Catch the latest news from Talking Fish, the blog brought to you by CLF and others that is focused on the scientific, financial and social aspects at work in New England’s fisheries.

June 18: “Center for American Progress: Fish on Fridays: The (Nonsensical) Politics of Fisheries Funding,” by Talking Fish

June 21: “Sounding out on fish assessment technology,” by Peter Shelley

Catch the latest news from Talking Fish, the blog brought to you by CLF and others that is focused on the scientific, financial and social aspects at work in New England’s fisheries.

July 1: “Federal judge puts an end to judicial fishing season for Amendment 16,” by Peter Shelley

June 30: “Overfishing 101: How Science Helps Managers End Overfishing and Rebuild Depleted Stock Populations,” by Lee Crockett

“New England’s listening session on the National Ocean Policy was this week – how did fishing factor into the conversation?” by Talking Fish

June 29: “The Catch of Climate Change: What is Ocean Acidification?” by Nancy Shrodes

New Bedford Harbor. Photo credit: brixton, flickr

Yesterday, in a ruling by the Massachusetts District Court in a lawsuit by the City of New Bedford and others challenging the legality of the fishing regulations known as Amendment 16 , Judge Rya Zobel denied the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment in the case, upholding the regulations. CLF intervened in the case in September 2010 on the side of the Federal government. CLF’s motion and the government’s motion for summary judgment were allowed, terminating the case. Read CLF’s complete press statement >

In response, CLF’s Peter Shelley reflected on the decision’s significance in the commercial fishing industry in a blog post published in Talking Fish, the blog developed by CLF and others that focuses on fisheries management issues in New England. Shelley wrote:

Federal judge Rya Zobel was talking fish recently when she declared an end to the judicial fishing season for Amendment 16, terminating the two suits brought by the Cities of New Bedford and Gloucester and a variety of commercial fishing interests from Massachusetts and the mid-Atlantic. Judge Zobel’s ruling, while it may yet be appealed to a higher court by the plaintiffs, puts to bed several issues that have been floating around New England’s groundfish for several years.

First, the decision strengthens the role of the New England Fishery Management Council and NMFS in their critical planning process by emphasizing that the “Agency’s informed conclusion, reached at Congress’ express direction after an extended and formal administrative process” effectively binds the reviewing court’s hands under well-established principles of law. By  emphasizing this point, the Court made clear that the plan development process through the Council was where attention should be paid by all interested parties and that the courts were not available to second guess management planning decisions. Many saw New Bedford’s and Gloucester’s legal action as a thinly disguised effort at an end run around the council. Fortunately, it hasn’t paid off. Keep reading on Talking Fish >

Background on Amendment 16

This amendment, part of the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan, establishes science-based annual catch limits for cod, haddock, flounder and other groundfish as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act to end overfishing in U.S. waters. Amendment 16 also creates a voluntary sector system for the New England groundfish fishery. CLF has been in support of Amendment 16 since its inception, reasoning that the new regulations allow fishermen to increase their profits while leaving more fish in the ocean, which is particularly important for species such as the Atlantic cod, which have been dangerously overfished in previous decades. Read more on CLF’s involvement with Amendment 16 and fisheries management issues in New England >

Photo credit: Aquanic.org

Catch the latest news from Talking Fish, the blog brought to you by CLF and others that is focused on the scientific, financial and social aspects at work in New England’s fisheries.

June 24: “Farewell to Pat Kurkul,” by Peter Shelley

June 23: “Update from Downeast on Fish Banks,” by Peter Shelley

June 21: “Fishing Banks: The state of play in New England,” by Peter Shelley

June 17: “Talking Fish urges Senator Brown to spend time fixing current problems instead of rehashing old complaints,” by Talking Fish

This Saturday, June 25, thousands of people from all across the world will take part in an event known as “Hands Across the Sand” by taking a trip to their local beach and joining hands with friends, neighbors and total strangers to send a message to our leaders—no to expanded offshore oil drilling and yes to clean energy. Last year more than 100,000 people took part in this event in all 50 states and in 43 countries around the world.

