Garden State Seafood Association Update Archives

November 18, 2003

     In an October 30th article in the East Hampton Star, journalist Russell Drum has Carl Safina (McArthur grant recipient; ex-Pew scholar, Pew Seaweb “oceans spokesperson;” ex-director of Audubon’s defunct “save the oceans” program; and a charter member of the “blame it on com-mercial fishing” school of ocean management) referring to "scientific prostitutes hired by the East Coast Tuna Association."
     We have a deep and abiding respect for both the objectivity and the expertise of the scientists who are willing to speak up on behalf of what’s really going on in the world’s oceans, because the fishing industry has invariably benefited when they have entered into fisheries management discussions. This applies particularly to the several eminent researchers who were brought into the tuna management fray by the East Coast Tuna Association. As their significant contributions to our understanding of the biology of bluefin tuna clearly demonstrate, one of the things they are least in need of is protection from Dr. Safina’s unscholarly attack.
     However, we ran across a series of publications involving Dr. Safina that we thought might have some bearing on his use of the term “scientific prostitutes.”
     In an April 14, 1998 New York Times op-ed piece on the swordfish boycott that he takes so much credit for titled “Fish Market Mutiny,” Dr. Safina wrote “Royal Caribbean and Celebrity Cruise Lines, being good mariners, have announced that they will deftly steer clear of swordfish.” This seemed a reasonable thing for Dr. Safina to write. Being the author of numerous books and articles on the plight of the oceans, being director of Audubon’s ocean program and being one of the spokespersons for the Pew Trusts on ocean issues, he was unquestionably familiar with the condition of the world’s oceans and what got them there.
     But then, on October 1, 1998 we read in a press release from Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. that was circulated by PR Newswire "In the two years since its launch, The Ocean Fund now has donated $1,382,000 on behalf of Royal Caribbean International and Celebrity Cruises to 22 organizations working to protect the marine environment.... Previous recipients have included The Nature Conservancy, National Audubon Society’s Living Oceans program (the defunct program Dr. Safina started and was in charge of at Audubon) and EarthWatch Institute." It seemed a little strange that Dr. Safina would be extolling the virtues of one of his – or of his program’s – financial supporters in the pages of the New York Times without revealing that a financial relationship existed, but who knows what editorial manipulations go on with the Times’ op-ed page.
     Following that, a Reuters article dated October 14, 1998, stated “Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., the world's second-largest cruise line, was ordered Wednesday to pay $8 million for dump-ing oil and lying to the U.S. Coast Guard about it, the Justice Department said. The sentencing in San Juan, Puerto Rico, was in addition to a $1 million fine levied in a Miami court last month.” And subsequently, in a U.S. Department of Justice press release on July 21, 1999, “Royal Carib-bean Cruises Ltd., one of the world's largest passenger cruise lines, has agreed to pay a record $18 million criminal fine and has agreed to a 21 federal felony count plea agreement for dumping waste oil and hazardous chemicals and lying to the U.S. Coast Guard.”
     We would think that being a “good mariner” entails a bit more than substituting salmon for swordfish on a menu and throwing a few bucks towards Dr. Safina’s program. Not disposing of waste oils and hazardous chemicals is part – in fact a very large part - of it as well. We aren’t fa-miliar with “scientific prostitutes,” but we do know about singing for your supper. It would be interesting to know who’s checkbook is supporting the Blue Ocean Institute, Dr. Safina’s latest vehicle to assault the commercial fishing industry.

<><><><><><><><><><>

And while on the subject of assaulting the commercial fishing industry…. – In what appears to be the latest chapter in the Pew Trust’s never-ending attempt to put working fishermen out of busi-ness, Earthjustice (recipient of over $10 million from Pew in the last 5 or 6 years) has filed suit on behalf of the Turtle Island Restoration Network - the organization raising all of the political ruckus about mercury in longline-caught fish – the Center For Biological Diversity – another Pew recipient - and others against Hawaiian longliners via the National Marine Fisheries Service. The suit is based on the supposed bycatch in the fishery. Considering the amazingly effective coopera-tive bycatch reduction research that has been done by East coast longliners and NMFS in recent years, (see http://www.fisheriesresearch.org/noaa_turtle_release.htm) it’s really unfortunate that a few of those Pew dollars aren’t going into meaningful research rather than continuing efforts to demonize fishermen.

Georges Bank “invaded” by a colonial tunicate – From a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-ministration press release dated Nov. 19, 2003: “Researchers have found what is believed to be an invasive species of sea squirt on the northern edge of Georges Bank, colonizing a 6.5 square mile area about 160 miles off outer Cape Cod, at a depth of just over 150 feet. These siphon-feeding animals form dense mats, made of many thousands of individuals, encrusting and smothering hard sea bottom and organisms attached to it.” Much more information is available at http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2003/s2125.htm. Any bets on how long it will take the anti-fishing claque to try to blame this on the commercial fishing industry?

Cooperative Sea Scallop survey completed – “This summer fisheries scientists from the Univer-sity of Massachusetts Dartmouth School for Marine Sciences and Technology (SMAST) con-ducted the most comprehensive survey of the Atlantic sea scallop resource ever undertaken. Be-tween May 27 and August 25 of this year, research scientists from the University of Massachu-setts Dartmouth, School for Marine Science and Technology (SMAST) conducted 9 weeklong cruises, covering 16,600 square nautical miles of sea scallop habitat. The survey will provide in-formation on the distribution and abundance of sea scallops and the sea floor habitat from Geor-ges Bank to Virginia. Data from the survey will be used to further the conservation of the valu-able scallop resource for the future.” (UMass Dartmouth And Partners Lead The Way In Scallop Research And Conservation, UMass Dartmouth Press Release, 09/11/03). Using an innovative video sampling system designed by Dr. Kevin Stokesbury at SMAST, almost 2000 stations were sampled from commercial scalloping vessels. According to Dr. Stokesbury, “What makes this latest survey remarkable is that a scientific project of this scope was possible only by the com-bined efforts of the commercial industry members, the University, and the state of Massachu-setts.” The SMAST scallop research program has a web page at http://www.smast.umassd.edu/Fisheries/Scallops/index.php.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

October 16, 2003

When the “best available science” isn’t good enough…. – Increasingly, we’ve been reading in the recreational fishing press that the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) doesn’t provide the level of information adequate to support recreational fishing management measures, particularly – or perhaps “only” is the best fit here – when these management measures involve cutbacks to recreational fishermen (see John Geiser’s 10/17/03 column in the Asbury Park Press titled “Flawed data means quota for fluke will be cut again”
at http://fishing.injersey.com/sports/fishing/story/0,20939,833137,00.html). There’s a very de-tailed explanation of how the MRFSS is conducted and applied on the NMFS website at http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/recreational/index.html. Though this survey, that’s been in use and under refinement for a quarter of a century, seems adequate to the job at hand, particularly con-sidering that the legislative requirement is only for the use of “best available” science, we thought it would be valuable to shed some light on how the commercial fishing industry has successfully tackled the problem of “best available” yet inadequate science. In the most important fisheries in the Northeast, members of the commercial fishing industry and scientists working for them have taken the lead and/or been committed participants in cooperative research projects designed to provide the kind of scientific underpinnings necessary to informed management decisions. Work-ing with government and academic researchers in fisheries including sea scallops, surf clams, monkfish, squid, scup, swordfish and groundfish, commercial fishermen, their vessels, their gear and – most importantly – their knowledge have become critical to improving the science underly-ing the management process. In spite of inarguable and highly visible successes, however, this is a path that seems almost completely ignored by recreational fishermen and their spokesmen. As in the case of summer flounder, when application of the existing science indicates they are catch-ing too much and will have to be cut back, their “solutions” involve using focused political pres-sure to hijack even more of the commercial quota reserved for the non-fishing public, ignoring the possibility of working towards better science to support a more robust management program. We can only question why this is their strategy of choice, and why a handful of federal legisla-tures has chosen to support them so zealously.

