COMMERCE
Subscriber Services
Classified Ads
Subscribe
Advertise
NEWS
This Month
Editorial
Letters
F/V Safety
Past Issues
ABOUT US
Contact Us
Latest Issue
Subscribe
History
MORE CONTENT
CFN Archives
Links
Each month exclusively in the PRINT edition of CFN
Along the Coast
Ask the Lobster Doc
Bearin’s
Classifieds
Coming Events
Editorial
Enforcement Report
FISH SAFE
Fleet Additions
Letters
Lobster Market Report
New Boats
News Catch
Quahog Market Report
|
Commercial Fisheries News
Volume 35 Number 4
December 2007
Disaster: NMFS needs to take another look
On Oct. 22, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) declared that there was “no fishery disaster in the Northeast for groundfishermen.” That must have come as news to the hundreds of fishermen who are bound so tightly by area closures, reduced quotas, and days-at-sea cuts that it’s becoming difficult – if not impossible – for them to leave the dock.
The no-disaster finding also could not have been more shocking to state officials in Massachusetts, Maine, and Rhode Island. The governors of those states had requested the disaster designation in support of members of Congress who were seeking a $30-million emergency aid appropriation to help prevent a full-scale collapse, not of the fish but of the New England groundfish industry.
During a surreal teleconference call held to announce the finding, NMFS Director Bill Hogarth and other top agency officials explained that groundfish stocks were rebuilding and there had been “some increases in fishing revenue.”
According to NMFS, the most recent stock assessment showed spawning stock biomass was up in 14 out of 18 groundfish stocks. “Total cod” was up 36%, Georges Bank haddock was up more than 500%, and Georges Bank yellowtail flounder was up 209% in the last decade.
While saying NMFS understood that New England groundfish fishermen “have experienced some economic difficulty,” Hogarth maintained, “There is reason to believe we are turning a corner.”
So, the agency concluded that, under section 312(a)(1)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), there was no fishery resource disaster and, consequently, there was no commercial fishery failure.
Many fishermen do report seeing much more fish. The problem is that they aren’t allowed to keep very much of it due to extremely low trip limits, reduced days-at-sea, area closures, and a host of other limits. Furthermore, stocks that haven’t improved still drive the groundfish management system and will continue to do so for years to come. As a result, many fishermen cannot access even healthy stocks. And unless they get some relief from crippling restrictions, they will not survive financially long enough to be here when and if all stocks can be rebuilt simultaneously to target levels.
Also disturbing is that NMFS admitted it had no standardized criteria on which to base its no-disaster decision. There is no specific percentage of economic loss that qualifies as a disaster. And, according to NMFS, there is no appeal process.
US Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and other members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation have demanded NMFS reconsider its finding. They pointed out that the agency declared a disaster 13 years ago when the weight of groundfish landings was more than twice as high as it is today.
US Reps. Tom Allen (D-ME) and Mike Michaud (D-ME) also expressed outrage at the finding when the number of boats in Maine’s groundfish fleet has decreased by half since 1994 and the state’s groundfish revenues dropped by 25% in 2005-2006.
In response to criteria questions, NMFS has said that it intends to begin a rule-making in 2008 to define the disaster determination section of the MSA.
That may be a step in the right direction but it makes it even more difficult to understand what point NMFS was trying to make with its big announcement that there was no economic disaster in the New England groundfish fishery. Unless reconsidered and overturned, the finding can only leave its constituents believing now more than ever that NMFS is completely out of touch with the people it regulates. /cfn/
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