This year’s Hands Across the Sand could not come at a more important time and that is why CLF has joined as a sponsor of the event. With memories of the BP Horizon disaster fading from the public memory, and gas prices hovering around $4 a gallon, the oil industry and their allies in Congress are mounting a major effort to dramatically expand oil drilling in US waters. They are even bringing back a proposal that seemed unthinkable a year ago—oil drilling on New England’s Georges Bank, one of the richest fisheries on earth. The truly scary part is that Big Oil is making progress. In Washington DC the House of Representatives recently passed 3 bills that would have required a massive expansion of offshore drilling, and a recent poll shows that public support for drilling is on the rise as gas prices tick up.

The drilling bill was rejected in the US Senate (no thanks to Senator Scott Brown) but the threat of oil rigs in New England’s waters remain a very real possibility, threatening New England’s critical fishing, tourism and outdoor recreation industries which employ tens of thousands and sustainably generate far more revenue than oil drilling ever could.

There is an old saying that if you give a man a fish he will eat for a day but if you teach a man to fish he will eat for the rest of his life. Drilling in New England might create a few jobs years down the road for as long as the oil lasts, but we would be risking far more jobs in other ocean industries such as fishing. However by improving the health of our oceans and fisheries, and promoting the responsible development of renewable energy, we will create jobs that last for generations to come.

That is why this Saturday CLF is joining with the Gloucester Fishermen’s Wives Association to sponsor a Hands Across the Sand event at noon this Saturday, June 25^th on Pavilion Beach in Gloucester. Environmentalists, fishermen and beachgoers will all be there to join hands and say no to offshore drilling and yes to a clean, renewable energy future and yes to healthy oceans and the jobs they support. I hope you can join us in Gloucester but if you can’t make it, click here to find an event near you.

P.S. If you need another reason to come, the Gloucester Hands Across the Sand event will coincide with the annual Saint Peter’s Fiesta so you can speak out for our ocean and have a great time in Gloucester too!

Major voices in the New England Fishing community speak up in support of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) in this letter to SeafoodSource (a fishing industry website):

The oceans provide food for the world. As fishermen, growers, employers, and participants in the seafood industry, we are gravely concerned about the silent toll that ocean acidification has begun to take on marine resources. Seafood supplies, and our jobs and businesses, depend on healthy oceans.

That’s why we support continuation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). RGGI helps to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from large power plants in the 10 states from Maryland to Maine.

These emissions don’t just foul the air. They mix into the oceans and increase the acidity of seawater. More than 30 billion tons of CO2 poured from the world’s tailpipes, smokestacks and cleared lands in 2009, mostly from burning coal, oil, and gas. In seawater the CO2 forms carbonic acid. The acid depletes the ocean’s rich soup of nutrients that support shellfish, corals, many plankton species and the marine food webs that underpin the world’s seafood supply.

(more…)

The Science and Statistical Committee (SSC) of the New England Fisheries Management Council met yesterday and today in Boston to review the report developed by the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Institute (MFI) in support of Governor Patrick’s request to the U.S. Department of Commerce for emergency relief for Massachusetts fishermen. The MFI report concluded that recent fishery management actions had produced losses on the order of $21 million dollars for Massachusetts fishermen and that catch limits could be raised without compromising the health of the fish populations or the conservation objectives of the management plan.

The SSC is a distinguished, international panel of scientists, some of whom have been assessing fish populations in New England for decades. Specifically, the SSC was asked to review several positions taken by the MFI report:

1.      Whether the methodologies used to calculate the biological reference points and the catch limits represented the best available science;

2.      Whether the methodology chosen to set catch limits resulted in an overly conservative approach because of “double counting” of scientific uncertainty;

3.      Whether there were other aspects of the fish modeling, such as the presence of so-called “retrospective patterns” in the models,  that resulted in overly cautious adjustments of the catch recommendations;

4.      Whether there were any recommendations for additional information that could be used in the future to improve the assessment process.

The SSC did not agree with any of the science-related assertions in the MFI report. In their discussion, they noted a number of places where the conclusions were based on faulty premises or ignored widely recognized issues that the scientists who had developed the original catch limit recommendations had addressed when they set the limits.