Surprising industry and political unanimity on a fisheries issue? – While it’s probably a first, vir-tually every commercial fishing group in the Northeast with members who are involved – even peripherally – in the groundfish fisheries have spoken out strongly against pending management options that will wreak economic havoc on commercial fishing communities from Maine to New York for negligible benefits to fisheries conservation.* And members of New England’s congres-sional delegation from coastal districts are supporting them. This unfortunate situation, which was precipitated by several so-called conservation organizations with a foundation-provided multi-million dollar war chest to support their efforts in court, shines a spotlight on the primary weak-ness in the Sustainable Fisheries Act: that is, its strict interpretation can remove much needed flexibility from federal fisheries management. Without going into too much depth (for more background, see http://www.fishingnj.org/netusa20.htm and http://www.fishingnj.org/netusa24.html), almost all of the groundfish stocks in question have been increasing dramatically over the last several years. In fact, they’ve been increasing to such an extent that maintaining the management regime that’s in place today would have them within a few percentage points of where they will be the drastic cuts that are being proposed. But, not costing New England’s fishing families tens of millions of dollars and not forcing hundreds of fishing businesses into bankruptcy, this strategy isn’t acceptable for the “conservationists,” who seem much more intent on destroying the commercial fishing industry as it exists today than they are in actually conserving fish – or of fishing as a way of life.

*The fallout from these proposed cutbacks will reach significantly beyond – in a southern direc-tion – New England’s waters. Being barred from traveling north to find fisheries they can partici-pate in, some New England boats are bound to end up migrating to New Jersey and points south.

The mass media finally getting it right (or at least partly right)? – In the current cover story in Time Magazine (How to Eat Smarter, http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101031020/story.html) Christine Gorman writes “Protein from any number of sources can be part of a healthy diet. But figuring out just how much or how little of each to include can be tricky. We've known for some time that most Americans need to cut back on their consumption of red meat because of its high saturated-fat content. But now some health experts are raising the possibility that eating too much fish—long a staple of heart-healthy diets—may expose folks to dangerous levels of mercury and other poisons. That's still being debated. A study published in August suggests that most of the mercury found in fish is of a form that is not particularly toxic to humans. So if your choice is between the third helping of swordfish that week and a Big Mac, go for the swordfish.” It’s really refreshing to see a writer who is both current with “state of the art” research and not completely swayed by alarmist hysteria.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

September 23, 2003

New Jersey Congressman attempts control of foreign overfishing of marlin, swordfish and tuna – Concurrent Resolution 268, sponsored by Jim Saxton, recommends "sanctions on nations that are undermining the effectiveness of conservation and management measures for Atlantic highly mi-gratory species, including marlin, adopted by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and that are threatening the continued viability of United States com-mercial and recreational fisheries." Recognizing the contributions that U.S. fishermen have made in the conservation and sustainable harvest of these important species, the resolution, among other measures, recommends that “any vessel of a (International) Commission (for the Conserva-tion of Atlantic Tunas) member or nonmember that fishes in the Convention area without con-forming with the conservation, management, and enforcement recommendations adopted by the Commission in such a manner or in such circumstances as would tend to diminish the effective-ness of Commission fishery conservation recommendations” would be subject to the provisions of the Fishermen's Protective Act (also known as the Pelly Amendment). When it’s determined that “nationals of a foreign country are diminishing the effectiveness of an international fishery conservation program,” the Fishermen’s Protective Act can be used to “prohibit the importation of fish products from the offending nation” and “to embargo wildlife products (including all fish not previously covered).” Congressman Saxton’s resolution also calls on the President to “make full use of all appropriate diplomatic mechanisms, relevant international laws and agreements, and other appropriate mechanisms to ensure conformance with conservation recommendations for all species under the Commission's management authority.” The Subcommittee on Fisheries Con-servation, Wildlife, and Oceans held a hearing on the resolution on September 11.

House Resources Committee addresses “Species over people” implementation of the Endangered Species Act – On September 6 House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo held a field hearing in New Mexico “on the endangered silvery minnow and its impact on water supplies for the state.” Addressing a decision of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal that ruled that “the Bu-reau of Reclamation has discretion to restrict water supplies to urban and agricultural water users in deference to the endangered silvery minnow,” a press release by the Committee stated “this decision goes well beyond the intent of the ESA (Endangered Species Act), threatens the long-standing principles of Western water law, exerts federal control over water resources owned by others, and has created social and economic meltdown in the state.” In the release Chairman Pombo was quoted “One of the unintended consequences of this law is that it puts the needs of species over the critical needs of human beings, New Mexico is not alone in its current predica-ment. In fact, this situation is yet another scary reminder of the Klamath Basin catastrophe, in which an endangered sucker fish bankrupted family farmers and crushed the local economy. If we don’t come together to repair this law, we will see more and more of these problems in communi-ties throughout the country.”

In the meantime, so-called conservationists continue to target commercial fishermen- In the cur-rent issue of Audubon, in an article by Ted Williams titled “The Exhausted Sea” we read such inflammatory – and totally inaccurate, at least as far as our experience dealing with fishermen goes – gems as “It is difficult to understand the thinking of your typical commercial fisherman, whose argument is essentially this: ‘We need fish for our livelihoods, so let us eradicate them.’” After an exhausting rehash of the same old “”Chicken Little” litany of doom and gloom for the oceans, Mr. Williams not surprisingly goes on “If any entity can convince Congress, the admini-stration, and the public to do better, it is the Pew Charitable Trusts.” It isn’t very startling that Mr. Williams is making this pronouncement in Audubon’s magazine, considering the fact that the Audubon Society has been on the receiving end of millions of dollars worth of Pew Trusts fund-ing in the past several years. He does eventually write (though in a section in which he’s attempt-ing to denigrate the role of Congress in managing fisheries) “Richard Pombo (R-CA), chair of the House Resources Committee, which has primary jurisdiction over the oceans, calls the Pew report ‘a $5 million coffee-table picture book.’ And Senate Appropriations chair Ted Stevens (R-AK), who cowrote the Sustainable Fisheries Act provisions that kept commercial fishermen regulating themselves, proclaims that the document ‘is tainted by the millions of dollars [the Pew Charitable Trusts] spend on environmental litigation aimed at stopping commercial fishing.’ Unfortunately for Mr. Williams’ skewer-the-fishermen agenda, and as the publication of his article by the Pew-supported Audubon Society demonstrates so convincingly, at least two members of Congress have it right.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

