind when considering who gets what share of any of our living marine resources.

And another “How to fix it” report – A study panel of the National Academy of Public Administration released it’s report, titled Courts, Congress, and Constituencies: Managing Fisheries by Default (available by contacting Bill Shields at 202 347-3190, ext. 3014, or on the Academy’s web site at http://www.napawash.org) earlier this week. From a press release announcing the availability of the report: “The study Panel recommends steps to im-prove the existing U.S. fisheries management system to increase its capacity to develop and successfully defend regulatory actions.  These include strengthening the leadership role of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), improving the system’s regulatory and budget processes, and increasing public outreach and constitu-ent relations…. In addition to strengthening NMFS leadership in most aspects of fisheries management, the Panel recommends statutory changes in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to broaden and strengthen interest group participation in the fishery management councils and the ability of NMFS to amend council plans.  Other recommendations include increasing resources for socio-economic analyses re-quired under the National Environmental Policy Act, stock assessment improvements, and cooperative programs with constituents and partners.”
 
 

July 21, 2002

The New Jersey Farmer speaks out on anti-fishing “crusaders” – In the July 1 “Viewpoint,” after several paragraphs on the animal rights interest in fisheries, John Fulton Lewis writes about the “newest brand of wannabee seafood ‘protectors.’’’ Quoting from the Fisherman, a sportfishing publication, Mr. Lewis writes “It’s just a matter of time before these well-organized and richly financed groups tell you that you’re no longer welcome in your public waters.” He continues “The Fisherman article warns that the Ocean Conservancy and its extremist allies, in the name of ‘protecting’ the environment or practicing their notion of conservation, in effect, will be using the ‘wilderness’ designation to create ocean ‘museums’ to be visited ‘only by those the elitist conservationists give the nod to.’’’

Yachtsmen not flocking to Seattle Fishermen’s Terminal – After five years of wrangling, what had been a strictly commercial fishing facility was opened to non-commercial fishing vessels earlier this year. As of the last week in June, only one pleasure boat owner had applied for mooring space there. (Yachts Aren’t Biting, Pacific Fishing, August 2002).

Trawlers work with Canadian government to protect sponge reefs – In 1999, scientists discovered four ancient sponge reefs off the coast of British Columbia. Since 2000, the British Columbia trawl fleet has voluntarily avoided working in the areas where the reefs are located. “Over the past several months, DFO fishery managers and the groundfish trawl fleet have been in discussions to develop a more permanent means of ensuring the sponge reefs are safeguarded against damage due to groundfish fishing gear. ‘The groundfish industry is fully supportive of the introduction of stronger protection measures to preserve these reef areas," said Mr. Turris (of the Canadian Groundfish Research & Conservation Society and the Groundfish Trawl Advisory Committee). ‘The boundaries of the sponge reef areas have now been finalized and groundfish trawl fishing in these areas will be prohibited.’’’ (Groundfish trawlers help to protect unique sponge reefs in B.C., Worldcatch Wave, 08/19/02 – http://www.worldcatch.com)

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council meeting (with appropriate Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Management Boards), 07/06/02 to 07/08/02 at the Sheraton Society Hill, Philadelphia PA (215-238-6000)

08/06/02
- 9:30 - 10:30 Protected Resources Committee - Review status of NMFS action regarding white marlin
- 10:30 - 12:30 Report of 35th Stock Assessment Review Committee (Review Stock Assessment Workshop reports on summer flounder, scup, and silver hake)
- 1:30 - 5:00 Scup (Review Scup Monitoring Committee's recommendations regarding 2003 harvest level and commercial management measures, recommend harvest level and commercial management measures).

08/07/02
- 8:00 - 11:30 Summer Flounder (Review Monitoring Committee's recommendations regarding 2003 harvest level and commercial management measures, recommend harvest level and commercial management measures).
- 12:30 - 3:00 Black Sea Bass Management Measures (Review Monitoring Committee's recommendations regarding 2003 harvest level and commercial management measures, recommend harvest level and commercial management measures).
- 3:00 - 5:00 Bluefish Management Measures (Review Monitoring Committee's recommendations for 2003 harvest level and management measures, recommend bluefish harvest level and management measures).

08/08/02
9:30 – Various Committee, etc. reports.
(Last agenda item) - Russian research proposal for mackerel and its TALFF
implications
 
 

National Fisheries Institute labels Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act “UNACCEPTABLE” – Because of two amendments, one of which was sponsored by New Jersey Congressman Jim Saxton, the nation’s largest seafood trade association will oppose the version of the bill that was passed by the House Resources Committee last week. The Saxton amendment, which is ostensibly aimed at “conserving” white marlin, would in essence close down the Mid-Atlantic commercial longline fishery while completely ignoring the impacts of a much larger recreational fishery on the species (for an in-depth discussion of this issue, see the Blue Water Fishermen’s Association analysis as communicated to NC Congressman Walter Jones on the New Jersey Fishing website at http://www.fishingnj.org/midatlclosures.htm). The longline fishery, which supplies most of the fresh tuna and swordfish to the East coast and other domestic markets, is critical to a number of New Jersey commercial fishing ports, including Barnegat Light in Congressman Saxton’s district.

“Cure” for red tides? – Red Tides, caused by localized explosions in the populations of several species of single celled algae, cause tens of millions of dollars of damage in the United States every year. As reported in the July 9 New York Times (H. Fairfield, Humble Material Is Enlisted Against Deadly Red Tides), researchers led by Dr. Donald M. Anderson at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution on Cape Cod are examining a technology claimed by Korean scientists to have reduced red tide damage to the fishing industry in their waters from $100 million in 1995 to $1 million in 1996. Applying a fine spray of clay slurry to a body of water affected by red tide can reportedly reduce the density of the algae in the water column by at least 70%.

Louisiana Congressman speaks out for his commercial fishing constituents – Several weeks back we reported on the imbalance between recreational and commercial fishing interests on the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council. According to Ken Johnson, aide to Louisiana Congressman Billy Tauzin “"What they are doing is killing fishermen financially,… it is part of a continuing effort to limit -- if not, eliminate -- commercial fishing in areas like the Gulf of Mexico…. Clearly, the present make up of the council is a huge concern to us,… We have been trying for years to convince the Department of Commerce to provide fair representation. Simply put, commercial fishermen who depend on the Gulf of Mexico for their livelihood have been stuck in the back of the boat." In a June 19 letter to the Maryland Congressman Wayne Gilchrist (Chairman of the House Resources Committee), Bob Jones – Executive Director of the Southeastern Fisheries Association – wrote "The historical domestic-fishing industry in our part of the world is under direct attack by the National Marine Fisheries Service, and we believe they have plans to close us down,… The appointment of two sport-fishing attorneys and a shrimp aquaculturist to the Gulf Council certainly sends that message to us. ... This did not happen by accident; it is a planned move." According to Mr. Johnson, Congressman Tauzin has plans to “tighten the process.” (Out of balance: Fisheries-oversight panel weighted heavily toward sporting interests, J. DeSantis, Houma Courier, 07/14/02). We urge you to read the full article, which is available on the web at http://www.houmatoday.com/news/stories/14084001003n6.html.

Multi-million dollar envirorg’s spin on the reauthorization of Magnuson – A press release from Oceana, an organization that was established with $10 million from the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Sun Oil “family foundation,” reported that on July 11 the House Resources Committee “defeated an amendment offered by Representative Joel Hefley (R-Colorado) to restrict the use of heavy fishing gear, called rockhoppers and rollergear, which crushes deep sea corals, rocky reefs, and boulder areas.” The release went on to urge the passage of legislation by Congressman Hefley that would do the same thing by the full House. Contrary to what these well funded “environmentalists” would have the public believe, what the Resources Committee actually did was reserve control of fishing gear for the regional management councils, whose members and staffs possess the “local knowledge” to do so and are already doing it.

Oil spills are not the source of most inshore/offshore oil pollution – A recent study by the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council reports that pollution from oil spills is much less than that released by users which makes its way into our waterways as nonpoint source pollution (Offshore Oil Pollution Comes Mostly as Runoff, Study Says, A. Revkin, NY Times, 05/24/02). From Mr. Revkin’s article, “Most oil pollution in North American coastal waters comes not from leaking tankers or oil rigs, but rather from countless oil-streaked streets, sputtering lawn mowers and other dispersed sources on land, and so will be hard to prevent, a panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences says in a new report. The thousands of tiny releases, carried by streams and storm drains to the sea, are estimated to equal an Exxon Valdez spill — 10.9 million gallons of petroleum — every eight months, the report says. When fuel use on water, either inland or offshore, is also taken into account, the report says, about 85 percent of the 29 million gallons of marine oil pollution in North America each year comes from users — drivers, businesses, boaters — and not from the oil industry.” Alarmingly, Mr. Revkin writes that according to the report “more than half the oil runoff in North America occurs along the East Coast from Virginia to Maine.” Thanks to all of those cars, outboard motors, lawn mowers, etc., the fish and shellfish in the waters of what is our well less than 10% of North America’s coast are evidently exposed to well over 5 times the oil and associated pollutants as those anywhere else on the continent. Again, according to Mr. Revkin, “that relentless runoff carries traces of a host of chemicals that are found in most fuels and that can harm marine life even in low concentrations.”

For information on what’s going on in the world of seafood – (Note: There are a number of excellent sources of information about the seafood industry on the internet. Every month or so we will report on one of them.) Worldcatch.com and The Wave, it’s daily seafood industry update e-mailed to subscribers, is a convenient and inexpensive way to stay abreast of major events, articles, etc. with the potential to impact on seafood businesses. For a relatively modest $199/year, members receive each day’s edition of The Wave, that carries headlines of the daily articles that are linked to the full articles on The Wave’s website, email notifications of “breaking” news, and access to a number of other features on the Worldcatch/Wave website (including the most extensive “Yellow Pages” section we’ve come across listing with seafood and related businesses). http://www.worldcatch.com

Linda Greenlaw’s second book published – Following on the heels of her critically acclaimed The Hungry Ocean, the ex-swordfish longlining captain and present lobster fisherman - like many other women who fish, she eschews referring to herself with those supposedly PC terms like “fisher” - who played a prominent part in Sebastian Junger’s The Perfect Storm, has detailed her post-longlining life on Isle Au Haute, Maine. In her new book, The Lobster Chronicles, she details her life on a small island (3 miles by 6 miles with 47 year-round residents, half of whom are related to Ms. Greenlaw) off the Maine coast during an “average” fishing year. Like The Hungry Ocean, Ms. Greenlaw is gathering favorable reviews for The Lobster Chronicles.

Meetings:
· New England Council Sea Scallop Advisory Panel meeting, Monday, July 8, at the Crowne Plaza in Warwick, RI (401 732 6000).
· New England Council Sea Scallop Oversight Committee meeting, Tuesday, July 9, at the Crowne Plaza in Warwick, RI (401 732 6000).
· New England Council Groundfish Oversight Committee meeting, Monday, July 8 at the Sheraton Colonial in Wakefield, MA (781 245 9300).
· New England Council Skate Committee meeting Monday, July 22, 2002 at the Sheraton Ferncroft Hotel in Danvers, MA (978 777 2500)
· New England Council Monkfish Committee meeting Monday, July 22, at the DoubleTree Hotel in Portland, ME, (207 774 5611).
· New England Council Meeting, July 23-25 at the Doubletree Hotel in Portland, ME (207 774 5611). On the agenda, one and one-half days are reserved for the Groundfish Committee report (July 24 & 25). Herring, Skate, Scallop and Monkfish Committee reports will also be heard.
· Mid-Atlantic Council meeting, August 6 to 8 at the Sheraton Society Hill in Philadelphia, PA (215 238 6625).