They concluded that the stock assessment and catch specification process was fully consistent with best scientific practices, that there was no “double counting” of uncertainty or risk, and that the annual catch limits could not be increased without increasing, in some cases significantly, the risk of meeting the conservation objectives of the New England Council and the federal statute that controls harvest, the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

In their brief economic review, the SSC rejected the analysis and conclusions from the MFI report. Aside from noting that it was questionable to draw economic or social conclusions from a new management plan that had only been in effect for six months, the SSC noted that the report misrepresented $21 million of theoretical losses as actual losses and did not account for the revenues from the numerous other species that groundfishermen pursue in addition to the groundfish species. A number of SSC members also indicated that comparisons to the 2009 fishing year were not proper since the scientists had all concluded that the 2009 catch limits were set significantly too high for many species. The SSC agreed by and large that the economics of the new fishery plan looked positive for the first year, and provided no evidence of an economic crisis.

The SSC did acknowledge that there was always room for improvement in fish stock assessments and that additional research on both the assessment methodologies and a range of social and economic effects should be considered in the future.

The MFI report has now been rejected as a basis for emergency action or even immediate reconsideration of existing harvest levels by the Department of Commerce, a national scientific meeting of fisheries experts, and by the New England SSC.  It is time to move on and focus on continuing to improve the management system in New England so that we can restore healthy fish populations that support thriving and diverse regional fishing communities as quickly as practicable.

Atlantic cod

CLF has been working for twenty years to end overfishing in New England and to rebuild the imperiled fish populations that are the foundation of our regional fishing future. The New England fishing industry was subsidized to grow so big that its capacity to catch fish exceeded the capacity of the ocean to produce fish, and historic lows of fish populations (determined using data that span many generations) were reached in the mid-1990s. Since that time, the struggle to re-balance fishing effort with natural reproduction levels has been economically painful, and with few viable, options many fishermen have been forced out of the business or into other fisheries.

We at CLF see some light at the end of the rebuilding tunnel now. Fish populations are coming back, and in some cases, like haddock, they are fully rebuilt. Others, such as Atlantic cod, won’t be fully rebuilt until 2026, but they are gaining ground. The most recent fishery management plan, Amendment 16, helps ensure the continuation of this rebuilding trend. This plan is being legally challenged by New Bedford and Gloucester and some others. CLF is for the first time intervening in a court action on behalf of the government to defend this management plan, which ends overfishing, establishes enforceable quotas on fishing, and offers new flexibility to fishermen in how and when they fish.

CLF is not alone in our optimism that Amendment 16 finally is creating a future for the fishing industry. For an interesting perspective from one of Congress’s great ocean champions, former Representative Tom Allen, read this op-ed he authored in the Portland Press Herald. In his writing, Tom displays the vision, the compassion, and the judgment that convinced his constituents to send him back to Congress time after time. He offers a different perspective on the doom-and-gloom that occupies much of the slanted reporting that some local papers have been carrying.

In arguments made today before Federal Judge Rya W. Zobel on the federal lawsuit regarding the New England fisheries management system known as Amendment 16, Conservation Law Foundation senior counsel Peter Shelley defended the process in which the new rules were developed and agreed upon at the New England Fishery Management Council and re-affirmed CLF’s support for the Amendment.

Shelley stated, “This lawsuit is not so much about the specific merits of Amendment 16, but more about the integrity of the process by which the new rules were developed and vetted and set into motion. The process, which involved all of the fishing interests, including some who today decry it and the outcome it produced, was fair, rational and legal. New Bedford’s interests were directly represented in those lengthy deliberations and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts participated actively in both the Amendment 16 science decision-making and the policy development. This is the New England Council’s plan, not a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) plan.”

“CLF supports the Council’s approval of Amendment 16 not because it is perfect, but because it represents a reasonable decision, reached after an extended transparent public debate that reasonably meets the Magnuson Stevens Act and National Environmental Policy Act requirements while attempting to provide additional flexibility for fishermen in the region to fish more efficiently and profitably if they want to. The related issues of consolidation and fairness in access to fish are on the Council’s plate now and should be carefully analyzed and debated.”

After the hearing, Shelley observed, “What we have learned over the past fifteen years is that strong and effective management of this important public resource, coupled with some degree of luck with Mother Nature, can restore fish populations to high levels and support a vital and stable domestic fishing industry. Amendment 16 is designed to accomplish that objective and is consistent with the Magnuson Act.”

Read the text of Peter’s full argument here.