August 31, 2003

The Ocean Conservancy/Pew Commission on the Exxon Valdez - From an editorial in the Portland (Maine) Press Her-ald on August 30 on the Pew Oceans Commission (Ocean and coast resources need more efficient regulation, http://www. pressherald.com/viewpoints/editorials/030830oceans.shtml): "The No. 1 threat to the health of the oceans, the group (the Pew Oceans Commission) said, is commercial overfishing. That might come as a surprise to most people who remember the dramatic newscasts of oily birds and mammals after the Exxon Valdez went aground in Alaska's Prince William Sound, said Roger Rufe. Rufe is a retired U.S. Coast Guard vice admiral who now is president and CEO of The Ocean Conservancy, as well as one of the commission members. Obviously, oil spills are extremely damaging, he said, but the most damaging impacts on the ocean are ongoing and unseen." It might come as a surprise, as well, to the many thousands of people who were affected by the breaking up of the tanker Prestige off Spain last year. Or to those people who are still suffering from the aftereffects (D. Fuchs, A Seeping Tanker Turns Spain's Beaches Into an Oily Sandbox, NY Times, 08/31/03 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/31/international/europe/31SPAI.html?tntemail0). And perhaps even to those people in Karachi, Pakistan (see below), where a tanker, the Tasman Spirit, went aground on July 27 with an estimated 26,000 tons of oil being spilled during its subsequent breakup (Increasing pollution irks residents, Dawn/The Internet Edition, http://www.dawn. com/2003/08/30/local1.htm).

Then there's the "head-in-the-sand" syndrome - On its website the World Wildlife Fund extols the virtues of a WWF/Pew Charitable Trusts supported report co-authored by a Pew fellow that suggests the salvation of the world's fisheries lies in turning a third of the world's oceans into marine reserves. The same page has a link to a section on the Tasman Spirit oil spill. On the page on the human effects of the spill (http://www.panda.org/news_facts/crisis/tasmin/people.cf m) WWF writes "Experts have reported that the air and water quality is still very bad, as a result of the oil spill, and is source of health problems. For example, prolonged exposure to oil fumes filled with hydrocarbons can cause serious respiratory and skin diseases" and "The oil disaster and subsequent ban on fishing will affect the livelihood of 2 million fishermen living along the Karachi coast." The oceans surely need protection but, in spite of the contentions Admiral Rufe and the Pew Commission, is the big threat really from fishing?

And while we're writing about oil pills and the Exxon Valdez - During the same week that Admiral Rufe was trying to minimize the effects of the Exxon Valdez spill, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco overturned the $4 billion punitive damages award (already reduced from $5 billion in a prior appeal) levied against Exxon Mobil Corp. for the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster. (UPI, Appeals court overturns Valdez oil spill award, 08/25/03).

We haven't heard much about marlin for a while - But in his recreational angling column in the Newark Star Ledger on August 24 about the Mid-Atlantic $500,000 fishing tournament at the Canyon Club Resort Marina in Cape May, Al Ristori wrote about "The white marlin total of 157 (144 released)…. Blue marlin were slightly below par with 15 re-leases plus four boated…." The tournament winner got over half a million dollars, which we find kind of extraordi-nary. Even more extraordinary was Mr. Ristori's ability to cause any but the most astute of his readers to miss the fact that 17 marlin appear to have been killed for the tournament. But most extraordinary of all is the fact that large tracts of the ocean have been closed to commercial tuna fishing to "protect" the same marlin that are so readily killed in these annual tournaments.

Artificial reefs evidently aren't always a bargain - On August 25 the Associated Press reported - "An artificial reef cre-ated to improve marine life is attracting bull sharks to the water off Coral Cove Park, forcing officials to close the beaches almost daily. 'These sharks are territorial,' lifeguard Rick Moore said Sunday. 'What's happened is you have an accumulation of tropical fish.' The limestone-boulder reef was created earlier this summer to draw fish to the area just south of Coral Cove Park. Since then, lifeguards have called swimmers out of the water for periods ranging from 30 minutes to all day because of the sharks." (Artificial Reef Attracts Bull Sharks).

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

August 10, 2003

More reason for eating fish – A study by researchers at Chicago’s Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center of 815 Chicago residents 65 and older found an association between eating fish and a reduced risk of Alzheimer’s. Lead researcher Martha Clare Morris said “This is very promising, but it’s very early and really we need to have a lot more studies.” Bill Theis at the Alzheimer’s Association said that the study was “an interesting suggestion” but “It’s not definitive proof. It points in the direction of benefits.” (Fish diet past 65 may cut Alzheimer’s risk, study says, Phuong Le, Associated Press, 07/21/03). For a listing of articles on the dietary benefits of fish go to the National Fisheries Institute’s website at http://www.aboutseafood.com/health/index.html.

It’s silly season again – Another organization has sprung up with the goal of preventing the hundreds of millions of members of the non-fishing public from ever being able to enjoy an ocean-fresh striped bass. Called “Stripers Forever,” according to its website this organization has “only one purpose, and that is to enhance public fishing for striped bass by making the striped bass a gamefish and ending commercial exploitation of this vital recreational species.” A section of the website called “features and research” has a number of articles which don’t have the appearance of any kind of research we’re familiar with, simply recounting yet more variations of the hackneyed argument that recreationally caught striped bass are more valuable than those that are commercially caught because it costs so much more to catch them. We did discover while examining the website, however, that Tom Fote of Tom’s (no relation, we presume) River, New Jersey is listed as the vice president of Stripers Forever. Mr. Fote is New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey’s appointee to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, the organization that is charged with managing striped bass and other fisheries on the East coast. In view of this we can’t help wondering how effective the representation is that New Jersey’s over 8 million non-fishing citizens – most of whom are undoubtedly seafood consumers – are getting on the Commission.

Harsh medicine for the New England groundfish fishery? – National Fisherman editor Jerry Fraser wrote in a recent editorial (Improving health brings harsher medicine, 07/17/03) on pending drastic reductions in the groundfish fishery “New Englanders - and not just fishermen, mind you - are likely on the threshold of a tectonic shift in the nature of their coastal communities…. What perplexes most people is the timing. Given that stocks are improving, they ask, why must we keep shrinking the fleet? Why must we tear the very heart out of Gloucester, Stonington and scores of other ports when there is now more fish available to them then there was a decade ago? But it's fewer and fewer of us who are asking, because we've been told this is what we must do for so long now that we've come around to believing it ourselves.”

Consumers? It seems they’re not supposed to count – In a petition to the Secretary of Commerce several angling groups are trying to get one-sixth of the annual commercial quota of summer flounder shifted to the recreational side. Summer flounder, among the most popular mid-Atlantic species with both consumers and recreational anglers, are available in record numbers in the waters from southern New England to North Carolina. Because of strict adherence to stringent regulations, the commercial harvesters have stayed within their annual quota in recent years. Conversely, since 1996 the recreational anglers have exceeded their “target” quotas by an average of about 4 million pounds a year. And due to an anomaly in the management plan, 60% of each recreational overage is taken off the commercial quota in the subsequent year. So, to “correct” what is unquestionably an intolerable situation, these recreational fishing groups are asking the Secretary of Commerce to give them a hunk of the commercial quota. Among their arguments for this is the fact that there are more recreational than commercial harvesters (of course conveniently ignoring the fact that there are many more non-fishing consumers than recreational anglers) and that, somewhat confusingly, they aren’t really overfishing, but what they have been doing every year “is ‘fishing with the flow,’ which means recreational landings that are consistent with fish availability.” This seems a technique that would, if adopted by fisheries managers in the summer flounder or any other fishery, absolve recreational anglers of any management restrictions whatsoever. What we really need in summer flounder management, and in fact in the management of every fishery, are measures that hold all harvesters – both commercial and recreational – accountable for what they harvest. And once and for all we've got to get beyond the preposterous idea that consumers have no claim on the fish in our waters.

