[Senate Hearing 106-1106]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-1106
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MAGNUSON-
STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND
MANAGEMENT ACT
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS AND FISHERIES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 10, 2000
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
80-304 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
SLADE GORTON, Washington JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi Virginia
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada
BILL FRIST, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan RON WYDEN, Oregon
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MAX CLELAND, Georgia
Mark Buse, Republican Staff Director
Martha P. Allbright, Republican General Counsel
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director
Moses Boyd, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS AND FISHERIES
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
SLADE GORTON, Washington DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 10, 2000................................... 1
Statement of Senator Kerry....................................... 4
Statement of Senator Snowe....................................... 1
Statement of Senator Stevens..................................... 7
Witnesses
Barrett, Edward, Commercial Fisherman, Marshfield, MA............ 102
Bennett, Paul E., Commercial Fisherman, Red Devil Fish and
Lobster Co., Inc., Middletown, RI.............................. 122
Prepared statement........................................... 122
Bland, Will, General Manager, Little Bay Lobster Co.............. 126
Prepared statement........................................... 126
Bourquet, Mr..................................................... 104
Calomo, Vito J., Executive Director, Gloucester Fisheries
Commission..................................................... 102
Chaprales, Bill, Commercial Fisherman............................ 125
Cunningham, C.M. ``Rip'', Publisher of Salt Water Sportsman
Magazine, and Chairman, American Sportfishing Association's
Saltwater Government Affairs Committee......................... 51
Prepared statement........................................... 53
Dalton, Penelope D., Assistant Administrator, and Patricia
Kurkul, Northeast Regional Administrator, National Marine
Fisheries Service.............................................. 9
Dauphinee, Mr.................................................... 133
Didreksen, Harriet, President, Sub-S Corporation................. 130
Prepared statement........................................... 130
Ferrante, Ms..................................................... 127
Freeland, Richard, President, Northeastern University............ 8
Hayden, Anne, Resource Services, Gulf of Maine Fisheries Research
Collaborative.................................................. 127
Prepared statement........................................... 127
Hill, Tom R., Chairman, New England Fishery Management Council... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Hopkins, Doug, on Behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund....... 103
Mattera, Fred, Commercial Fisherman.............................. 133
Mayhew, Jonathan, Fisherman, Martha's Vineyard, MA............... 123
McCaffrey, James Bryan, Director, Massachusetts Sierra Club...... 134
Prepared statement........................................... 135
Mirarchi, Frank, Commercial Fisherman and Vessel Owner........... 72
Prepared statement........................................... 74
Mooney-Seus, Marjorie, Manager, Conservation Department, New
England Aquarium............................................... 82
Prepared statement........................................... 84
Musiol, Richard, Spokesperson for Senator Therese Murray,
Plymouth and Barnstable State Senate District.................. 99
Naccara, Rear Admiral George, Commander of the First Coast Guard
District, Boston, MA........................................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
O'Malley, James D., Executive Director, East Coast Fisheries
Federation, Inc................................................ 105
Prepared statement........................................... 105
Orlando, Joe, Fisherman, Gloucester, MA.......................... 101
Palombo, William R., Palombo Fishing Corp., Newport, RI.......... 120
Prepared statement........................................... 121
Parker, Paul, Executive Director, Cape Cod Commercial Hook
Fishermen's Association........................................ 46
Prepared statement........................................... 48
Phillips, Ron, President, Coastal Enterprises.................... 137
Prybot, Mr., Commercial Fisherman, Cape Ann, MA.................. 99
Randazzo, Antonio, Commercial Fisherman, Gloucester, MA.......... 102
Rothschild, Dr. Brian, Dean of the Graduate School and Director,
Center for Marine Science and Technology, University of
Massachusetts Dartmouth........................................ 76
Prepared statement........................................... 78
Sanfilippo, Angela, President, Gloucester Fishermen's Wives
Association.................................................... 60
Prepared statement........................................... 63
Scola, Mr., Fisherman............................................ 133
Sherman, Russell, Treasurer, Gulf of Maine Fishermen's Alliance.. 38
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Skaar, Ellen, Fishermen's Ad Hoc Committee....................... 132
Spencer, David, Spencer Fish and Lobster, Jamestown, RI.......... 122
Prepared statement........................................... 123
Spinazzola, Bonnie, Executive Director, Atlantic Off-Shore
Lobstermen's Association....................................... 125
Prepared statement........................................... 125
Sullivan, Dr. Patrick, Professor, Department of Natural
Resources, Cornell University.................................. 80
Prepared statement........................................... 81
Tarr, Hon. Bruce, Massachusetts State Senator.................... 97
Thomas, Matthew, on Behalf of Frederick Kalisz, Mayor of the City
of New Bedford, MA............................................. 94
Prepared statement of Frederick Kalisz....................... 96