House Committee on Resources ignores “conservationist’s” wish list for Magnuson reauthorization – At its markup session on June 26, the full Committee voted against a move to accept Congressman Farr’s version, supported by the Fish Conservation Network, which includes provisions which would place even more unrealistic and unwarranted constraints on an already overburdened commercial fishing industry. The Committee didn’t complete its discussion of individual quotas, which will be resumed on July 10. We will attempt to post the text of the various amendments on the NJ Fishing website (http://www.fishingnj.org). If we can, you will be able to reach them through the “What’s New” link.

Barnegat Light Gillnetter testifies on the Marine Mammal Protection Act – Garden State Seafood Association member Rick Luedtke presented testimony to the Fisheries Subcommittee of the House Resources Committee on reauthorization of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. He did a commendable job of presenting the industry’s perspective on dealing with the Act and in minimizing/eliminating marine mammal interactions.

Supermarket chain gives “thumbs down” to aquacultured finfish – Because of environmental concerns and quality issues, three Thriftway supermarkets in the Seattle, WA area will no longer offer their customers fish produced in aquaculture operations, restricting their sales to products which are harvested from the wild, “Beginning today, you won’t be able to buy any farmed finfish at three Thriftway supermarkets in the Seattle area. ‘If it is farm raised finfish, we’re no longer carrying it,’ Larry Roberts, operations supervisor and perishables manager for the stores owned by Penhollow Markets told the (Worldcatch) Wave Wednesday. “We’re just so convinced that the wild, natural is the way to go. There are so many issues around the farmed product,’ said Roberts. “It all starts with the texture and taste of farmed versus wild -- they are two entirely different products. And our customers prefer the taste and texture of wild fish.’ The chain is considering extending the program to exclude cultured shellfish as well.” (J. Fiorillo, Thriftway stores ban sale of farmed finfish, Worldcatch Wave, 06/26/02)

Rhode Island Senator gets first hand look at commercial fishing – Lincoln Chaffee spent a day on Block Island Sound on Point Judith fisherman Chris Brown’s 54 foot dragger Grandville Davis. Of the one day trip for whiting, Captain Davis, who is president of the Rhode Island Commercial Fisherman's Association, said he was glad to have the opportunity to show Chafee how today's fishermen do their jobs and he liked the senator's hands-on approach. ‘“We don't think that the fishermen of the 21st century have been accurately portrayed,” Brown said. “We have been stereotyped, I think, as being buffalo hunters and consumed with greed and out to kill the last fish. And that is anything but the truth. We are businessmen. We are front-line conservationists. We are ultimately responsible for our own destiny and we realize that. So that is why we wanted to get the senator to come out and see how we conduct ourselves on a given day. We're market-driven. We're concerned with what we catch and how we catch it. It's one o'clock in the afternoon. It doesn't get dark ‘til 8 o'clock. I'm heading in. I have caught enough fish.’” (Senator gets a line on the work of fishermen, Providence Journal, 02/06/04).

Harold Haskin, internationally recognized oyster researcher, dies at his home in Cape May Court House – Dr. Haskin, who was 87, was a retired Rutgers University professor who had devoted his career to studying oysters, particularly those in Delaware Bay, and developing strains that were resistant to parasitic diseases which had all but destroyed the local oyster industry. In 1991 Rutgers renamed its research laboratory on Delaware Bay the Haskin Shellfish Research Laboratory in his honor. His research provided immeasurable support to New Jersey’s multi-million dollar shellfish industry. A memorial service for Dr. Haskin is being planned for the fall. Memorial donations may be made to the Harold Haskin Fisherman's Forum, Rutgers University Foundation, 7 College Ave., New Brunswick, N.J. 08091.

June 22, 2002

New Regional Management Council appointments -The secretary of Commerce announced his choices for membership on the various Councils last week. On the Mid-Atlantic Council charter boat captain/college professor Tony Dilernia (whose term on the Council had expired) will be replaced by New York recreational angler Pat Augustine and recreational angler/writer Dusty Rhodes will be replaced by New York recreational angler and NY Coastal Conservation Association co-founder Charles Witek. While Mr. Witek was appointed to an "at-large" seat, it is one that has been occupied by appointees from New Jersey since the Council system was started in 1976.

And on the Gulf Council - For the first time there will be no representatives of the commercial shrimping industry on the Gulf Council. While having experienced a decline in value in recent years, the shrimp fishery is still one of the most valuable in the Gulf, and employs far more people than any other. Adding to an imbalance of representation on the Council, which has become increasingly obvious, there is now only one member of the Council who has direct ties to the commercial fishing industry.

Preserving more than our fishing heritage - An article in today's New York Times (Imperiled Fishing Fleet's Fate Rests in a Few Skilled Hands by Frances X. Clines) details efforts that various organizations in Maryland are making to keep the Chesapeake's oyster skipjacks - America's last fleet of working sailboats - in repair and in business as economically viable commercial fishing vessels. Such an approach is highly preferable to the much more common attempts to rebuild such vessels and moor them at maritime museums, which preserves the boats but does nothing to preserve the way of life of the watermen that depend on them.

And how it's done in New Jersey - New Jersey Congressman Jim Saxton, at the apparent behest of his sportfishing supporters, has introduced legislation to ostensibly "conserve" white marlin that for large parts of the year will close local waters to the Mid-Atlantic longline fleet. This legislation could have dire economic impacts on a number of Mid-Atlantic commercial fishing docks, including several in Congressman Saxton's own district, and the consensus among fisheries managers is that it will have negligible conservation benefits - but it will get those nasty working fishermen far away from the waters the sportfishing crowd with their million dollar yachts think should be their own private playground.

On tilefish and such - Tilefish are a deepwater species that live in burrows on the edges of offshore canyons in the Mid-Atlantic. In his message at the beginning of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's annual report for 2001, Executive Director Dan Furlong writes of the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan "Mind you, this is a plan that governs a $4,000,000 fishery that has fewer than 20 boats accounting for 95% of the landings, yet before the ink was dry on the regulations, an environmental group sued NMFS in federal court, alleging 'we did not minimize effects of fishing on tilefish essential fish habitat (EFH), we held a "secret meeting" where deals were cut, and our EIS was inadequate ... For these alleged failures, the environmentalists want a "do-over" and, oh yeah, plaintiffs want their fees, expenses, and costs reimbursed (and anything else the court deems appropriate). The environmental group bringing suit claims to represent over 390,000 members, and I am confident that less than 1% of them have ever seen a tile fish, much less caught one. I can also say with certainty that less than 1/10 of 1% have ever seen tilefish habitat. Yet here we are, exposed to the potential that we will have to redo this plan and 'we taxpayers will have to cover their litigation "fees, expenses, and costs." But that's not all - what's their real agenda? How about this one ... use tilefish EFH to shut down the New Eng/and groundfish fishery. In effect, a $4,000,000
fishery with fewer than 20 vessels will shut down a $100,00,00 fishery impacting about 1300 vessels! Talk about being upside down, the tail wagging the dog... their agenda is not fishery management, but power and control. This is a microcosm of what is happening elsewhere and it will continue to happen unless MSA (the Magnuson Stevens Act) is changed." Regarding the effects of fishing on tilefish essential fish habitat, a recently released report by researchers at Rutgers University concluded "there is no evidence that mobile (trawl) gear directly impacts tilefish burrows in the study area. Of the 369 burrows evaluated from videotapes and associated sources of information (bridge logs, dive logs), no burrows were impacted by trawl gear."

On May 21, to the 23rd  G.S.S.A. President Jeff Reichle, and Directors Ernie Panacek, and Jim Lovgren, traveled  to Washington D.C.  where they met up with Rick Marks, and spent  the next few days visiting with numerous Congressmen, and  Senators, [or their aides] and also visited N.M.F.S. headquarters in Silver Springs. The trip was arranged by Scott Mackey, and Rick, and was very productive in opening the doors of communication between a number of our politicians and the commercial fishing industry. Rick Marks did a terrific job of  guiding us through each meeting, from building, to building, and his presentation of factual information packages were well received by all who got them. Major topics of discussion  were the Present state of fisheries, and management, the reauthorization of the Magnuson Stevens Act, Individual Fishing Quota’s, Marine Mammal Protection Act reauthorization, Fishery Finance Program, and Cooperative science. This trip was well worth the effort, and should probably be done more often, as Rick commented; It’s great for you guys to come down here so these people can see that  I represent real people. Efforts like this open up the lines of communication between our industry and our representatives in Washington, and hopefully  result in a better understanding of our industry by our representatives, who are under enormous pressure from all sides regarding marine issues. With Magnuson Reauthorization on the front burner we need to be keeping in touch with  our Washington Representatives and letting them know what our needs are.   Our thanks to all involved in these meetings, it was a job well done.

       With  this meeting fresh in our minds, G.S.S.A. needs to spend some time visiting with our Trenton representatives in the near future, they need to be put up to speed with our needs and issues, and they need to be able to know who they can talk to if they have questions about fishery issues. If we don’t make a concerted effort to counter the lobbying efforts of the Recreational fishermen, we will have no fishing at all in State waters. We need to pay more attention to our back yard. Efforts like these require a commitment from our members to help as much as they possibly can, too few people are doing the work for all, and  they are being overwhelmed. This is even more true now with Nils being sidelined, and our communications being crippled. If you  are willing to spend some time visiting Trenton to meet with some Assemblymen, and Senators, contact Scott Mackey  [609  392-3100] and let him know. We will arrange the meetings.

 Bruce  Halgren has announced that after 31 years he is going to retire from the division of Fish and Game, taking advantage of the early retirement program being offered by Governor Mcgreevey. Four or five coworkers may join him. Bruce might be done this month or, the division hopes, can get an extension of up to 6 months that would allow him to tie up loose ends on projects he is working on, and bring his replacement up to speed on those issues. There could be problems at the division if such a large amount of skilled and valuable personnel all leave at the same time, we hope there will be a smooth transition between the retirees and their replacements, and we should make sure that our lines of communication are kept open between the industry and the division. Our thanks and gratitude to Bruce for his lifetime of commitment in managing our fishery resources, and  we wish him well when his retirement comes.

May 27, 2002

A  couple  of important decisions have been made in the last two weeks that have major  positive implications  for New Jersey fishermen, they being; the reopening of the directed Monkfish fishery, and Judge Kessler’s decision to reverse her ruling on groundfish and to revert back to the negotiated settlement that had been reached amongst most of the parties involved in the groundfish lawsuit over Framework 36.
 The monkfish fiasco was caused when N.M.F.S. at the last minute discovered that there were technical inconsistencies with the Framework adjustment to delay the year four default measure, that would have quickly landed them in court. Rather then allow that, they decided to pull back the framework and allow the shutdown of the directed fishery, while they worked to correct the problems. The story goes that  Bill Hogarth  was quite upset about the shutdown and put constant pressure on his underlings  to straighten out the mess as soon as possible. Our industry’s strong response to the shutdown, with very pointed lobbying efforts made along the coast to our politicians and to N.M.F.S. really made a difference in this matter. Concerted efforts by fishermen and their representatives appealing to congressmen and senators really put N.M.F.S. feet to the fire.