May 29, 2003

George Will discovers the Pew “Charitable” Trusts – George Will in his May 8 column on the McCain- Feingold cam-paign regulation law (Freedom of speech survives another day), while commenting on the findings of a three judge panel, wrote “Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissects the debasement of scholarship for partisan purposes by New York University's Brennan Center for Justice…. quoting sworn testimony, that the Brennan Center promised the liberal Pew Charitable Trust, which funded the studies of the ads, that the so-called scholars involved would ‘design and exe-cute’ the studies to produce results helpful to lobbying for McCain-Feingold.” Does it seem like there’s any similarity between this and what’s being done to the commercial fishing industry by Pew-funded researchers?

If you missed the media barrage surrounding the publication of the latest “sky is falling” article on the effects of fishing in the journal Nature – An interview by NPR’s Kojo Nnamdi of the author of the Nature article, Ransom Myers of Dalhousie University, and NMFS Director of Scientific Programs Mike Sissenwine conducted on May 27 is available on the WAMU website (http://www.wamu.org/kojo - the interview should be on this page until the end of the week, then look in the 2003 Archives). The interview, which starts around minute 17, is about 20 minutes long and, at least for the U.S., reflects virtually none of the doom and gloom outlook that permeated all of the media coverage spawned by the Nature article (or of New Jersey Congressman Frank Pallone’s alarmist “Colleagues” letter that it spawned – see below). Both of the scientists agreed that U.S. fisheries weren’t facing the imminent threats portrayed by the media.

There’s more to fisheries management than reacting to alarmism – In a “Dear Colleagues” letter headed “Study Finds Key Ocean Fish Species Ravaged,” New Jersey Congressman Frank Pallone ends with the words “we need to advocate strong conservation measures, both nationally and internationally, to prevent the catastrophic, but certain, conse-quences of global fisheries crashes.” As both Dr. Sissenwine (“I think it would be unnecessary to overreact to simply the warning that these problems exist without understanding that in fact there are lots of measures being taken, a very aggressive U.S. regulatory program as well as worldwide, to try to address them.”) and Dr. Myers (“I think that Mike is right in terms of the U.S. In many areas aggressive management has worked…. When fisheries management is used and used effectively, there is not a concern about the biomass reducing by a factor of 50 or even 60 or even probably 70 percent.”) point out, the United States is way ahead of the curve in aggressive fisheries management. Recent reports by NMFS on the status of our fish stocks affirm this. Congressman Pallone seems to have missed the boat here, and to have missed it by quite a bit. With several hundred commercial fishermen and an active commercial fishing port in his district, Congressman Pallone, in his zeal to protect the marine environment, seems to be ignoring the opinions of his constituents. We don’t need another voice adding to the “we need more stringent management” hysteria; we need rep-resentatives in Washington committed to improving what’s already proven to be an effective management system in the U.S. (even according to Dr. Myers, author of the latest “the sky is falling” study). In the Mid-Atlantic, a region that the Congressman should be extremely familiar with, we’re at or approaching record levels of abundance of at least half a dozen extremely valuable – both commercially and recreationally – fisheries because of much hard work and sacri-fice by both commercial fishermen and sports anglers. They deserve careful consideration of the issues by our Congressional delegation, not off-the-cuff responses to purposely provocative articles in the popular press.

New England groundfish again - At considerable expense two commercial fishing organizations (Associated Fisheries of Maine and Trawlers Survival Fund) brought a world renowned fisheries scientist from South Africa to participate in the peer review of the groundfish stock assessment convened by the National Marine Fisheries Service earlier this spring. The South African expert, Professor Douglas Butterworth, introduced a computer model that suggested a dif-ferent view of the groundfish stocks in question and the official peer review team recommended further consideration of his work. Preliminary results from the alternative model differed from and were more positive than the results of the NMFS model being used for the most recent assessments. The New England Fishery Management Council then formally requested that NMFS undertake whatever follow-up work was necessary to evaluate the alternative model. However, NMFS has refused the peer reviewers’ recommendation and the Council’s request. Considering what's at stake - hundreds of jobs, millions of dollars, and the social fabric holding together dozens of New England's fishing communities - and the fact that so many of us in New England and the Mid-Atlantic are committed to reestablishing a sense of cooperation in fisheries research and management, it would seem that honoring this industry request should be near the top of the government's priority list.

If you need another reason for fish oil in your diet – “Eating oily fish like salmon, tuna or bluefish at least twice a week can prevent sudden cardiac death because fatty acids in the fish block dangerous irregular heart rhythms, experts say in a review article in last week's issue of Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association…. According to a recent American Heart Association scientific statement a ‘dietary approach to increasing omega-3 fatty acid intake is preferable. Still, for patients with coronary artery disease, the dose of omega-3 (about one gram per day) may be greater than what can readily be achieved through diet alone. These individuals, in consultation with their physician, could consider supplements for CHD (coronary heart disease) risk reduction.’” (Fish oils in heart cells can block dangerous heart rhythms, The Wave News Network, 5/27/03). The best source of Omega-3 fish oil supplements is the menhaden reduction fishery, a fishery that because of pressure from recreational fishing activists was outlawed in State waters by the New Jersey legislature two years ago. That might put New Jersey in the forefront of states with totally misguided public policies.

As long as it’s green? – In a May 19 press release, Conservation International announced “Amid growing concern that over-fishing and other activities are taking a severe toll on marine ecosystems, some of the world's leading researchers and environmental groups will gather in Mexico from May 30 - June 3, 2003 to develop a blueprint for protecting ma-rine species and environments.” Collaborating in the development of this “blueprint” are the same Pew-funded NGOs and among the one anonymous (any guesses on who that might be?) and five named sponsors are BP (oil/energy cor-poration formerly known as British Petroleum) and Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines (according to a U.S. Department of Justice press release dated July 21, 1999, “Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., one of the world's largest passenger cruise lines, has agreed to pay a record $18 million criminal fine and has agreed to a 21 federal felony count plea agreement for dumping waste oil and hazardous chemicals and lying to the U.S. Coast Guard” - http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1999/July/316enr.htm). It’s sure comforting to know that the future of our oceans is in such good – and clean – hands, isn’t it?