Tobey, Mayor, Gloucester, MA..................................... 94
Weiss, Peter, President, General Category Tuna Association....... 56
Prepared statement........................................... 58
Appendix
Birknes, Jr., John A., Fishermen's Ad Hoc Committee, letter dated
April 18, 2000, to Hon. Olympia J. Snowe....................... 139
Buchsbaum, Robert, Ph.D., Coastal Ecologist, Massachusetts
Audubon Society, letter dated April 10, 2000, to Hon. Olympia
J. Snowe....................................................... 140
Donofrio, James A., Executive Director, Recreational Fishing
Alliance, prepared statement................................... 141
Enoksen, Ronald, Eastern Fisheries, Inc., New Bedford, MA,
prepared statement............................................. 142
Phillips, Ronald L., President, Coastal Enterprises Inc.,
prepared statement............................................. 143
Roach, David K., Executive Director, Florida Inland Navigation
District, Jupiter, FL, prepared statement...................... 144
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. John Kerry to:
Dr. Brian Rothschild......................................... 146
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe
to:
Rip Cunningham............................................... 147
Penelope D. Dalton........................................... 148
Tom Hill..................................................... 149
Frank Mirarchi............................................... 154
Marjorie Mooney-Seus......................................... 155
Rear Admiral George Naccara.................................. 157
Paul Parker.................................................. 159
Dr. Brian Rothschild......................................... 162
Angela Sanfilippo............................................ 163
Russell Sherman.............................................. 165
Dr. Patrick Sullivan......................................... 166
Peter Weiss.................................................. 167
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MAGNUSON-
STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT
----------
MONDAY, APRIL 10, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Boston, MA.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. at
Curry Student Center, Northeastern University, Boston,
Massachusetts, Hon. Olympia Snowe, Chairman of the
Subcommittee, presiding.
Staff members assigned to this hearing: Sloan Rappoport,
Republican Counsel; Stephanie Bailenson, Republican
Professional Staff; and Margaret Spring, Democratic Senior
Counsel.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE
Senator Snowe. Thank you. Thank you very much, President
Freeland, for all the courtesies extended by you, your staff
and officials here at Northeastern University. We certainly
appreciate it on behalf of the Subcommittee. I also want you to
know my niece graduated from Northeastern four years ago and
had a magnificent, positive experience here. Thank you again on
behalf of the Subcommittee for hosting this event.
The hearing will now come to order. Good morning. I want to
begin by welcoming all of you this morning and thanking Senator
Kerry, in particular, for inviting the Subcommittee to Boston
to discuss the future of New England and our nation's
fisheries.
Senator Kerry has been a major voice on fisheries issues
during his distinguished career throughout the U.S. Senate.
During the last reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
Senator Kerry wrote many of the major provisions which were
ultimately enacted in the Sustainable Fisheries Act. I'm
looking forward to working with Senator Kerry as we move
forward in a bipartisan manner to reintroduce this legislation.
Hopefully we will reauthorize it and create consensus to
support the future of our nation's fisheries.
It's also a great honor to have Senator Stevens with us.
This is the third Oceans and Fisheries field hearing this year
and he has been to each one. It's no exaggeration to say that
there's no member of the House or Senate who has more of an
impact on fisheries policy in the United States than Senator
Stevens. He quite literally wrote the book. He was the driving
force behind the original enactment of this legislation, and he
served as the first chair of this Subcommittee. We're very
privileged to have him here today and for the enormous
contributions that he has made over the years.
Finally, let me welcome all of our witnesses who agreed to
join us this morning. We appreciate your willingness to share
your insights with the Subcommittee. This is the sixth and
final hearing to be held by the Subcommittee as part of an
exhaustive review of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its
implementation by the administration.
The enactment of the Fishery Conservation and Management
Act of 1976 began a new approach to Federal fisheries
management. As you all know, the Act is administered by the
National Marine Fisheries Service and the eight regional
management Councils. Their actions establish the rules under
which the fishing industry operates. They determine the harvest
quota, season lengths, gear restrictions, and license
limitations--decisions which have serious implications for
those of you who fish and work in New England. That is why
difficult management decisions cannot be made in a vacuum.
You're the ones whose livelihoods are at stake. Your voices
must be heard in the decision-making process. As such it is
critical that all sectors of the fishing community receive fair
and balanced representation so that they will have a strong
voice in management.
Throughout the process we have sought answers to some very
critical questions. What are the results of our Federal
fisheries legislation? What's working? What needs improvement?
What do you, as people on the front lines, believe is important
for the future? Already we have heard from fishermen in my own
state of Maine, Louisiana, Alaska, and Washington to discuss
proposed changes to the Act.
Clearly, fishing is critical to many states and the Nation
as a whole. In 1998 commercial landings by U.S. fishermen were
over 9.2 billion pounds of fish and shellfish worth $3.1
billion. The recreational fishing catch was 195 million pounds.
As you well know, fishing in New England is more than a job;
it's a way of life. It's an essential component of who we are
as well as our economy.