Our thanks go out to all those who helped in this effort especially Congressmen Frank Pallone, and Jim  Saxton for their strong efforts in our behalf. But questions remain regarding this matter. Why did N.M.F.S. wait until the last minute to close the fishery, and not give the slightest bit of warning that they were going to do this. I was at a monkfish committee meeting the day the decision was announced and the N.M.F.S. representative there didn’t have a clue about what was about to happen. Fishermen were left with all their nets out and virtually no time to take them in. N.M.F.S. enforcement agents, and N.M.F.S. representatives in Gloucester were telling everybody that it was a total closure of the E.E.Z.  even though it was actually only a closure of the directed fishery. As a result of this poor communication within the agency, and the misinformation spread by its enforcement arm, tens of thousands of pounds of monkfish were unnecessarily discarded, at an enormous cost to the fishing industry. Screwups like this should not be tolerated by any industry, and you could be sure if this was a private business, that someone’s head would roll. The lack of communication among the various sectors of N.M.F.S., between their legal department, the Headquarters, the regional office, and the enforcement branch, is appalling. Somebody should be held accountable and efforts should be made to see that something like this never happens again.

 In regard to the Groundfish decision, there has been enormous political pressure and increased media scrutiny of the New England Groundfish problem. The feeling among almost all concerned was that Judge Kessler’s decision went too far in its reductions on fishing effort, and would have caused not only enormous financial harm to New England’s fishing industry, but also to Mid Atlantic fishermen who would have seen a large influx of northern boats invade their fisheries and catch our already small quota’s of species such as Scup, Sea Bass, Summer Flounder, and Loligo squid.  The major effect of Judge Kessler’s reversal is to give back about 20,000 D.A.S. that fishermen lost in her original decision. All groundfish D.A.S.  permit holder’s will still see a substantial reduction in their D.A.S. allocation, but not as bad as they were facing. The new allocations will be figured out in the next few months, and will be decided by using the maximum number of days used in any one year between May 1, 1996 and April 30, 2001,[ not to exceed the current allocation] to establish a vessels new  baseline. This number will then be reduced by 20 percent. The former decision would have taken the average number of days used by each permit holder over that time period to establish a new baseline and then reduce it 20 percent. If you didn’t fish in one of those years that would have been an automatic 20 percent reduction. Other measures will include a ban on frontloading of the clock, an increase in mesh size, and counting Multispecies D.A.S. as a minimum of 15 hours for any trip longer then 3 hours.

May 13, 2002

Good news from NOAA on the status of U.S. fish stocks – A May 1 press release (NOAA announces 2001 status of u.s. fish stocks - Fisheries on a Path Toward Recovery) by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric on the annual report on the status of fish stocks by the National Marine Fisheries Service started out “Stock levels for many marine fish managed by the U.S. are healthy and others are steadily rebuilding.” The release continues “The number of stocks with sustainable harvest rates rose by 45 percent between 1999 and 2001 (from 159 to 230), while those with sustainable stocks sizes increased by a third. At the same time, the number of stocks being over-harvested has been reduced by 15 percent (from 77 stocks to 65), and the number of stocks deemed as overfished declined by 12 percent in 2001. Last year, two species – Georges Bank and mid-Atlantic sea scallops – were fully rebuilt, and eleven more were taken off the overfished species list (down from 92 stocks to 81). One of these species – summer flounder – is doing so well that regulations were relaxed last year, allowing fishermen to harvest 36 percent more while the stock continues to rebuild. The total stock size of summer flounder almost doubled to 80 million pounds between 1992 and 1999. Of the 81 species that are still classified as overfished, 67 are steadily growing under rebuilding programs.” The full report is available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/reports.html.

Eight New England Senators support New England’s commercial fishing industry – U.S. senators from Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island have sent a letter to President Bush urging him to have the federal government appeal Judge Gladys Kessler’s ruling in a suit that will destroy much of the new England fishing industry and have dire effects on the region’s many fishing communities. They wrote “The reduction in the number of days that fishermen will be permitted to fish will cause many fishermen to be unable to pay their mortgages and support their families. Hundreds of fishermen will lose their ability to fish altogether,” The letter ends “ The fishing industry has always been a pillar to our region’s economy. Our fishing communities have survived hurricanes and other great storms for almost four centuries, but we are deeply concerned that unless we take action now, this great industry will not survive today’s regulation.” What they fail to point out is that, as NOAA recognized in it’s May 1 press release, the stocks in question are rebuilding, they’re just not rebuilding as fast as a handful of “environmental” organizations whose major goal seems to be the infliction of misery on commercial fishermen, think they should be. They evidently see nothing wrong with destroying large parts of a centuries old industry to slightly hasten increases in a few fish stocks. (The letter is available on the web at http://www.bdssr.com/latest/f33_suit/0510_senate_letter.jpg).

On the subject of these “environmental” organizations – In an Associated Press article (M. Robinson, Kessler is asked to revisit ruling, 05/09/02), one of the litigants in the suit that could inflict so much unnecessary misery on so many New Englanders was quoted “’New conservation measures are crucial to address the risk that the commercial fishery might collapse forever the way the Canadian cod fishery collapsed.” (Oceana lawyer Eric) Bilsky said fishermen could seek economic relief, such as through the federal government, “if the necessary conservation measures are going to cause a lean period in their business. That's the right way to do it.”’ Raising the specter of a Canadian fishery collapse, while certainly good theater on Mr. Bilsky’s part, doesn’t have even a remote connection to what’s happening in New England. His “solution,” having fishermen seeking economic relief from the government, would be laughable if it weren’t for the gravity of the situation. His referring to the economic devastation of those fishermen and fishing communities that Oceana is pushing for as a  “lean period in their business” shows how completely out of touch he and his colleagues are with the fishing industry and the people who are dependent on it. If they think this is the “right way to do it,” we can only suggest that they spend less time in their foundation-funded office suites and more time out in the real world dealing with the real people that their “solutions” are going to impact.

And while we’re discussing real world connections…. Lawyers for American Oceans Campaign and Oceana submitted 11 pages of comments on why the Framework Adjustment that was supposed to reopen the monkfish fishery should not be accepted by NMFS – and for the time being it hasn’t been, adding to the list of havoc wrought by these organizations on working fishermen. In our recollection, and in speaking with other folks intimately involved in the monkfish management process since work on the original fishery management plan was initiated 5 or 6 years ago, neither of these lawyers nor any of their colleagues have participated in any of the many meetings nor in any other way contributed substantively to the monkfish management process. Perhaps if they had devoted a bit of effort to participation in monkfish management, they might not have needed to protest so voluminously on management measures that the people who were actually involved agree are appropriate.

May 4, 2002

Congressman Barney Frank comes to the aid of his fishing constituents - in a press release on May 1 (available in its entirety at http://www.house.gov/frank/magnuson02.html), the Massachusetts Congressman writes "The decision by Judge Kessler in the lawsuit brought by a variety of environmental organizations against the fishing industry is a serious and scientifically unjustified assault on that industry, and underlines the need for Congress to take corrective action by amending the Magnuson Fisheries Act…. the compromise proposal that the Judge rejected went further than is necessary for protection of the fishery, and makes it clear that it is necessary for us to rewrite the law so that it cannot be so easily misused against a legitimate interest of fishermen, to no valid environmental purpose." It's really edifying to see that members of Congress are finally realizing how excessively the fisheries management system is being distorted by foundation funded so-called "conservation" organizations. Particularly members like Congressman Frank, who was given a score of 100% on his environmental voting record by the League of Conservation Voters  (http://capwiz.com/lcv/bio/keyvotes/?id =302&congress=1071&lvl=C). He ends his release with "To the men and women in the fishing industry, at this point I can do no more than extend my deep sympathy for the insensitive attack that is being launched on their ability to earn a living, contribute to the economy of many coastal communities, and provide a healthful food resource for Americans and others at reasonable prices. But I also promise them that I will be doing everything I can in the next few months to try to provide more concrete examples of my concern by amending the Magnuson Act." We urge members of New Jersey's Congressional Delegation to join with him in his efforts.

Trashing the ocean, the never-ending story - Last week the New Jersey General Assembly's Agriculture Committee held a public hearing on the advisability of allowing a New York City transit authority to get rid of hundreds of asbestos-contaminated subway cars by dumping them in the ocean. The argument is that these cars would make "fish habitat" for ten years or so, and the benefits from this free "reef building:" material coupled with the savings to the authority make this a win-win situation for all involved. But how about if the proposal was to dump the same contaminated cars in the middle of the pine barrens? They would provide the same level of benefits to pineland wildlife. More plants, birds and beasts would be attracted to the subway cars because they would provide the kind of complex habitat that increases both the biodiversity and the carrying capacity of an area. But are a few more bunnies and deer worth despoiling an area that New Jersey law has deemed invaluable in its native (or as close to native as we can make it) condition? Of course not, and such a scheme would be laughed out of the Assembly. Yet Assemblyman Smith's committee is apparently considering it for our ocean. The fact that Mass Transit Authority personnel have gotten some people whose agency budgets are dependent on recreational fishing expenditures fighting for the "privilege" of allowing their ocean waters to become repositories for subway cars that, because of asbestos decontamination costs, are apparently too expensive to dispose of in any other way, is a tribute to their skills of persuasion. But out-of-sight, out-of-mind shouldn't cut it in our ocean. An eyesore is an eyesore, asbestos is asbestos and a trash dump is a trash dump. We hope Governor McGreevey, who will be making the final decision on whether to accept this "gift" from New York or not, realizes this.

Monkfish fishery not reopened, industry left hanging - Over the last decade the monkfish fishery has become the most valuable finfish fishery on the East coast, with landings approaching $50 million a year. After a seasonal closure the fishery was scheduled to reopen on May 1, based on an adjustment to the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan - technically, a "Famework Adjustment" - that would have postponed a scheduled closure of the fishery. This adjustment was necessitated by new industry supported research that showed the monkfish stocks were not in the depleted condition that they had previously been thought to be in, and an amendment to the Plan is currently in the works incorporating that new research. However, the National Marin Fisheries Service at virtually the last minute, and with no indications that such a decision was in the works, did not allow the fishery to be reopened. And is evidently not giving any indication of why it disn't. In "Monkfish industry shut down" in today's Asbury Park Press, Kirk Moore writes (a spokesman for the National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast office George) Liles couldn't explain why the agency changed its plan." (http://www.app.com/app2001/story/0,21133,556200,00.html). Tragically, because this action by the agency in charge of national fisheries policy was totally unanticipated, it's going to cost New Jersey's and other coastal state's fisherman and fishing businesses millions of dollars -costs that wouldn't have been incurred with any kind of alert from the agency. As it stands, the fishermen are left with nets in the water and no alternative plans, the docks and dealers can't honor delivery commitments that they had made months ago, retailers are scrambling for alternative products, and consumers are being denied an ocean-fresh supply of one of our most popular food fish. We all deserve better from Washington.