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

May 11, 2003

There's getting it right in fisheries management… - With the solid impetus of the trawl survey fiasco last autumn (see the "Fisheries Research" section of the NJ Fishing website at http://www.fishingnj.org), the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the New England Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service have taken the initial steps in making a coordinated, cooperative effort to maximize the effectiveness of the fisheries re-search effort in the Northeast Region. The Trawl Survey Advisory Committee, with members from both Coun-cils, NMFS, the fishing industry and several academic institutions - and with administrative support provided by the Mid-Atlantic Council - held its first meeting in Secaucus, NJ this week. Committee Chairman, Mid-Atlantic Council member and North Carolina fisherman Jim Ruhle made it clear from the start of the meeting that the Committee, whose goal is "to provide important advice and feedback to the NEFSC (NMFS' Northeast Fisheries Science Center) on its trawl surveys," was going to operate in an open and cooperative manner. And throughout the entire meeting, which ran from Monday afternoon to Tuesday morning, all of the Committee members acted accordingly. Considering the importance of the Northeast Center's surveys to hundreds of millions of dollars worth of recreational and commercial fisheries each year, the still ongoing controversies surrounding the science underlying many of the stock assessments in the region, and the fact that NMFS will be replacing its research vessel, the R/V Albatross, with a new state-of-the-art survey vessel in four years, the smooth and effective func-tioning of this Committee over the next several years will be critical. The commercial fishing industry should provide the committee members with as much support as it can.

Then there's getting it wrong - There's a movement, pressed by so-called conservation organizations and funded by mega-bucks foundations like the oil rich Pew Charitable Trusts, to make large chunks of ocean off-limits to any kind of fishing by locking them up in what are called marine protected areas* (MPAs). Other than for spe-cific uses like protecting spawning stocks there is no scientific consensus on the effectiveness of MPAs in ma-rine resource management, but like other causes adopted by these "conservationists," this lack of scientific justi-fication isn't anywhere nearly as important as cashing those foundation checks. In an attempt to protect New Jersey's fishermen - both recreational and commercial - as well as New Jersey's seafood consumers from this movement, Bob Smith, Chairman of the NJ Assembly's Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, has in-troduced the Freedom to Fish Act that would require sound scientific justification before any MPAs could be established in New Jersey state waters. Recognizing the importance of both recreational fishing and fresh sea-food consumption to New Jersey residents, Chairman Smith has included both recreational fishing and commer-cial harvesting in his legislation. Yet State Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Bradley Campbell is opposing the inclusion of commercial fishing activities in Chairman Smith's legislation. The Com-missioner's position is extremely short-sighted. Recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen and seafood con-sumers are all in need of protection from the manipulations of those overzealous, foundation-funded environ-mental activists who think their role is to "protect" everything from everybody.

* Carefully considered and well designed marine protected areas have been in wide use, and have been sup-ported by commercial and recreational fishermen, in New England and Mid-Atlantic waters for years

Then there's getting it really, really wrong… - In an "editorial" in the most recent issue of Saltwater Sportsman Tom Richardson, in spite of an ever increasing annual mortality of striped bass by recreational anglers, rails against a proposed increase in the commercial quota of this highly desirable species. For the moment we'll dis-regard the glaring inequities involved when a small handful of fishing hobbyists are being allocated the lion's share of these fish while well over a hundred million consumers are only allowed access to their leftovers (or the even more glaring inequity that prevents eight million or so non-fishing consumers in New Jersey from being able to buy a striped bass in a seafood market or restaurant). But in his editorial Mr. Richardson writes "Recrea-tional striper fishing generates millions of dollars and supports thousands of jobs. Every pound of recreationally caught bass is worth $40 to the economy, whereas the average market price is around $3 a pound." While he doesn't state it, he certainly implies that recreationally caught bass are more valuable than commercial. Compar-ing what a hobbyist spends in pursuing his or her hobby - whether that pursuit culminates in a few pounds of fillets or not - can't be considered to be in any way equivalent to what a producer is paid to provide a raw material to what will eventually be a twenty or thirty dollar restaurant meal. Yet this and similar "apples and cinder-blocks" comparisons are constantly put forth by recreational fishing advocates as justification for increasing rec-reational quotas at the expense of commercial harvesters and the consumers they are fishing for. Fortunately, this level of "justification" is generally given about as much credence as it deserves.

Not speaking of “overzealous, foundation-funded environmental activists whose jobs are to “protect” everything from everybody” – Dery Bennett has stepped down from his position of 31 years as Executive Director of the American Littoral Society, headquartered on Sandy Hook. In his long running tenure at the Littoral Society, Dery successfully walked the fine line that so few people involved in fisheries issues are able to; successfully balancing competing pressures from recreational and commercial fishermen and other groups with a commitment to protecting the health of our coastal waters. Not only recreational and commercial fishermen, but every-one with an interest in a healthy ocean are indebted to Dery for his efforts on their behalf. Dery will still be working for the ALS, but Tim Dillingham has taken over as Executive Director.

And an editorial in today’s Boston Globe about Catch and Release fishing - ''We angle because we like the fight,'' (essayist and avid outdoorsman Ted) Kerasote writes (in Orion). ''Otherwise all of us would be using hookless [flies] and not one angler in 10,000 does. The hook allows us to control and exert power over fish, over one of the most beautiful and seductive forms of nature, and then, because we're nice to the fish, releasing them `unharmed,' we can receive both psychic dispensation and blessing. Needless to say, if you think about this rela-tionship carefully, it's not a comforting one, for it is a game of dominance followed by cathartic pardons, which ... is one of the hallmarks of an abusive relationship.'' The editorial by Jeff Jacoby isn’t against recreational catch and kill and eat recreational fishing but focuses on catch and release angling. (Fishing for sport is cruel, inhumane, http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/131/oped/Fishing_for_sport_is_cruel_inhumane+.shtml)

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

April 13, 2003

A seasonal digression - We probably all know people who grow vegetables in their back (or side or front) yards. These are the folks who every year have a surplus of tomatoes or summer squash or peppers or eggplants to give away. To them this is a hobby, and it's doubtful that they track their expenses per pound of rutabagas or cauliflower that they produce. But what if they did? Or what if someone wanted to show how much backyard farmers contributed to the economy for every pound of produce they grew? If you value a 500 square foot garden at the going rate for suburban New Jersey real estate, if you count all of the trips to the neighborhood garden center to buy bug spray and fertilizer in a $40,000 sport utility vehicle, if you consider the wear and tear on the shiny new $2,500 lawn/garden tractor, if you factor in every expense - legitimate or not - that you can think of that went into harvesting those few pounds or few bushels of fruits or vegetables, you're going to come up with a number that's far in excess of the dollar or so a pound that we pay at the farm market or grocery store for fresh produce when it's in season.

But do the folks at Agway or Walmart or Home Depot use this as a reason to limit commercial agriculture? It would sure help them to sell more gardening equipment and supplies. Does General Motors foot the bill to lobby or to litigate against farming in order to sell more Suburbans in the suburbs? Can you imagine your neighbor claiming his or her hobby is more economically important than real farming because it costs him or her so much more to grow every apple or pear or kumquat? And can you imagine an elected official supporting efforts to close down parts or all of our agricultural industry because there are more expensive ways to produce food?

Yet here we are with a relative handful of recreational anglers - the ocean equivalent of that backyard farmer - clamoring for a greater proportion of summer flounder, our most popular (from both an angling and an eating perspective) saltwater fish, based on the fact that it costs them more to catch it.

