The fishing port of Gloucester (Photo credit: NOAA)

The letter was written in response to politicians’ calls for the dismantling of the sector system for the groundfish fishery, a management system that went into effect in May 2010 and has been lambasted ever since by a small vocal minority of fishermen. While critics of sector management frame the system as if it puts New England’s iconic groundfish fishery in danger of being controlled by only a few colossal corporate boats, the letter reminds the delegation that the entire groundfish fleet in New England is a small business fleet. There are some bigger small businesses and some smaller small businesses, but there is no danger of takeover by factory ships or foreign fleets. The small business owners who signed this letter say that the politicians are putting their well-being at risk by calling for the overturn of the sector system.

These boat owners were likely appreciative of the Massachusetts delegation’s intent in trying to intervene on the industry’s behalf. But in the letter, they demonstrate that they are of one mind that the new sector system is one they can work with, that they want to work with. The outcomes they have been fighting for–stability, profitability, and flexibility–are what groundfish sectors are all about. Almost no one who fished under the old days-at-sea management system wants to return to that failed program.

There are still many groundfish management problems facing the New England Council, and Congress could certainly help resolve them by securing funding to improve fisheries data collection, stock assessments, gear research and development, and to cover the cost of on-board monitors. Senator Kerry has introduced important legislation that may well help support these needed initiatives, and it would be nice to see thoughtful discussion and action on these real needs in Congress.

The message of the unequivocal and unprecedented fishing industry letter sent yesterday is that the problems of the few in the fishery should not be used to paint the management system as fundamentally flawed. With this letter, a diverse group of fishermen publicly defended the sector system and implicitly pushed back strongly against both those who have attempted to repeal it through lawsuits and those Congressional offices that have sought to politicize the fishery. If Washington ends up breaking the regionally-designed sector program by its interventions, then Washington will own the results.  But for these fishermen, New England is on the right course. Again, amen.

August 2: “Fish Talk in the News – Tuesday, August 2,” by Talking Fish

August 5: “Overfishing 101: A big fish story we should take seriously,” by Lee Crockett

For more Talking Fish posts, visit www.talkingfish.org.

July 25: “Healthy Fish Populations = More Money in the Forecast; Overfishing = at least $149 million in losses for 2009,” by Talking Fish

July 28: “The Catch of Climate Change: Increased OA and Temperatures Could Directly Impact New England Fisheries and Revenues,” by Nancy Shrodes

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

July 7: “The Catch of Climate Change: OA Presents a Threat to Fisheries,” by Nancy Shrodes

July 5: “New England Fishery Science is Top Notch,” by Jud Crawford, Ph.D.

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 >

Original photo: William Hyler

If you read CLF Scoop or follow fishery management news through other means, you know that since last May, the New England fishing industry has undergone its most significant changes in 30 years. The introduction of the new “sector” management system and new rules for harvesting groundfish like cod, haddock and flounder have been highly controversial in this region and beyond, and never before has a dialogue been more needed to help ensure that New England’s fishermen and the resources they rely upon continue to thrive. While we blog about these issues on the Scoop from time to time, we felt it was important to create a space dedicated to carrying out this dialogue—a forum where science and data meet ideas and experience in an informed, respectful and lively conversation. Today, we invite you to join that conversation at www.talkingfish.org.

At Talking Fish, we will present a wide range of news and views from scientists, researchers, economists, academics, environmental advocates, fishermen, resource managers, foodies and journalists. Our hope is to build a community with a shared goal of a prosperous and sustainable fishing industry and an abundant, diverse fish population for generations to come. We’ll continue to keep our Scoop readers up to date on fisheries management in New England, but we hope that those of you who are interested in delving into these issues further will become frequent readers of www.talkingfish.org as well.

Join us as we Talk Fish by:

• Going to www.talkingfish.org to read, comment, or subscribe to Talking Fish via e-mail or RSS
• Liking us on Facebook
• Following us on Twitter
• Dropping us a line at editor@talkingfish.org

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.