April 27, 2002

Decision on Groundfish suit – Judge Gladys Kessler released her decision in the suit filed by several “conservation” organizations against the Secretary of Commerce on the management of New England’s groundfish fishery. The decision is available at http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/00-1134a.pdf. Her decision implements most of the provisions – with modifications including closing almost 2,000 more square miles to fishing and further cutting the amount of time that boats can fish  – of a settlement that was reached after extensive negotiations by the Conservation Law Foundation, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the involved states and all but one of fishing groups that had intervened (the negotiated settlement is available at http://www.nefsc.nmfs.gov/press_release/settleagree.pdf). The court ordered measures are to be implemented in two phases, the first set to take effect on May 1 and the second on August 1 and remaining until Amendment 13 to the Groundfish Fishery Management Plan is completed.

Among the measures to be implemented on May 1 (in part from B. Stevenson’s website at http://www.bdssr.com):

- Days at Sea will be frozen at 80% of the average of the annual days used from May 1, 1996 to April 30, 2001.
- Any latent Groundfish Permit not used in 2001 may not be activated.
- No more than 25% of Days At Sea can be used from May-July.
- Any trip between 3-15 hours in duration counts as 15 hours of DAS time.
- Western Gulf Of Maine and Cashes Ledge are closed year-round.
- 6.5 inch mesh is required for trawl and trip gillnetters in the Gulf Of Maine.
- Dayboat gillnet allowance: 50 roundfish at 6.5 inch, 100 flatfish at 7 inch, and 150 monkfish at 10 inch.
- Cod minimum size to 22 inches for commercial vessels, 23 inch for recreational vessels.
- All charter and party recreational vessels in the Gulf of Maine are limited to 10 cod and haddock.
- All private recreational vessels are limited to 10 cod.
- All existing regulations and restrictions continue to apply.

In her decision, Judge Kessler wrote “Fashioning an appropriate remedy has been one of the hardest tasks this Court has ever undertaken. The livelihood – indeed the way of life – of many thousands of individuals, families, small businesses, and maritime communities will be affected. The economy of state and local governments in the region will therefore undoubtedly be impacted in turn. The future of a precious natural resource - the once-rich, vibrant and healthy – and now severely depleted New England Northeast fishery – is at stake. All of these diverse interests must be respected and considered, as the ten National Standards set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act mandate.”

Of course, and in spite of the balancing act that Judge Kessler recognized was required, the other “conservation” organizations that filed the suit don’t think her ruling went far enough. ‘’’It's distressing,’ said Sonja Fordham, fish conservation project manager for the Ocean Conservancy. The group and two others are considering an appeal. ‘We feel the measures are inadequate to stop overfishing ... and generally, it's more business as usual in New England ground fish. We have stocks in seriously low levels and we need stronger action to turn this around.’’’ (Drastic cuts ordered in N.E. fishing - Judge's decision seen as heavy blow to industry, B. Daley, Boston Globe, 4/27/02). With seemingly unlimited Pew and other funds supporting their “cause,” and with an agenda that appears to be dependent on manufacturing highly publicized conflict rather than on finding balanced solutions, why would they? We can’t help wondering how much the “conservationist’s” livelihoods – indeed their way of life – would be affected if balanced solutions to the fisheries conflicts that are their “bread and butter” were accepted unchallenged.

Jersey Shore Partnership Summer Celebration set to honor New Jersey commercial fishermen – Scheduled for June 18 at Fort Hancock on Sandy Hook, this annual event will recognize the contributions of Richard Crema and Richard Beckley to New Jersey’s clam industry. The Summer Celebration offers a great opportunity to meet with a wide range of folks with an interest in the economy of the Jersey shore and to sample the seafood creations of some of the shore’s finest restaurants.

April 20, 2002

Proposed settlement in New England groundfish lawsuit – The National Marine Fisheries Service, several of the fishing groups and the state Attorneys General that were interveners and the Conservation Law Foundation, one of the plaintiffs, have come to an agreement in the suit that would require further reductions in actual as well as latent groundfishing effort. The proposed remedy, while having a drastic negative impact on an already beleaguered industry, might lessen the economic devastation in the fishery and in the New England communities that depend on it. Predictably, this isn’t good enough for the other plaintiffs, whose lawyers are far removed, both physically and philosophically, from the New England communities and the many thousands of people whose lives their oil rich foundation-funded “labors” will devastate (and don’t forget that just about all of the fish stocks in question are rebuilding, they’re just not rebuilding fast enough for these out-of-touch lawyers). A decision is due from Judge Kessler on April 26.

Mid-Atlantic fall-out from the suit – No matter what Judge Kessler decides, it will involve further cutbacks in New England fisheries. There’s no way that won’t result in more New England boats heading south to the Mid-Atlantic, and that southward migration is going to coincide with an influx of southern boats forced north by new area fishing closures off North Carolina and Virginia. Then all of those lawyers pulling in all of those foundation bucks by “working” for all those conservationist organizations will be able to manufacture some more suits to stop overfishing in the Mid-Atlantic. Great work if you can get it (and a great system if you have enough money to manipulate it)!

And on the radar screen – While we’re on the subject of foundation bucks, there’s a full court press in the “save the oceans” community to push an upcoming Earthday television series called Empty Oceans, Empty Nets. While we’ve not viewed it yet, folks that have report that it’s distorted by the standard eco-alarmist spin. A press release for the film states, for example, “two-thirds of the major marine fisheries of the world are currently fully exploited, over exploited or depleted.” If there’s anything negative about having fully exploited fisheries, we’re not aware of it, particularly in a world where so many people are undernourished. But where’s the drama in the statement “one-tenth of the major marine fisheries of the world are over exploited or depleted?” Hardly alarming and hardly the kind of statement that would get folks or foundations to dust off their wallets and make a donation to a “save the ocean” organization. Oceana, the group that’s pushing the New England groundfish lawsuit, is also sponsoring the series.

But will they mention oil rig contamination? – From the Associated Press on April 14: “The severity of mercury contamination at some oil and gas rigs in the Gulf of Mexico could qualify them for the National Priorities List that includes the nation's most hazardous contaminated sites, the Mobile Register reported Sunday. The 4,000 rigs are drilling in some of the Gulf's most productive zones. Scientists have tested only a handful of Gulf rigs, but it's apparent that the processes that caused contamination at those rigs are standard within the industry. The oil industry dumps more than a billion pounds of mercury- contaminated drilling mud wastes into the Gulf each year.” (Mercury levels could rate Superfund). The entire Mobile Register series is available at http://www.al.com/specialreport/?mobileregister/mercuryinthewater.html.

Mid-Atlantic Council meeting coming up – From the Council announcement “The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council will meet April 29-May 2, 2002 at Omni Newport News Hotel, 1000 Omni Boulevard, Newport News, Virginia to adopt 2003 quotas and management measures for squid, Atlantic mackerel, and butterfish and approve the Public Hearing Document for Amendment 13 to the Surfclam and Ocean Quahog FMP. The Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass Board (Board) will meet on Wednesday to approve Amendment 13 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea FMP for Secretarial submission. On Monday and Tuesday, the Joint Monkfish
Committee (New England and Mid-Atlantic) will meet to develop fishery management alternatives to be included in the Draft EIS for Amendment 2 to the Monkfish FMP. On Tuesday morning, the black sea bass industry advisors will meet to develop recommendations for Amendment 13 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP. On Tuesday afternoon, the Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee will meet to review the Monitoring Committee's recommendations for 2003 quotas, and review possible management measures for Amendment 9 to the Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish FMP. The Council will convene on Wednesday and Thursday to take action on the items detailed above and to conduct regular Council business.” For mor information contact Marla Trollan, at the Council office (302-674-2331 ex. 32).
 
 

April 13, 2002

More good news for fish lovers – From a transcript on NBC’s Nightly News (04/09/02) by Tom Bozell: “A 16-year study of almost 85,000 women found that those who ate fish two to four times weekly cut their risk of heart disease by 30 percent, compared with women who rarely ate fish. Women who ate fish five or more times weekly reduced their risk 34 percent. Past studies showed similar benefits for men, but this was the first to look specifically at the effect in women, according to the new research published in Wednesday’s Journal of the American Medical Association…. Plus, a 17-year study of men with no history of heart disease — published in The New England Journal of Medicine — found that those with the highest blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids — the healthy fat found in fish — were more than 80 percent less likely to die suddenly from heart disease. ‘It’s a low-risk, very inexpensive way to lower the risk of heart disease,’ said Dr. JoAnn Manson of Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital, co-author of the men’s study. The best advice, expert say, is to eat fish — because the more science studies it, the more it seems to be a miracle food.” Then from the New York Times the next day “Two other studies added to existing evidence that substances in these fish known as omega-3 fatty acids help the heart in part by preventing fatal disturbances in heart rhythm. Heart rhythm disturbances cause sudden death in 250,000 Americans a year. Half those deaths occur in people who had no previous symptoms of heart disease. The American Heart Association already recommends eating two servings of fatty or oily fish a week. The most important omega-3's, docosahexaenoic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid, are found only in fish. ‘It's potentially lifesaving,’ said Dr. Irwin H. Rosenberg, a professor of nutrition and medicine at Tufts University…. A third study, published yesterday in the journal Circulation, looked at the effects of giving fish-oil capsules to people who had had heart attacks. Researchers led by Dr. Roberto Marchioli, at the Consorzio Mario Negri Sud, in Santa Maria Imbaro, Italy, found that patients who got the capsules, compared with those given placebos, had a 42 percent reduction in the rate of sudden death. The capsules contained one gram of fish oil, the amount in a serving of fish.” (D. Grady, More Support for Eating Fatty Fish http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/10/health/10FISH.html?tntemail0). Fish oil is most readily available from menhaden (and note that omegs-3s from sources other than fish don’t do the job), a species that the New Jersey legislature has made off-limits for harvest for anything other than bait because of pressure from recreational fishing zealots. And they’re at work to extend the ban to other states. It’s truly unfortunate when the self-serving goals of a handful of people can stand in the way of improved health for an entire population. It’s even more important when their focused political pressure can sway an entire legislature to support their agenda.

Groundfish suit on the West coast – Having used their $10+ million “endowment” to successfully confound the groundfish fishery management efforts in New England which have been responsible for an ongoing recovery of the stocks that also maintained the economic viability of the fishermen and on-shore businesses, Pew funded Natural Resources Defense Council and Oceana “have sued the National Marine Fisheries Service alleging it is not adequately protecting Pacific groundfish from being overfished…. Agency spokesman Brian Gorman said he could not comment on pending litigation, but added that the agency had acted on behalf of fish and fishermen when it declaring whiting, a staple of the Pacific commercial fleet used to make artificial crab, overfished and ordered a 32 percent cut in harvests. ‘We did what I think in the long term will benefit both fishermen and the fish,’ Gorman said.” (Associated Press – via Worldcatch News Network, http://www.worldcatch.com, NMFS hit with West Coast groundfish lawsuit, 04/11/02).