Commercial fishermen, driven by market forces that most grade school students are capable of understanding, do everything that they can to keep their expenses down. Yet out-of-touch anglers - or the people who sell them their rods and reels and bait and boats and fishing trips - are using that fact as an argument for increasing the recreational share of the total allowable catch of summer flounder. And some elected officials who have evidently lost sight of the fact that they represent far more seafood consumers than fishing hobbyists are supporting them in their efforts.

If every consumer had to pay what it cost the average recreational angler to catch a pound of fish or had to go out and catch them him- or herself we'd have a far less healthy consuming public and a group of far happier beef producers. That should only be acceptable in the fantasy world of the handful of recreational anglers and business people who depend on them. These are the recreational anglers who think the oceans should be their own private playgrounds and the business people who pretend that their customers have the only valid claim on living marine resources that belong to the entire public - a public that includes those who don't fish and those that do.

It's obvious that the summer flounder stocks are now at high, very possibly record, levels of abundance. Given an effective management system, one supported by an adequate research program, there are certainly enough of these highly desirable fish to satisfy a couple of hundred thousand recreational anglers' as well as eight million non-fishing consumers' demands in New Jersey. It's extremely unfortunate that some of those anglers and their representatives are putting so much energy into attempts to get a larger slice of the allocation pie for their personal enjoyment rather than working with the commercial harvesters to increase the size of the pie so that those who fish as well as those who'd rather not can benefit from an again abundant resource that belongs to everyone.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

April 7, 2003

New Jersey Senators urge continuation of cooperative research on monkfish – Senators Jon Corzine and Frank Lautenberg joined with their colleagues from Maine, Rhodes Island and Massachusetts in urging Senator Gregg, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, to continue making funding available for the cooperative research program initiated in 2000 by the Monkfish Defense Fund. This program, which includes the Rutgers University, National Marine Fisheries Service, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, the New England Council and members of the monkfish industry, has provided scientific information which is proving invaluable to the monkfish fishery and to establishing an effective monkfish management program.

And, speaking of fisheries research – While accepting the Massachusetts Fishermen's Partnership first-ever Life-time Achievement Award, Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy said "We are sick and tired of bureaucratic, sci-entific jumbledygook," while promising industry members at the award ceremony that he will keep pressing federal officials to improve measurements of New England fish stocks. The award was based on Senator Ken-nedy’s ongoing contributions to the fishing industry, most recently in helping to establish the MFP’s health plan. (D. Joyner, Kennedy honored by fishing trade group, Gloucester Daily Times, 04/05/03 - http://www.ecnnews. com/cgi-bin/g/gstory.pl?slug-GTED5)

Adopt-A-Boat “South” program is started at Barnegat Light – The scallop vessel Kathy Ann, owned by Jim Gutowski and John Larson and captained by Richie Skon, has been “adopted” by a class of 5th graders in a Mer-cer County school district. At his first meeting with the class, Captain Skon talked with the animated 5th graders for almost an hour. He started out by describing the fishery and some of the stringent regulations he had to com-ply with, then asked for questions. Anyone who’s had the pleasure of spending time with children of this age will appreciate the wide range of subjects he then had to deal with; everything from “what’s the strangest thing you’ve ever caught?” to “how much do you get paid?” Needless to say, a number of questions dealt with sharks and other dangerous denizens of the deep. The children will follow the Kathy Ann’s progress on a navigation chart and will be provided regular emailed updates via Boatracs (a satellite communications/tracking system available on all full-time sea scallop vessels). The program, which was inspired by a successful Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sea Grant program (http://web.mit.edu/seagrant/adoptaboat/), is aimed at providing the children with some understanding of the lives of commercial fishermen, an appreciation of what is involved in getting seafood from the ocean floor to the supermarket or restaurant, and the beginnings of an understand of the basic biology of our coastal waters. A website which will detail the program as it develops can be reached through the “Adopt a boat” link on the NJ Fishing website (http://www.fishingnj.org).

An all too familiar scenario – Describing a carefully orchestrated campaign (60’s activist Abbie Hoffman was one of the organizers) to prevent the construction and operation of a pumping station on the Delaware River in Point Pleasant, PA in the late 1980s, the Philadelphia Inquirer’s Marc Schogol writes “Opposition forces - who filed lawsuit after lawsuit and regulatory challenge after regulatory challenge for decades - warned that Pennsyl-vania and New Jersey communities' water supplies could run dry; fish in polluted waters could all die; and a mushroom cloud could devastate the region.” In spite of the doom and gloom prognostications, rational minds prevailed and the pumping station was turned on in 1989. It has been in operation ever since with nary a sign of dead fish, let alone a localized nuclear Armegeddon. (Pumped-up ideals in Bucks battle, 04/06/03 - http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/5567077.htm). The “Dump the pump” campaign was based on the same type of environmental scare tactics, vastly overblown rhetoric and widely disseminated misinformation (minus, of course, the internet) as today’s “save the seas from fishing” campaigns. We can only hope that the same level of rationality prevails and the commercial and recreational fishing industries, like the Point Pleasant Pump, endure.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

March 25, 2003

Here we go again…. - In what seems to be turning into yet another never ending story, recreational fishing ad-vocates have unleashed their latest effort to take a big chunk of the summer flounder (aka fluke) quota away from the commercial fishing industry.

By way of background, this is one of the most important fisheries for bother recreational and commercial fish-ermen in the Mid-Atlantic region, and it almost goes without saying that among Mid-Atlantic consumers fresh fluke fillets are among the most popular of the local seafood dishes. When the fisheries management plan for flukr was written over two decades ago (see http://www.mafmc.org/mid-atlantic/fmp/history/sf-a12.htm) after extensive analysis and an exhaustive public hearing process, it was decided that the most equitable division of the total fluke catch would allocate 40% to recreational anglers and 60% to consumers.

The commercial harvest is controlled by limiting the number of boats in the fishery, minimum net mesh sizes, trip landing limits, minimum fish size and closed seasons. The plan requires that any overage of the commercial quota be "paid back" by a reduced commercial quota in the following year. There were some commercial over-ages in the early years of the plan but, thanks to rigorous conservation efforts by the commercial fleet, in recent years commercial landings have been right on target. There is no such payback requirement for recreational an-glers. If they exceed their quota - which is supposed to be controlled by size and possession limits and closed seasons - the entire quota, recreational and commercial, is decreased for the following year. Obviously the commercial harvesters, and the consumers, are penalized more than the recreational. In recent years the recrea-tional anglers have exceeded their quota by levels that have approached 100%.

Recognizing this glaring inequity, the managers are now discussing amending the management plan so that the same payback requirements that the commercial harvesters have been living with for years would also apply to the recreational anglers. Needless to say, and understandably so, their advocates are now clamoring to "readjust" the commercial/recreational split, taking more of the quota away from the consumers and thereby making the probable recreational paybacks somewhat less onerous.

Of course, the arguments for this transparent resource grab are the same ones that are used by recreational an-glers whenever they decide they should be allowed to catch more fish: there are far more recreational than commercial fishermen, and recreational fishermen spend far more money to catch a fish than commercial har-vesters do.

