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 34 Number 11
July 2007
Monkfish Defense Fund decries NMFS action
NEW YORK, NY – The Monkfish Defense Fund has requested a meeting with top National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) officials to communicate industry’s deep frustration over NMFS’s decision to take independent action on monkfish instead of implementing Framework Adjustment 4 to the federal monkfish plan.
Effective May 1, NMFS put in place the framework measures for the Northern Fishery Management Area but maintained the lesser 2006 target total allowable catch (TAC) and days-at-sea allocations for the Southern Fishery Management Area.
Furthermore, in what was a particularly big blow to many fishermen, the agency eliminated their ability to “carry over” unused days from 2006 to 2007.
Framework 4 was developed jointly by the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. However, saying it was concerned about the status of the resource, NMFS announced on March 20 that it was delaying its final decision on Framework 4 pending the release of a new stock assessment in July. In the meantime, the agency said it would implement temporary interim measures. The final interim rule was published April 27.
Fishermen throughout the Northeast – and especially in the heavily impacted southern area – were both stunned and outraged.
In a May 30 letter to NMFS Director Bill Hogarth, Monkfish Defense Fund President Marc Agger said, “This was done in a manner that showed complete disregard for process and the social impacts on people and businesses involved in the fishery.”
The Monkfish Defense Fund’s leadership team initially considered legal action. But, after discussing the matter, the group, which represents monkfish fishermen and dealers throughout the Northeast, opted to take a more diplomatic approach and request a candid sit-down with Hogarth, NMFS Chief Scientist Steve Murawski, and other key NMFS officials.
As of mid-June, the meeting had yet to take place due to scheduling complications but was expected to happen imminently.
Despite its decision not to sue, the Monkfish Defense Fund expressed serious concern that NMFS was “misusing its authority” under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to implement interim measures for “precautionary reasons” because the law only allows the agency to “take such action in emergency circumstances or to prevent overfishing.”
The group was particularly worried about the precedent the agency’s action could set for all fisheries if allowed to go unchecked, said group representatives.
Much to discuss
According to Monkfish Defense Fund spokesman Nils Stolpe, the group requested the meeting for several reasons.
“First, we want to express a significant amount of dissatisfaction with the process,” said Stolpe. “And then we also need to discuss the present condition of the fishery and future research needs.”
The Monkfish Defense Fund, which had lined up monkfish gillnetters and buyers to attend the meeting, especially wanted to talk about the status of cooperative research surveys aboard commercial fishing vessels.
Industry considers the NMFS bottom trawl survey to be “completely inadequate” when it comes to sampling monkfish. Over six years ago, it won support and congressional financing for monkfish-specific cooperative surveys.
The cooperative surveys are supposed to take place every three years. Following a pilot survey, the first full cooperative survey was conducted in 2001, followed by a second in 2004.
The third survey was supposed to happen in 2007 but was derailed due to congressional funding problems.
This has been particularly upsetting to southern area fishermen who are reporting high monkfish abundance and a healthy range of monkfish size classes, which is in direct contradiction to NMFS’s trawl survey findings.
“If we had done the cooperative survey this year, we wouldn’t be in this position,” said Stolpe. “We need to ensure that this survey happens on schedule.”
What happened
According to Monkfish Defense Fund representative Rick Marks of Robertson Monagle & Eastaugh in Washington, DC, industry thought the 2007 survey was a “go” after it had secured a $1.2 million congressional appropriation for the survey in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration budget.
But last fall, Congress, instead of signing off on a new budget, adopted a continuing resolution that didn’t allow for new items. Furthermore, Congress put an end to earmarks, which is what the survey funding fell under.
“We needed to be on the water in February, March, and April,” said Marks. “We had no time to readjust.”
Marks said the Monkfish Defense Fund was already working hard to gain support for a $1.25 million congressional appropriation for fiscal year 2008.
“That’s become even more crucial now that we’ve lost out on 2007,” he said.
In addition to in-house contributions, NMFS used money from the Marine Fisheries Initiative Program – known as MARFIN – and fishery disaster relief funds for the 2001 survey. In 2004, the NMFS budget contained a line item for the survey.
“No additional funds have been allocated to us for a third survey since that time,” said Teri Frady, chief of research communications at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center.
Fishermen are convinced that future cooperative research surveys are essential given the upcoming transition between the Albatross IV and NMFS’s new trawl survey vessel, the Henry B. Bigelow.
“We need to do comparison tows between the two vessels and properly assimilate the Bigelow,” said Marks.
However, many fishermen worry that NMFS won’t have time to conduct an appropriate number of trials before the Bigelow is pressed into full service.
Councils react
So for now, the Monkfish Defense Fund is anxiously awaiting the results of the July monkfish assessment, which will incorporate previously unused data from the 2004 cooperative research survey.
“We’re hopeful the agency will expedite the results of that assessment and impose a new rule in August,” said Marks.
Many want that new rule to be Framework Adjustment 4.
NMFS’s decision to take interim action not only riled up industry, it drew strong words from both the New England and Mid-Atlantic councils and a couple of prominent New Jersey senators.
In a letter to NMFS, the New England council called the decision “disturbing and disappointing,” especially “since there was no indication at any time during the development, review, and decision phases on the framework documents that the agency had such significant concerns.”
The Mid-Atlantic council went further, with Chairman Pete Jensen calling the interim rulemaking a circumvention of the council process that lacked supporting documentation and analyses.
“Rebuilding of the monkfish stocks to biomass target levels is in the interest and duty of everyone involved in the monkfish fishery,” Jensen said. “However, the means by which we arrive at that goal is also important.”
Calling the councils’ approach a “good-faith effort to put into place analytically supported management measures,” Jensen added, “The council process was established to allow fishery participants and any other interested citizens to participate in a transparent fishery management system.”
As for future actions, Jensen said, “We beseech NMFS to be more forthcoming with its concerns.”
Congress
Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ), in their own letter to Hogarth, also conveyed support for Framework 4 over NMFS’s interim action.
Furthermore, the two senators expressed strong support for the continuation of cooperative research surveys.
“The data from the monkfish-specific surveys have answered numerous management questions in the past, and we now need to conduct a third survey in 2008 to effectively manage this stock beyond 2010,” said Lautenberg and Menendez.
“We hope you will continue to fully support the cooperative survey to secure the best scientific information possible to manage the East Coast monkfish resource,” they said.
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