National Marine Fisheries Service pulls the plug on cooperative trawl survey – Members of the Mid-Atlantic fishing industry headed “Cooperative Survey Program Is Halted By Nmfs - National Marine Fisheries Service Says ‘No Thanks’ to Making 'Best Available Science' Better’”write “On March 4, 2002 Dr. Michael Sissenwine, Director of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) told a group of commercial and recreational fishing industry representatives that he did not believe it would be productive to continue a formerly cooperative science program whereby a commercial fishing vessel accompanied and supplemented survey trips conducted by the NMFS research vessel Albatross.  He stated a possible “misunderstanding of goals” as a reason for discontinuing the program. To date, commercial fishermen and New Jersey’s Fisheries Information and Development Center (FIDC) have collectively spent over $150,000.00 to fund two side-by-side surveys but reports detailing results of these completed trips were not referenced during the meeting that halted the program.” The full release is available on the NJ Fishing website at http://www.fishingnj.org/surveyrelease.html.
 
 

April 6, 2002

The parties involved in the New England groundfish lawsuit (plaintiffs, defendants and interveners), are in the second day of what could be a 5 day attempt at a mediated resolution. In the meantime, as Barbara Stevenson writes on her website, "Senators Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Edward Kennedy, Judd Gregg, John Kerry, and Jack Reed have sent a letter to USDC head Donald Evans noting that proposed management measures submitted to the court do not adequately address the intent of the Magnuson Act, and recommending some guiding principles."
The letter is available on Ms. Stevenson's website at http://www.bdssr.com/latest/f33_suit/f33_suit_update_apr.htm
 

Recreational fishing impacts finally getting some notice - An article in the April 4th Boston Globe starts "By 5 a.m. most days, bleary-eyed fishermen pile out of cars with New Jersey and Connecticut license plates in Green Harbor parking lots. In groups of six, they board charter boats and stake out a position with rod and reel. Within two hours, the boats are working one of the world's most renowned fishing grounds, hooking cod after cod. The fish can get shin-deep on deck and the customers - all recreational fishermen - sometimes need help carrying coolers packed with fresh fillets off the boat. They are catching so much cod, in fact, that regulators now see them as a major factor in the region's overfishing crisis. At a time when hard-pressed commercial fishermen face strict limits on where they can fish and how many cod they can catch, charter boats are prospering from a loop-hole in fishing rules: They can go anywhere and catch as many fish as they want. Nearly one-third of all the cod caught in the Gulf of Maine - the vast body of water stretching from Cape Cod to Nova Scotia - was taken by both charter boat customers and other sport fishermen in 2001. That figure is growing as cod stocks rebound from a vast cod stock collapse in the 1990s. In 1996, there were 413 charter boats allowed to fish for cod. By 2000 there were 610." (B. Daley, Sport fishing cuts cod supply, http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/094/metro/Sport_fishing_cuts_cod_supplyP.shtml).

And from the Environment News Service Ameriscan we have "The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is proposing a ban on new charter fishing boat permits in the Gulf of Mexico to help rebuild populations of reef fish and coastal fish species. The agency has proposed to set a three-year moratorium on new charter and head-boat, or for hire, permits for the reef fish and coastal fisheries in Gulf of Mexico federal waters. The proposal is part of a gulf wide strategy to help rebuild these fisheries. 'The Gulf Council has worked closely with industry to stabilize fishing effort in the for hire sector,' said Dr. Joseph Powers, acting regional director of NMFS southeast region. 'Between 1981 and 1998, charter boat operations in the Gulf grew by 147 percent, co-inciding with a significant jump in the number of fish stocks identified as overfished or approaching an over-fished state.' These stocks include some of the most stressed fish stocks in the Gulf region, including red and vermillion snapper, red grouper and greater amberjack." (Gulf Fishing Charters to be Restricted, 04/05/02, http://ens-news.com/ens/apr2002/2002L-04-05-09.html#anchor8).

The increasing recreational harvest issue is something we've written about before (see The Big Lie, Part II at http://www.fishingnj.org/netusa15.htm). The misperception, which is advanced at every opportunity by recrea-tional fishing advocates, is that a few sportsmen and women taking a few - or a few dozen - fish at a time doesn't have anything approaching the impact of a commercial vessel catching hundreds or thousands of pounds of fish (confusingly, this information is generally conveyed within a sentence or two describing how many millions of recreational anglers are spending how many billions of dollars in pursuit of their hobby). The figures obviously refute this, and it's past time that members of the media realize this and the management establishment address it. Unfortunately, in both articles above, the "for hire" vessels (charter and party boats) are the targets, while the recreational anglers who fish from private boats or from the shore are ignored. This is understandable, consider-ing that the number of charter/party boats can and in some instances has been limited. However, it's not realisti-cally addressing the problem. Every day when particular species of fish are available, hoards of recreational an-glers descend on local hotspots. There's no effort to limit their numbers, and while their total catch is supposedly limited by bag and size limits, the ongoing overages in the recreational summer flounder fishery show how inef-fectual these limits are when the number of people fishing isn't restricted. Compounding the problem, since it has become so popular, many of these recreational anglers feel that they can "catch and release" fish to their hearts' content while having no impact on the resource. This conveniently ignores the fact that, with a fifteen or twenty percent post-release mortality, catching and releasing only two dozen fish has more of an impact on the stocks than catching and keeping two and quitting for the day. It's grossly unfair to inflict the burden of conser-vation on only the commercial and charter/party boat fishermen. While it's probably anathema to the managers whose budgets are swelled by recreational fishing expenditures (see http://www.fishingnj.org/netusa4.htm), it’s time that serious consideration be given to effectively limiting both recreational fishing harvest and catch and release mortality.

The next Mid-Atlantic Council meeting will be at the Omni Hotel (757-873-OMNI) in Newport News, Virginia on April 30 to May 2. The joint New England/Mid-Atlantic Council Monkfish Oversight Committee meeting that was scheduled for April 10 and 11 has been cancelled. The next Committee meeting will be at the Omni Hotel in Newport News on April 29 and 30.

March 30, 2002

The Chilean sea bass scam – The Chilean sea bass, also known by the less appetizing name of Patagonian toothfish, has become the darling of the epicurean set in recent years. Because of resultant premium prices – and because the species is found in remote, hard to police waters surrounding Antarctica – the rapidly developing fishery was and to a certain extent continues to be beset by boats operating outside the established management regime. But the multi-national Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources has imposed effective management measures, and the United States, as a member of the Commission, requires that any Chilean sea bass imports be certified as having been legally harvested. Some of the “marine conservation” groups, however, which seem to be constantly on the lookout for any drums to beat (whether they happen to be empty or not) have decided that they’re going to “save” this fishery by pushing a domestic consumer boycott. They’re going to save it in spite of the fact that it doesn’t need saving, and in spite of the fact that their proposed boycott will be at the expense of U.S. seafood importers, U.S. restaurateurs, U.S. seafood dealers and U.S. consumers. Sounds sort of similar to their failed “Save a Swordfish” campaign a few years back, doesn’t it? And as with the swordfish campaign, why should damaging a bunch of businesses stand in the way of these groups appearing to the public as if they’re actually involved in effectively conserving something? Fortunately the U.S. Departments of Commerce and State have jointly produced a fact sheet on Chilean sea bass that sets the record straight. It’s available on the web at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/trade/chile.pdf, it describes the fish, the fishery, the management regime and how buyers can make sure the fish they are buying has gotten to market legally.
 

The latest on New England groundfish – We’ve written previously about the suit brought by five “conservationist” organizations via the new group Oceana that was established with $10 million or so of Pew Trust funds. Some of the latest:

In Lost at Sea: The Economic and Social Impact of Groundfish Rebuilding Plans, Maine Congressman Tom Allen wrote: “First, more federal money must be spent on stock assessments. NMFS needs this data to create a more workable management plan…. we know very little about what is going on under the sea,... Moreover, fishermen should be more involved in this process… Second, NMFS should listen to fishermen and other experts about ways to alter gear that would spare the species that need protection. Third, the law should be re-examined to determine whether the standards for rebuilding the fisheries are too rigid. Some of the trouble appears to be the result of faulty application of the law. The law itself, however, may need to be revisited to restore the flexibility that Congress intended…. We cannot save the fish and destroy the fisherman. Both must be preserved. (Available on Barbara Stevenson’s website at http://www.bdssr.com/commentary.htm)

Then in a letter to President Bush, Maine Governor Angus King calls for “a resolution of this difficult situation… The resiliency of the groundfishing industry to additional regulation has been severely eroded.” He decried proposed regulations that “may slightly speed up the already significant (fish stock) rebuilding process but effectively kill the industry in the interim.” (P. Carrier, 03/03/28, King says stricter fish rules endanger jobs in Maine, Portland Press Herald, http://www.portland.com/news/state/020328fishing.shtml)

And, in a letter to federal fisheries chief Dr. William Hogarth, Maine Senator Olympia Snowe writes “At its core the SFA (Sustainable Fisheries Act) aimed for healthy fisheries and robust fishing communities. I believe that one of the great strengths of the SFA was that it provided NMFS and the Regional Councils flexibility to develop locally appropriate creative rebuilding plans for the fisheries that were overfished at the time. Unfortunately, somewhere between the passage and implementation of the law, that flexibility has disappeared and we are left with a law that is being implemented in an unnecessarily rigid fashion.”

Finally, in an opinion piece by Conservation Law Foundation scientist Anthony Chatwin in the New Bedford Standard Times on March 25, “The lawsuit filed by five environmental organizations including the Conservation Law Foundation was filed as a last resort, only after NMFS consistently failed to uphold its responsibility to protect New England's fisheries -- and ultimately, to protect the long-term health of the region's economy. Far from sounding the death knell for New England's fishermen, this important decision enforces laws designed to place the long-term interests of New England's fishing industry ahead of short-term commercial interests and financial gain.”

And as a postscript, Leo Tolstoy wrote in “What Then Must We Do?” (1886) “I sit on a man’s back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means—except by getting off his back.”

Barbara Stevenson has some of the most up to date information on the New England groundfish suit posted on her website at http://www.bdssr.com/
 
 

March 23, 2002

Trawling and dredging impacts again – Last week the National Research Council’s Ocean Studies Board released a report titled Effects of Trawling and Dredging on Seafloor Habitat http://books.nap.edu/books/0309083400/html/index.html

The report itself, which was the result of an 18 months study by a panel convened by the NRC to address the issue, presented a state-of-the-art assessment of what is known about the effects of some types of fishing gear on the sea floor. The consensus was, not at all surprisingly, very little. The panel concluded that some areas of sea floor should be protected from some types of fishing gear, that fishing gear should be designed to have minimum impact on the sea floor, and that much more research on fishing gear impacts as well as “comparative risk assessment” was needed. In fact, the panel reflected the position that the commercial fishing industry had taken several years ago when the issue first surfaced. (For a comprehensive view of the gear effects issue, visit that section on the NJ Fishing website at http://www.fishingnj.org.)

Never willing to miss an opportunity – no matter how forced - to assault the commercial fishing industry, the self-styled marine conservation groups put their own distorted spin on the report. While we won’t inflict our readers with yet another enumeration of their “doom and gloom” ranting, we have to report on some particularly off-target legislation that they are supporting as a result.