The first argument is based on the weirdly distorted logic that holds that commercial fishermen are catching fish for themselves and that those who want to enjoy the healthful bounty of our highly productive coastal waters should only be allowed to do so by harvesting the fish and shellfish themselves. The fact of the matter is that commercial fishermen aren't fishing for themselves but are rather fishing for the tens of millions of seafood con-sumers that have as much right to fisheries resources as recreational angler but aren't all that enthralled with the idea of doing their own harvesting (sort of like being able to eat a hamburger without having a herd of steers in the back yard or enjoying a slice of bread without owning a wheat field, a tractor and a combine).

The second is based on the equally distorted and what seems disturbingly elitist argument that recreational fish-ermen should be allowed more access to public fisheries resources because they can afford to pay more to catch them. Because an angler spends twenty or thirty dollars per pound of fluke fillets from fish he caught - after some creative statisticians and economists on the payroll factor in boat payments, fishing tackle and bait expen-ditures, travel expenses and the operating costs and depreciation on a forty thousand dollar SUV - his fluke, so the argument goes, are more valuable to "the economy" than the fluke of a commercial fisherman who is only paid a couple of dollars a pound. Unfortunately, at least for those folks that are so intent on minimizing the eco-nomic impact of commercial fishing, by the time those commercially harvested fluke fillets are sold in a white tablecloth restaurant at the Jersey shore, they’ve pumped an equivalent or greater amount of money into the economy. A meal with a generous half-a-pound portion of fresh flounder can easily cost thirty or forty dollars, and whoever is enjoying it most probably drove to the restaurant with an equally pricey SUV.

All of us, whether we harvest fish for the consumer or for personal enjoyment, are going to benefit from man-agement decisions based on solid science and equitable distribution of the resource among all of the users. Try-ing to force management decisions with political pressure propped up with spurious arguments does nobody any long-term good.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

March 14, 2003

NEW JERSEY FISHING GROUP APPLAUDS MAINE”S SENATOR COLLINS, OTHER NEW ENGLAND LEGISLATORS FOR SUPPORTING THE COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY

TRENTON, NJ - The Garden State Seafood Association (G.S.S.A.) has enthusiastically endorsed Maine Senator Susan Collins’ “Fisheries Science and Management Improve-ment Act” (S. 482), the first legislation in the 108th Congress to deal with the reauthoriza-tion of the Magnuson-Stevens Conservation and Management Act.

Senator Collins’ legislation addresses the critical need for a more solid scientific founda-tion for fisheries management decisions, requires a higher level of peer review in the spe-cies stock assessment process, injects some much needed flexibility into fisheries man-agement by allowing the Secretary of Commerce to make allowances for natural stock fluctuations, and streamlines the fisheries management process by allowing fisheries management plans to maintain a high level of habitat protection without depending on cumbersome compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. It also brings into clearer focus the process for designating and protecting essential fish habitat.

At the same time Senators Olympia Snowe of Maine and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts are continuing their crusade for better science in support of fisheries management deci-sions by calling for further research into what constitutes “optimum” levels of the various groundfish stocks off New England.

G.S.S.A. President Jeff Reichle, from Cape May, NJ, said “The fisheries management process is being tied in knots by lawsuits brought by so-called conservation organizations enriched by multi-million dollar foundation grants. Working fishermen – whether in New England or New Jersey – are finding that it’s becoming increasingly difficult and expen-sive to protect their interests in a management system that is now focused entirely on the bureaucratic process rather than the status of the fisheries. We hope that, thanks to the efforts of elected officials like Senators Collins, Snowe and Kennedy, we’ll get to the point where fisheries are managed by good science and concern for both the fish and the fishermen, not by who can afford the most lawyers.”

############

The Garden State Seafood Association is a statewide organization of commercial fisher-men and fishing companies, related businesses and individuals working in common cause to promote the interests of the commercial fishing industry and seafood consumers in New Jersey.

Contact: Jeff Reichle, President (after 03/18/03) 609 884 1760
Nils Stolpe, Communications Director 215 345 4790

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

March 10, 2003

Maine's Senator Collins introduces much needed fisheries legislation - From a press release issued by her office (Senator Susan Collins introduces pair of bills to safeguard maine's commercial fishing industry, 03/02/03): "Collins' 'Fisheries Science and Management Improvement Act' (S. 482) seeks to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Act, injecting consistency and common-sense standards into the fisheries management process. Her legislation requires scientific data, including all stock assessments, to be peer-reviewed and to include the consideration of anecdotal information gathered from fishermen. It also will ensure that the process of rebuilding stocks is based on rational and comprehensive science…. In addition, Collins is pushing the "Commercial Fishermen Safety Act," that provides a tax credit equal to 75 percent of the amount paid by fishermen to purchase or maintain safety equipment. The tax credit is capped at $1500."

And Maine's Senator Olympia Snowe, along with Massachusetts' Senator Ted Kennedy, tackle the science-based problems in fisheries management through the federal bureaucracy - From Kay Lazar, writing in the Boston Herald l(Sens. Kennedy, Snowe hit data used for fishing regs, 03/06/03) "Two powerful New England senators yesterday said new questions raised about the science used by federal regulators to craft tough fishing restrictions should be answered clearly before those rules go into effect. 'Congress did not intend for science-based management to be based on potentially erroneous scientific conclusions,'' said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) in a letter to Adm. Conrad Lautenbacher, who heads the federal fisheries service. At issue is a report released last week by a panel of five independent experts, who scrutinized the feds' science. The experts said most of the science was adequate. But they said the feds may have substantially miscalculated when they increased their projections for how many fish they believe could swim in New England waters one day - if protected from overfishing."

While the situation regarding New England groundfish - and the wide gulf between what the scientists have projected and what the fishermen are actually observing concerning the status of the stocks - is getting most of the attention, it's important to keep in mind that this isn't a problem exclusive to New England or exclusive to the groundfish fishery. The science underlying multi-million dollar decisions by fisheries managers needs to be improved, and Senators Collins, Snowe and Kennedy deserve the thanks of anyone who catches or dines on our fish and shellfish.

But in the meantime…. - Oceana, the Pew funded "new kid" on the block where all the NGOs intent on making the lives of commercial and recreational fishermen miserable live, is busy rattling whatever sabers it can about the National Marine Fisheries Service's decision to enforce federally mandated bycatch reduction requirements while at the same time allowing some fishermen to keep on fishing. In a press release Oceana wrote "Instead of developing new rules and regulations to count, cap and control the millions of fish and thousands of marine mammals that needlessly die each year, NMFS just documented what they have done to comply with federal law and plan a review of the existing strategy." While it's hard to imagine, the people at Oceana must be unaware of the ongoing initiatives in many fisheries - including those that the so-called conservationists love to disparage at every opportunity - to "control" bycatch. As we've explained here a number of times, no fisherman is going to purposefully catch stuff he can't keep and sell. It causes unnecessary wear and tear on the boat and gear, it takes time and energy to separate it from the catch that can be kept and sold, and it undoubtedly feels bad to the fisherman who is forced to do it. In the past decade or so the commercial fishing industry has made tremendous strides in reducing bycatch (to start to get a feel for this, try doing a web search on "bycatch reduction"). In the next decade it will make even more - as long as enough fishermen remain in business to develop the necessary gear and techniques. But with an Oceana initiated lawsuit always a possibility ("We are considering what options are available... before it's too late for our marine fish and wildlife," said Sylvia Liu, senior attorney for Oceana. "We are not ruling anything out."), that might not be the case. We can't help but wonder how much of Oceana's multi-million dollar budget is going into research and development projects aimed at actually reducing bycatch.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

February 18, 2003

Is this as good as it gets? - A press release issued in July of 2002 titled “Scup No Longer Considered Overfished,” issued by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, announced “The most recent stock assessment results for scup indicate that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s (Council) management system is working as intended. The Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) which met in June, reported that some abundance indices for scup are the highest ever recorded.” The release credited strict harvest limits and gear restrictions for the current abundance of this commercially and recreationally valuable species.