Colorado Congressman Joel Hefley has introduced the “Ocean Habitat Protection Act,” which would, in the words of the American Oceans Campaign (which was just absorbed by the $10 million Pew bucks backed Oceana) “prevent the most harmful trawling gear from smashing fragile seafloor habitats, including coral and rocky reefs and undersea boulder fields.” Unfortunately - but understandably, considering that Congressman Hefley is from Colorado, not one of our major commercial fishing states – the bill would, among other things, institute blanket bans of classes of fishing gear that can be and are used with no negative impacts on large areas of ocean bottom that aren’t in need of protection.

Not so understandably, two of the bill’s co-sponsors are New Jersey’s Jim Saxton and Frank Pallone, who only needed to talk with any of their hundreds of commercial fishermen constituents for helpful hints on how to craft some truly effective legislation (or on whether such legislation is even needed at all. In the words of Paul Howard, Executive Director of the New England Fishery Management Council [communication to FishFolk, 03/21/02] “Roller and rockhopper gear larger than 12 inches in diameter is prohibited in some of the most sensitive habitat in the Gulf of Maine. The Council and NMFS outlawed ‘streetsweeper gear’ in 1998. Nearly 1,200 square miles of the Gulf of Maine are closed to most types of bottom tending mobile fishing gear. In fact, the total square miles closed to trawl and dredge gear in New England is about the size of Massachusetts.”)
 
 

And a few lynx hairs caused a national uproar? - Back in July we wrote about ongoing research that, in spite of contentions by “conservationists” that excessive fishing of Alaskan Pollock was responsible for the decline in Alaska’s endangered Stellar sea lions, showed that herring was their preferred food (GSSA Update, 07/10/01).

This information had no impact on the antis’ efforts to close down large parts of this almost billion dollar a year fishery. Now, according to the Anchorage Daily News, “Killer whales preying on Steller sea lions might be one reason Alaska's sea lion population is not rebounding from its deep decline, scientists said Wednesday. ‘Sea lions may be caught in a predator pit,’ killer whale biologist Lance Barrett-Lennard said Wednesday during a meeting in Anchorage of scientists studying the sea lion problem. ‘They may be unable to reproduce fast enough to catch up (with predation by killer whales)’… Barrett-Lennard, an adjunct professor at the University of British Columbia, said he first thought of studying whales eating sea lions about eight years ago, after a dead killer whale washed ashore in Prince William Sound. The whale had in its stomach 14 flipper tags from sea lion pups, a necropsy revealed. That indicated its diet was made up largely of young sea lions.” (The demise of Steller sea lions may not be what you think, 03/21/02).

Time and time again commercial fishing is targeted by one or more of a handful of these activist organizations, time and time again their claims can be shown to be grotesquely exaggerated, distorted or totally fabricated, yet time and time again they find a willing and receptive audience among the nation’s print and broadcast media people – and increasingly among our elected officials. The costs of these assaults – to the commercial fishing industry, to the legitimate fisheries management establishment and to the U.S. consumer – are truly staggering. But perhaps, thanks to the significant backlash to the lynx hair and Klamath basin scandals, folks will start to pay attention to what's really going on with fisheries.

For background on the situation regarding the Klamath Basin “endangered” species, see Andrew Revkin’s article “Study Discounts Halting Irrigation to Protect Fish” in the February 2 New York Times; for the lynx fiasco see Kimberly Strassel’s “The Missing Lynx” in the January 24 Wall Street Journal (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/kstrassel/?id=95001768)

March 9, 2002

National Marine Fisheries Service announces proposed groundfish measures - NMFS announced at the Maine Fishermen's Forum last week a further tightening of commercial and recreational fishing restrictions in a response to a successful suit by several environmental organizations that have become notorious for their anti-fishing activities. Among the "remedies" proposed by the agency are a further reduction in days boats are allowed to fish (at present, groundfish permit holders are allowed only 88 days a year) and more areas closed to fishing. This in a fishery that has been rebuilding for several years and is well on the way to recovery, thanks to a series of stringent management measures that have been designed and implemented with concern for the fishermen as well as the fish. A large part of the New England fishery has managed to hold on through some awfully lean years, but it looks like this next series of court-mandated cuts could be the death knell for many, particularly small boat, fishermen. Unfortunately, concern for working fishermen is a foreign concept to these anti-fishing enviros, whose efforts in court are funded by many millions of foundation dollars.

U.S. Senate hears about the New England groundfish situation - After she attended the Maine Fishermen's Forum (on the day that the proposed NMFS restrictions were announced), Maine’s Senator Collins remarked to the Senate: "…. The response proposed by the National Marine Fisheries Service would have a devastating impact on our fishermen in Maine…. They understand it is necessary to have some restrictions to preserve the fish stocks for future generations, but when we get into a situation where lawsuits are being filed and Federal regulators respond in a way that is completely indifferent to the needs of the fishing industry, we make the life of Maine's fishermen virtually impossible…. Already we have seen years and years of escalating restrictions that have driven many fishermen out of business, cut the incumbent processors, suppliers, and fish auctions, and strained coastal communities that are the heart of Maine…. The proposal put forth by Federal regulators is even more surprising because it comes at a time when both scientists and fishermen agree that ground fish stocks are rebounding, that the conservation efforts already underway, that the regulatory restrictions already in place are having a beneficial impact. Again I stress, our fishermen are in the forefront of conservation efforts…. In fact, Maine's fishing industry, working together with marine scientists, have been pioneers in the use of conservation techniques and self-regulation in fishing management, but our efforts to rebuild our ground fish stocks are only useful if a ground fish industry remains. Any effort to rebound ground fish stocks must guarantee the survival not only of the fish but of the fishermen…. These further restrictions, the new approach proposed by the National Marine Fisheries Service, I fear, will spell the end for many Maine fishermen. It will make it simply impossible for them to earn a living; the restrictions are so onerous, so unreasonable, and so strict. We need a different approach, and I believe if Federal regulators had only taken the time to involve the experts in the industry, the men and women who are fishing in the Gulf of Maine, we would have come up with a far better approach, an approach that would not only continue the process of rebuilding the fishing stocks in Maine, in the Gulf of Maine, but also would allow our hard-working, proud, and independent fishermen to earn a living." While addressing the plight of her constituents, Senator Collins’ remarks could apply to fishermen anywhere in the U.S. (New England Council member Barbara Stevenson has made Senator Collins' comments to the Senate available in their entirety on her website at http://www.bdssr.com/latest/f33_suit/collins.htm.)

The Florida Times Union got it right - In an Environment article Federal Fish Killers on March 7 about the Klamath Basin, the Times Union writes "It should come as no surprise that the government made another costly error when it put the interests of fish over that of farmers. There have been many such blunders, but this may be the worst. Therefore, it should result in a change of policy, and mind-set, so that such affronts to common sense do not occur again. The consequences: - The diversion decimated farmers, costing them more than $200 million and forcing some to lose their farms. - Later, it was found that the diversion of water actually may have harmed the Coho salmon because it was the wrong temperature and didn't help the sucker fish because they aren't affected by water levels. - Finally, the Los Angeles Times reports, the National Academy of Sciences concluded there was ‘no substantial scientific foundation’ for the water to be diverted from the farmer's fields to the lakes and rivers…. Summing up: To save a few fish that never were endangered, the government denied water to human farmers, costing them their property -- and it not only failed to help the fish, but may have harmed them." (http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/030702/opi_8803063.html)

For another view of agenda driven advocacy science and its impact on federal agencies, see Diane Alden's "Green Matrix" on NewsMax.com at http://www.newsmax.com/commentmax/print.shtml?a=2002/3/4/013440).
 
 

February 23, 2002

The sky’s not really falling? – We’ve written about Danish statistics professor and ex-Greenpeace activist Bjorn Lomberg, whose book "The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World" proposes that things aren’t nearly as bad as the eco-alarmists – and the foundations that are funding them - would have us believe. In an editorial in the February 19 Wall Street Journal (The man who gives greens the blues, http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/tbray/?id=100001698), Thomas Bray writes “The 515-page paperback version… received respectful, indeed glowing, reviews in many quarters, including The Economist, The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. It has risen to the top of the bestseller list for environmental subjects. Alarmed activists in the scientific and environmental community, eager to nip this heresy in the bud and unable any longer to ignore him, are mobilizing to discredit the Danish upstart. Green organizations… sent out press releases warning potential reviewers about the evils of Mr. Lomborg's book. No fewer than four prominent academics who have been deeply involved in environmental activism were invited to pen articles denouncing him and belittling his credentials in prestigious Nature magazine last November. Scientific American devoted an extraordinary 11 pages of its January issue to attacking the Lomborg thesis…. “

“The Skeptical Environmentalist” makes a powerful case that the evidence of impending catastrophe is a lot less robust than the enviro empire--waxing fat on government global warming grants and lucrative fund-raising campaigns to save the owls--often pretends.” And, most appropriately (see below), “In 1989, global-warming enthusiast Stephen Schneider, one of the anti-Lomborg attackers in Scientific American, confessed ‘[We] are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.’’’

Note: The Skeptical Environmentalist is available at Amazon.Com (search on “Lomborg” or the title) and we recommend that anyone with an interest in the impacts of “environmentalism” check it out.
 

Not according to Drs. Pauly and Watson – In the most recent spate of doom and gloom pronouncements about the world’s fisheries, two University of British Columbia researchers (who are benefiting from a $3 million Pew grant – no surprise there!) have been beating the anti-fishing drums at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting just completed in Boston. In an uncharacteristically shrill column for BBC Online, Jonathan Amos quotes Dr. Watson, speaking about the North Atlantic fisheries, “"If you look at those prime table-fish - the ones we value the most, the fin fish - in the 1960s, we had about 21 lbs (9 kg) per person, now we're down to a third of that; we're down to about 7 lbs (3 kg) per person. If you extrapolate that very straight linear trend, within 10 years we'll be talking about fish as if they were a myth; as if they were fond memories."

Amos continues “The researchers say that only comprehensive action can save the North Atlantic from an ocean-wide collapse in fish.” We’re not that familiar with what’s happening in the rest of the North Atlantic, but as far as our part of it is concerned – and much to the disappointment of Dr. Watson, we’re pretty sure – the last several years have shown a dramatic increase in well over three quarters of those “table fish” species, thanks to just such comprehensive action. So much for his extrapolation of a “straight linear trend.”

Of course, in keeping with the foundation funded multi-million dollar marine protected area movement, the article wraps up with “They (Pauly and Watson) urge the immediate introduction of marine reserves, cuts in fishing fleets and the abandonment of subsidies (now around $2.5bn a year). If these measures are not taken, they say, the fishing industry could soon have to turn to species like jellyfish and plankton to make alternative fish products.” This all resonates really well with Stephen Schneider’s “Loads of media coverage (or at least all that Pew’s millions can buy and Pew’s influence can generate), scary scenarios, dramatic statements and a balance between being effective and being honest” up above, doesn’t it?
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/in_depth/sci_tech/2002/boston_2002/newsid_1825000/1825166.stm
 

But perhaps some parts really are – In a recent communication, the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA), the trade association for the recreational boating industry, has urged that its members contact their Senators and urge them to vote no on new mileage regulations being proposed for light trucks (pickups, minivans and sport utility vehicles).

According to NMMA “The CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) proposal would force manufacturers to make lighter, smaller, less powerful cars and trucks. This ‘new generation’ of SUVs and pickups would be incapable of towing many of the recreational boats we use each day.” There seems to be something decidedly short-sighted about a trade association representing an industry that is totally dependent on the quality of our waterways opposing such critical legislation for the sake of perhaps a million people who can’t pull their trailered boats with “normal” sized vehicles. (According to NMMA, there are approximately 17 million recreational boats and 7.5 million boat trailers in the U.S.)
Source: http://capwiz.com/nmma/home/
 
 

February 16, 2002

A growing fisheries management dilemma - Along with just about every other economically important species of fish in the Mid-Atlantic inshore waters, porgies (also called scup) are now available in numbers that have been unprecedented in recent years. Unfortunately, as we've discussed before, the management system at this point isn't capable of dealing with rebuilding (or rebuilt) stocks. Hence, when there are so many fish that recreational anglers exceed their target quotas, the managers have no option other than to reduce the harvest for the next year. Incredible as it seems, when fish of a species being managed are so prevalent that the anglers catch more of them than the plan allows for, the system "demands" that what they catch be cut back even further the next year. That's the position we're in with summer flounder, with sea bass and with porgies. Of course, the so-called conservationists who, supported with millions of dollars from "charitable" foundations, pushed federal legislation several years ago which mandated this ridiculous situation are now, supported with even more foundation dollars, bringing suit  whenever they can to force compliance (disingenuously claiming that they're acting "for the public"). Through the mechanisms of limited entry, rigorously enforced quotas, gear and landing limits and closed seasons, the quotas in the commercial fisheries aren't usually exceeded. However, the same inability of the management system to contend with increasing stocks does result in unrealistically low commercial harvest levels. Now that fishermen - commercial and recreational -are in a position to more fully utilize the stocks that are once again healthy because of years of sacrifice, it's time that we have a management system that is as capable of responding to successful conservation as it is to overharvesting.

But then again…. - In a column addressing the porgy situation, Newark Star Ledger columnist Al Ristori writes "During my teen years on Long Island, I'd fill gunny sacks with them from rented rowboats during the May spawning run in Peconic Bay, and also caught them in unlimited quantities on the Tin Can Grounds off Rockaway Inlet during the summer." In the next paragraph he, quite characteristically for Mr. Ristori, attributes "the virtual destruction of this fishery" to "commercial greed." Then, in a discussion of the current management plan, he argues that the recreational allocation is far too low because it was "a 75 percent recreational fishery in 1970." So here we have someone admitting that he used to fill gunny sacks with spawning fish and that only one quarter of the harvest was caught by commercial fishermen, yet contending that the fishery was destroyed "by commercial greed." For anyone who's not a card carrying member of the "blame it all on commercial fishing" claque, it seems kind of difficult to wrap that all up into a rational package, doesn't it?

Two more reason for eating fish - A study in the Feb. 5 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine reports "men who consume a typical 'western' diet -- including high consumption of red and processed meats and high-fat dairy products -- are much more likely to develop diabetes than those who consume a "prudent" diet of vegetables, fruits, fish, poultry and grains…. the study focused on more than 42,000 men, 40 to 75 years of age, over the course of 12 years." (Harvard Crimson via U-WIRE). And researchers at Oxford University and Imperial College School of Medicine, in London "have found that oily fish and leafy vegetables help behaviour problems in children with dyslexia. Research… shows that children are less hyperactive when they have fatty acids in their diet. The acids are found in mackerel, sardines, salmon, tuna, nuts and leafy vegetables like cabbage and spinach." (Health Media Ltd 2002) - Reported by Worldcatch (http://www.worldcatch.com) on February 14, 2002

House of Representatives holds hearing on Individual Fishing Quotas - On February 13 the House Subcommittee On Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife And Oceans heard testimony from regulators, academics and industry members on fishing quotas, property rights and the "privatization" of living marine resources. The testimony presented is available on the web at http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/107cong/fisheries/2002feb13/agenda.htm.

February 2, 2002

New Jersey to “save” seaweed not found in New Jersey waters – Legislation was introduced in the State legislature that “would prohibit the harvest, landing, processing, or sale of wild sargassum in the State.” Sargassum is the primary algae species found in the Sargasso Sea, an area of about 2,000,000 square miles in the middle of the North Atlantic ocean characterized by a profusion of floating seaweed. Sargassum is a brown algae (Phaeophyta), a group of marine plants that, according to the Smithsonian Institution, is used in “frozen foods, pastry fillings, syrups, bakery icings, relishes, puddings, meringues, chiffons, dessert gels, candies, fruit juices, jams & jellies, sauces and gravies, pimiento strips, salad dressings, whipped toppings, milk shakes, cheeses, flans and custards, instant breakfasts, ice cream, paper sizing / coatings, adhesives, textile printing / dyeing, air freshener gels, explosives, boiler compounds, polishes, antifoaming agents, ceramics, welding rods, cleaners, castings and impressions, enzyme immobilization, medicinal baulking agents, capsules and tablets, lotions and creams, and ulcer products.” (http://www.nmnh.si.edu/botany/projects/algae/Alg-Prod.htm#top%20Alg-Prod). At the most, negligible amounts of sargassum are carried by ocean currents into New Jersey waters , which extend only 3 miles from the coastline. Accordingly, the probability of anyone ever wishing to harvest sargassum here is nonexistent. So it’s hard to see any need for a prohibition on sargassum harvesting in New Jersey waters, because there’s simply not enough sargassum there – or anywhere near there – to harvest. And a sargassum management plan has been written for the exclusive economic zone (those waters from 3 to 200 miles off the coastline). However, as the Smithsonian’s list of products demonstrates, New Jersey’s multi-billion dollar food, chemical and drug industries utilize extracts from sargassum and other brown algaes in dozens of their products. This proposed legislation would apparently impose a restriction on their ability to produce these products to prevent an activity that isn’t taking place in New Jersey’s waters today and won’t be taking place at any time in the future. We can only ask why?

And while we’re covering questionable government actions…. – Federal legislation has spawned a sizeable industry focused on the recovery and treatment of marine mammals. For fiscal year 2002, four million federal dollars are allocated to the John H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program. Given the priority that the public accords such programs, and considering that rehabilitating just one marine mammal now averages $31,000 (according to the winter 2000-2001 newsletter for the Marine Animal Rescue Program), we certainly don’t begrudge any of the marine mammal stranding centers any of their shares of these taxpayer funds. However, in the same budget no funds at all are allocated for research that would begin to provide an accurate picture of the range and distribution of the east coast bottlenose dolphin stocks; research that is critical to the development of management programs that will allow our commercial fisheries to continue while having minimal impacts on the dolphin stocks. Considering the public subsidies going to marine mammal rescue and rehabilitation, funding an aggressive research program to learn about the population characteristics of those marine mammals being rescued and rehabilitated would seem to be a no-brainer. For some reason, those involved in the budget process don’t see it that way.

Court allows fishermen to represent their own interests in New England groundfish negotiations – It took a major legal offensive for participants in the New England groundfish fishery to be allowed to participate in mediated negotiations recommended by a federal judge in the most recent court action brought by several “conservation” groups against the Secretary of Commerce. In spite of the fact that the stocks in question are rebuilding, and have been for several years, and that most of the groundfish industry is still in business (which is what we thought fisheries management was all about), it wasn’t happening the way these groups have decided it should, so they went to court yet again. When the judge ruled in their favor and called for a negotiated settlement, they then tried to have the fishermen, those people – one might argue the only people – directly affected by the negotiations, excluded.

But on the other hand – The same “conservation” groups that tried to have fishermen – inarguably part of the public - excluded from the groundfish negotiations are suing the Secretary of Commerce over large coastal shark management because the National Marine Fisheries Service excluded the public from the shark management process. It seems as if they either have exceptionally flexible definitions of who constitutes the “public” or have more than a sufficiency of money to spend on lawyers. Considering that the three organizations that are involved in the lawsuits – Oceana, Earthjustice and the Ocean Law Project - have received well over $10 million from the Sunoco Oil family’s Pew Charitable Trusts over the last several years, we’d bet on the latter. Unfortunately, the fishermen who are the eventual casualties of their court actions have to use their own funds to protect their interests. There must be some fairly flexible definitions of “charitable” floating around as well.

January 26, 2002

Blue Atlantic Pipeline Project - A proposal has been made to develop a pipeline to bring natural gas from wells on the Scotian Shelf off Nova Scotia to the New York market. The pipeline, which would be 36 inches in diameter, would transect approximately 750 miles of U.S. and 750 miles of Canadian waters and would cost $1.6 billion dollars to construct. According to NMFS (http://www.nero.nmfs.gov/ro/doc/1101.pdf), while the final route of the pipeline has not been determined (though a spokesman for the company proposing it has stated that it will not cross, but rather skirt, Georges Bank), it will traverse areas of essential habitat "for virtually every species" having such areas designated found in the waters off the Northeast U.S. "The proposed natural gas pipeline would begin from natural gas fields near Sable Island off Nova Scotia. It would run south, detour around the Georges Bank fishing grounds, take a bend past Cape Cod, skirt Block Island, come on land briefly on Long Island, return to sea and terminate in New Jersey." (Energy developers turn attention to ocean, B. Wyss, Providence [RI] Journal, 10/15/01).

A world without fisheries? - That was the "sky is falling" title to an article by Josh Reichert, Director of the Pew Trust's environmental programs, in the Seattle Post Intelligencer on January 24 (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/ 55565_fishop.shtml). In his opinion piece Mr. Reichert, who the Post Intelligencer identifies as a "fisheries expert," makes much of a recent article in the journal Nature, writing "Since the late 1980s the world's fish catch actually has been declining by about 800 million pounds per year rather than increasing by 700 million pounds as was previously reported. Not only are we exceeding the ocean's capacity to provide fish, but if current trends continue, within two or three decades many of the world's commercial fisheries will be extinguished…. The findings reported in Nature represent a wake-up call to the world community: Reduce fishing or face a future with no fish or fishers to catch them." It's a true testament to the philosophical flexibility of the anti-fishing claque when they, after having spent so much time and money clamoring about there being too much fishing in the world's oceans, can shift gears so smoothly and start to raise an equivalent clamor about there being not enough fishing. Evidently we - or at least our oceans - who were initially doomed because we were catching too many fish are now doomed because we haven't been catching enough fish. Kind of makes you wonder how many fish, at least in Mr. Reichart's and his co-alarmist's eyes, we should be taking from the world's oceans, doesn't it?

And another interesting point that Mr. Reichart seems to have overlooked - The article in Nature that Mr. Reichert referred to was authored by two University of British Columbia researchers, Dan Pauly and Reg Watson. He neglected to mention that they are both working on, and the article in Nature was apparently a result of, a $3,000,000 - Canadian, we presume - Pew Trusts-funded research program. (Looking for bigger fish to fry: An American foundation has granted UBC biologist Daniel Pauly $3 million to ascertain the effect of current fisheries practices on our oceans, and how to restore abundance, N.Baron, Vancouver Sun, 11/05/99). Given adequate bankrolling, that seems like a great way to guarantee that, one way or another, your prophecies will have the appearance of being self-fulfilling (http://www.web.net/nben/envnews/media/99/pauly.htm)

Mid-Atlantic Council meeting - January 28 to 31, Radisson Suites Hotel, 350 Route 3 West, Seacaucus, NJ (201 863-8700) - some highlights on the agenda are the Ecosystem Planning Committee's discussion on alternative commercial management approaches - Tuesday, 8:00 to 12:00; Squid, Mackerel and Butterfish Committee report/finalize Amendment 9 public hearing document draft - Tuesday, 1;00 to 4:00; Review of recent Stock Assessment Workshop report on monkfish, Georges Bank winter flounder and loligo squid - Wednesday, 10:00 to 12:00; Approval of Monkfish Framework Adjustment 1 - Wednesday, 1:00 to 4:00, Public Scoping Meeting for Amendment to the Monkfish FMP - Wednesday, 4:00 to 5:00. - These items and times are those announced by the Council and are subject to change.