Supposedly one of the primary management tools in place for scup is a pair of seasonal Gear Restricted Areas (GRAs), off the mid-Atlantic coast extending from New York to Virginia, in which participants in the loligo squid and silver hake fisheries are prevented from using their traditional gear. Instead, larger mesh nets are required. This was to prevent what was believed to be a large bycatch of scup - and its attendant discarding – by the smaller mesh nets that are necessary to most effectively participate in the squid and hake fisheries. Needless to say, these gear restrictions have severely impacted these fisheries, drastically reducing catches and fishing efficiency in the GRAs.

Research just completed by Rutgers researchers Eric Powell, Allison Bonner and Eleanor Bochenek, (Scup Discarding in the Fisheries of the Mid-Atlantic Bight) that was funded by the New Jersey Fisheries Information and Development Center, however, indicates that scup bycatch in these two small mesh fisheries has been virtually insignificant relative to other sources of scup mortality. In the study the researchers analyzed catch and landings data from all of the trawl fisheries in the region that targeted or caught scup. Quoting from their report’s abstract, “…high scup catches are already rare in these fisheries and the total contribution to yearly discard mortality of scup is not more than 11%.” They then go on to state that over 80% of scup discards are a result of sub-legal fish taken as bycatch in the scup and butterfish fisheries.

Two large areas which were prime fishing grounds for several multi-million dollar fisheries now have severe restrictions in place that for all intents and purposes are prohibiting their use by fishermen using traditional – and profitable – gear.

And there is no practical work-around. The Mid-Atlantic Council determined that small mesh nets with larger mesh “escape panels” would minimize the scup bycatch in the squid and hake fisheries. Thus, in order to reduce the otherwise devastating economic impact of the GRAs, the Mid-Atlantic Council recommended that the squid and hake fisheries would be open to boats employing such modified nets, as long as the fleet of such boats complied with Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP) observer standards, which require less – generally much less – than 100% observer coverage. However, NMFS disregarded the Council’s recommendation and is requiring 100% coverage. Any boat fishing in a GRA with a modified net must have an onboard observer, and must foot the bill for the observer as well. Each observer would cost $600/day. Making matters even worse – if that’s possible – reports are that neither have the administrative mechanisms been put in place nor are observers available for the fishery, and the fishing season is already well advanced.

So we have two very large chunks of ocean closed to boats that used to fish there to “protect” the scup fishery. We’ve got a gear modification that would allow those boats into these closed areas, but it’s highly unlikely that any of them could afford the 100% observer coverage that such access would require, and even if they could the fisheries management bureaucracy reportedly couldn’t accommodate them. And this is to restrict the scup bycatch in fisheries that research has shown have a negligible effect on the scup stocks. The fishermen – and the fisheries – certainly deserve better management than this.

Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Workshop for gillnet and lobster fishermen National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will be holding an informational workshop on the Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (LWTRP) at the Barnegat Light Volunteer Fire Company on Tenth Street and Central Ave. in Barnegat Light at 7pm Monday January 20th.

It’s not Omega-3 fatty acids???? – Research reported in the New York Times on December 25 (Small Amount of Fish in Diet Is Said to Yield Big Benefits, D.G. McNeil Jr.) raises questions about two of the most accepted beliefs concerning the health benefits of diets containing large amounts of fish. These are that omega 3 polyunsaturated fatty acids found in high levels in dark-fleshed, “oily” fish provide most of the health benefits, and that the more fish you eat, the better off you are. According to the article, a recent study by Dr. Ha Ke, a nutritionist at the Harvard School of Public Health that was released by the Journal of the American Medical Association found that “Men who eat seafood as seldom as once a month may cut their risk of the most common kind of stroke by more than 40 percent.… Many studies over the last two decades have found that eating fish reduces the risk of stroke and heart attack. What is surprising about this one is that it shows how little fish — one to three meals a month of virtually any fish or shellfish, like salmon sushi, tuna on rye, broiled lobster or McDonald's Filet-O-Fish — appears to produce the maximum benefit.” The article then cited another Harvard study that did show a progressive benefit to increasing fish consumption then continued “Dr. He's study also deepened a mystery that has flummoxed nutritionists: it was believed for years that fish wards off heart disease and stroke because it is rich in omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, and sales of fish oil capsules soared on this assumption. But this study, like other recent ones, found no definitive connection: fish with larger amounts of omega-3 fatty acids did not confer larger protection against stroke.”

Oil slicks from sunken tanker now threaten French coastline – “Gooey black oil from the sunken tanker Prestige blotched French beaches yesterday, as distraught locals awaited an armada of cleanup boats and workers. Seven weeks after the tanker snapped in half off the northwest Spanish coast, the worst slicks headed north toward neighboring France, which raced to limit the pollution…. Aerial footage showed about 15 oil slicks lurking within 50 miles of the French Atlantic coast, maritime officials said. With oil now smearing beaches running halfway up the coast, hotel owners fretted about the effect on tourism, a major source of income for the region.” (Spilled oil hits coast of France, Reuters/Philadelphia Inquirer, 01/05/02). The sinking of the Prestige and the continuing loss of oil from its sunken hulk were described on December 2 as “threatening to become one of the world's worst environmental catastrophes,” at the time “leaking an estimated 40-50 tons of oil every day.” (Spanish Oil Spill Threatens To Become One of History's Worst, Deutsche Presse-Agentur, http://www.hirehealth.com/ci/servlet/com.ci.news.DisplayNews?NEWS_ID=147423), yet the U.S. media and the U.S. “conservation” organizations have been uncharacteristically quiet about what is obviously an ongoing environmental disaster.

New Jersey commercial summer flounder seasonal quotas announced – NJDEP’s Division of Fish and Wildlife has announced the quotas/trip limits for 2003. The first “season” (starting on January 5 and tentatively remaining open until February 28) will have a 7,500 pound trip limit with a maximum of two landings allowed per week. Further information is available from the Bureau of Marine Fisheries at 609 746-2020 or 292-7794.

· Mid-Atlantic Council meeting on January 21 – 23 at the Trump Plaza in Atlantic City, NJ (609 441-2740)
· New England Council meeting on January 28 – 30 at the Marriott Courtyard in Portsmouth, New Hampshire (603 436 2121).
· New England Council Sea Scallop Advisory Panel meeting on January 8, Sea Scallop Oversight Committee meeting on January 9 & 10 at the Radisson Airport Hotel in Warwick, RI (401 739-3000)
· New Jersey Agricultural Convention on January 27 to 29 at the Taj Mahal in Atlantic City, NJ (800 825-8888) The Delegate’s Dinner is on the 28th.