January 18, 2002:

Moving ahead with monkfish management – Supported by results of positive trawl surveys by both industry and the National Marine Fisheries Service, on this past Monday the joint New England/Mid-Atlantic Council’s Monkfish Monitoring Committee voted overwhelmingly for a framework adjustment to replace the year four default closure of the directed fishery with a restrictive combination of trip limits and days at sea that will allow a harvest of 19,000 tons. On the following day the New England Council voted to accept the Committee’s recommendations. The monkfish fishery is yet another example of how effective fisheries management can be when approached cooperatively by fishermen, the regional councils, university researchers and state and federal agencies. Unfortunately the trip limit/days at sea combination that the New England Council approved – 40 days at sea with a trip limit of 550 or 450 pounds (depending on vessel category) of tails – is going to prevent a significant part of the monkfish fleet, the offshore draggers, from participating in the fishery. The New England Council unsuccessfully sought a solution that would have included these vessels. Perhaps the Mid-Atlantic Council will do better. The Committee has already started working on the first amendment to the FMP, which is on a fast track to be ready for implementation at the expiration of this framework measure.

A little perspective – In an article in the New York Times on the increasing problem of cormorant predation on gamefish in the Great Lakes (A Bird That's on a Lot of Hit Lists, 01/18/02), Jodi Wilgoren writes that North America is home to about 2 million of these highly efficient predators, each capable of consuming a pound and a half of small fish every day. The cormorant population, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is increasing by about 7% a year. That works out to about a billion pounds of fish eaten each year by cormorants, with an annual increase of about 70 million pounds. Looking at U.S. commercial fisheries production (Fisheries of the United States – 2000, National Marine Fisheries Service, http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/fus/fus00/index.html), we see that: 1) commercial landings of food fish in the lower 48 states in 2000 were about three and a half billion pounds, 2) total commercial landings from Maine to Delaware were well under a billion pounds, and 3) the annual increase in cormorant predation is almost half of New Jersey’s annual commercial landings. Are cormorants in direct competition with fishermen? In some instances yes, in some instances no. But that’s not the important point here. What is important is that a natural factor – predation by a single species – can have the same magnitude of impact on fish stocks as commercial fishing. And for every fish species that fishermen target, there are dozens of natural predators. Consider as well:

· In 1996 the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Canada estimated that harp seals consumed over 2 million tons of fish in the Canadian Atlantic, including a million tons (2.2 billion  pounds)of cod and flatfishes. [Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Backgrounder, Seal Predation on Groundfish, B-HQ-99-1(b)]
· In 1985, NMFS researchers estimated that whales and dolphins off the northeast U.S. consumed from 185,00 to 275,000 metric tons of fish and from 150,000 to 225,000 tons of squid (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-41). The total allowable catch of the two commercially important species of squid in the same area is about 40,000 tons per year.

And, of course, the list could go on and on. Whenever anyone considers the impact of commercial fishing on fish stocks or on coastal or ocean ecosystems, it’s important that they keep in mind that natural “background” processes like predation can be far more significant.

The truth about New England groundfish – The New England Fishery Management Council has released a series of charts on the status of many of the stocks that are being managed under the Multispecies Fishery Management Plan that Council member Barbara Stevenson has made available on her website (each of the charts has a reference to the source information it was based on). These charts paint an accurate – and reassuring – picture of the actual condition of these stocks, not the “sky is falling” spin still being applied by the so-called conservationists in their seemingly endless campaign to discredit the fishermen and the managers that have brought these fisheries back. The URL is http://www.bdssr.com/fisheries/science_home.htm, the links to the charts are under “Documents,” and we urge everyone to spend some time examining them.

January 12, 2002:

Congressman James Hanson announces he will not seek another term – The Utah Republican, whose efforts to strike a balance between environmental and business interests has evidently ewarned him the animosity of the environmental community, is the Chairman of the House Resources Committee.

Partial Agenda/New England Council Meeting – (January 15 - 17, 2002, Courtyard by Marriott, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, 603 436-2121):

Tuesday, January 15
9:05 a.m. -- Marine Protected Area (MPA) Committee Report (John Nelson) Update on the initial meeting of the MPA Committee
10:30 a.m. -- Stock Assessment Public Review Workshop (Dr. Terry Smith, NEFSC) Presentation of the advisory report on the status of monkfish, Georges Bank winter flounder, and Loligo squid developed at the 34th Stock Assessment Workshop held in Woods Hole, MA
11:30 a.m. -- Monkfish Committee Report (Barbara Stevenson) Approval of final action on Framework Adjustment 1 to the Monkfish FMP; options under consideration include, but are not limited to:
- No action and allowing the FMP Year 4 default measures to take effect (eliminating the directed fishery);
- The preferred alternative of postponing the Year 4 default measures for one year and adjusting trip limits and DAS allocations to achieve fishing year 2000 landings levels (after accounting for the court-ordered adjustment to the gillnet trip limits);
- Adjusting management measures to reduce catches to the Years 2 and 3 total allowable catch (TAC) targets
Consideration of public scoping comments on Amendment 2 to the Monkfish FMP; the Council has announced its intent to prepare an amendment to the Monkfish FMP and an Environmental Impact Statement for the action, which will:
- Consider updated scientific information in revising overfishing definitions, rebuilding targets and management measures, as appropriate to rebuild stocks to maximum sustainable levels by 2009;
reduce overall FMP complexity;
- Update environmental impact documents;
- Consider modifications to the limited entry program for vessels fishing south of the North Carolina/Virginia border;
- Update Essential Fish Habitat components

Wednesday, January 16, 2002
10:10 a.m. -- Scallop Committee Report (Barbara Stevenson) Approval of additional management alternatives to be included in draft Amendment 10 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP and analyzed in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS); primary issues include:
- Alternatives to manage effort by vessels with limited access and general category scallop permits
- Minimize habitat and bycatch impacts
- Monitoring and data collection issues
- Discussion of the annual FMP review by the Scallop Plan Development Team

Thursday, January 17, 2002
4:00 p.m. -- Groundfish Committee Report (Frank Blount) Update on committee actions concerning Framework Adjustment 36 and Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP; No action will be taken on these issues at this meeting

Big Oil to the rescue in New England? – The New England groundfish fishery has served as the anti-fishing activist’s poster child for what’s wrong with fisheries management and commercial fishing for well over a decade. In spite of what they’d have the public believe, however, the groundfish stocks have been doing quite well since the early 90s. A press release issued by the New England Fishery Management Council on June 7 last year stated “For the first time in a number of years federal fisheries management programs in New England are experiencing measurable and substantial success in building sustainable fisheries…..Year 2000 calculations show that estimated biomass levels for 11 important groundfish stocks, collectively, have increased almost 2-1/2 times since 1994. Witch flounder (gray sole) and Georges Bank yellowtail flounder have been rebuilt to sustainable levels, while others including Georges Bank haddock, Cape Cod yellowtail flounder and redfish have increased substantially. Even stocks that need further rebuilding such as Georges Bank cod, American plaice, white hake and Southern England yellowtail flounder are stable and showing signs of improvement. Reports from several of the major fishing ports in New England mirror the good news about the status of groundfish stocks. As of March 9, cod landings in Gloucester, Boston and New Bedford totaled 1.4 million pounds, 400,000 pounds more than the same time a year ago. Haddock (1.1 million pounds) and yellowtail flounder (1.7 million pounds) landings topped 2000’s nine-week total by 100,000 pounds and 200,000 pounds, respectively. The Portland Maine Fish Exchange recorded a 33 percent increase in fish landings last year….Further south, Rhode Island ports have seen an approximate 53 percent increase in landings between 1994 and 1999.” All of this good news, of course, was bought with the pain and suffering of thousands on New England fishermen and the owners and employees of the businesses they supported, but a primary goal of the fisheries managers appears to have been to rebuild the stocks as rapidly as possible while minimizing - to the greatest extent possible – the economic damage to the industry. And to a certain extent they were successful. Most fishermen, after a number of very lean years, are still fishing, though at severely reduced levels, and dependent businesses are still in business. Unfortunately – no surprise here – this hasn’t been good enough for the so-called “conservation community.” Dipping into the seemingly bottomless bucket of oil dollars that has been provided by the Pew and Rockefeller foundations, Oceana (the newest NGO to jump on the “blame it on overfishing” bandwagon), has successfully sued the Secretary of Commerce, contending that the government hadn’t met the requirements for the restoration of depleted groundfish stocks (Federal Court Rules on Fish Mandate, Associated Press, 01/04/02). The AP accurately indicates that the decision is “likely to lead to more severe restrictions on fishermen. That almost certainly means stricter quotas, trip fishing limits and area closures for fishermen who say the ruling will drive more small boat fishermen out of business, even as groundfish stocks like haddock and flounder rebound.” According to Eric Bilsky, attorney for Oceana “short term pain for fisherman may be necessary to correct the devastation of overfishing. Everyone will benefit in the long run…. We do have to pay for what we've been doing and set things right….”

Does that include…? – In “Studies Indicate Gulf Oil and Gas Rigs Are Islands of Legal Contamination,” Mobile (Alabama) Register reporter Ben Raines starts out “Oil and gas rigs, which use mercury-laden materials when drilling, appear to be an unusually dangerous source of mercury pollution in the Gulf of Mexico, one largely overlooked by regulators. The Mobile Register found evidence of the contamination in a series of studies of pollution around Gulf oil and gas platforms. The studies… were commissioned over the past two decades by the U.S. Minerals Management Service, the federal agency that oversees oil and gas production activities. Data from those studies strongly suggest that oil and gas rigs in the Gulf amount to islands of intense mercury contamination, which could readily spread to fish and marine creatures that flock to the structures…. Mercury concentrations in the sand around some rigs were as high as levels found at some federal ‘Superfund’ sites now closed to fishing as a result of severe contamination by the toxic metal. A study of one rig off the Texas coast indicated that mercury levels in the sediments beneath the platform were 12 times higher than the safe level for mercury in marine environments....” Mr. Raines goes on to write that there are over 4,000 oil and gas rigs in operation in the Gulf today, more than 1,200 new wells are drilled each year and the area of mercury contamination was most intense in a 650 foot wide area around each drilling rig. He estimated that over the last 30 years over 400,000 pounds of mercury could have been dumped into the Gulf by the oil industry, and the use of mercury contaminated drilling “mud” is still permitted. What are the odds Mr. Bilsky and Oceana will apply their “pay for what we've been doing and set things right” credo here as well?

To return to the Fishing New Jersey site introduction page: http://www.fishingnj.org
To return to the current Garden State Seafood Association Weekly Update: http://www.fishingnj.org/currentupdate.htm