In 1998, New England fishermen landed over 595 million
pounds worth of fish, worth over $535 million. Maine and
Massachusetts split the top honors, with Maine leading the
value of the catch at $216 million and the Bay State leading in
volume with 252 million pounds. New Bedford is at the top of
the list in terms of the value of the catch, and last year's
landings were worth over $93 million. Gloucester, which landed
107 million pounds, also provides a major source of revenues
and jobs through the fishing industry.
While in many regions commercial and recreational fisheries
are strong and robust, others have not fared as well. Such is
the case with the New England groundfish. There's no question
that when fish stocks have declined, communities in those
regions feel the weight of the economic impact. Rebuilding
groundfish stocks has consumed much of the New England
Council's time over the past few years, and it will continue to
present significant challenges in the future. Therefore, it is
imperative that the socioeconomic impacts on fishing
communities be given adequate consideration throughout the
entire process. It is vital that management decisions, which
have a direct effect on you, your families, and your
communities, are based on the best science--not just the best
available science.
That is why I am working with Senator Kerry to establish
cooperative research programs that will provide us with the
additional tools necessary to improve fisheries management in
New England. That, after all, is what the reauthorization
process is all about. We have been examining ways to bring
about healthy fisheries as well as healthy fishing communities.
Some common themes have emerged at our hearings that need to be
addressed if we are to achieve this goal.
First and foremost, as you all know, the moratorium on new
individual transferable quotas, or ITQs, will expire in less
than six months on October 1st. We need the New England
perspective. We need to know whether or not to extend the
moratorium, and whether or not ITQs can work.
At some of our other field hearings witnesses asked us to
examine the use of co-ops and buy-backs as means to reduce
capacity. We need to hear if these, or other alternatives,
could work in New England.
Second, flexibility is a broader issue with major
consequences. Clearly, those most affected by the law believe
it is too rigid, that it's not properly implemented by NMFS,
that there has not been adequate consideration of the
socioeconomic impacts, and that--contrary to its mandate--the
best science is not being used.
To help us assess how NMFS has handled some of these
requirements, Senator Breaux and I asked the General Accounting
Office to conduct an investigation. In fact, the report was
released last week. I know many of you spoke with the GAO in
New Bedford and Fairhaven this past September. This report will
help clarify what changes, if any, are necessary to make sure
that NMFS fulfills its mandates.
I'm convinced that if the law is not made more flexible the
agency will continue to act to the detriment of fishing
communities across the country. Hopefully I will be able to
introduce a bill with Senator Kerry and Senator Stevens that
will go a long way toward making your government work for you
and with you, not against you.
Moreover, we must look at ways to improve the Council
process. Those of you who have actively participated know that
it requires a great deal of time and effort. I'd like to see if
there's a way to reward that work with good results, not with
delays and frustrations.
As we move forward in this process, we must make sure that
sustainable fishing and good management become the norm and not
the exception. Clearly, the reauthorization will have major
implications for the future of marine fisheries in the United
States. I view this as a unique opportunity to take what we've
learned and craft a sensible and balanced approach that
respects all sides. Many of you have urged us not to do another
major overhaul of the Act at this time. You've pointed to
significant changes that were made in 1996 and that NMFS and
the Council are required to implement. It is with your
suggestions that we will be able to decide what changes are
necessary to make the Act work better for you.
I hope to have draft legislation by the end of this month
and move forward to reauthorize this legislation in June.
Hopefully we can work together in a bipartisan manner to
incorporate all of your changes and suggestions and develop the
best approach possible for the future of our nation's
fisheries.
With that, let me recognize Senator Kerry for any opening
statement he may want to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Kerry. Senator Snowe, Madam Chairman, thank you
very, very much for being here, for your words, but also more
importantly for your sustained commitment to the issues that we
face here, and I'm very, very appreciative for your taking the
time to come here and give our folks in Massachusetts, indeed
New England, an opportunity to be heard more thoroughly with
respect to these issues. You've done a wonderful job of
traveling around the country and listening. These are tough
issues, we all know that; we've been dealing with them for a
long time. I think these hearings are a critical part of the
process of building consensus on what the large issues with the
Act are. The hearings are time consuming, they're tough, and I
know how difficult it is to be able to conduct them all. So
we're very appreciative.
Senator Stevens, likewise, I echo what Senator Snowe said
in her comments. I've been on this Committee now for 16 years,
and it has been a privilege working with Senator Stevens every
step of the way. He is by far one of the most knowledgeable and
best advocates in the Congress for sustainable fisheries and
for the marine environment, and it's no accident that the
legislation we are discussing today is now known as the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. We're honored that you're here, and we're
appreciative for all you've done.
Also, I want to thank Penny Dalton who helped write a lot
of this law when she was on the Committee and continues to
exert leadership on these issues in her position as director of
National Marine Fisheries Service. Admiral Naccara, thank you
very much for being here to share your expertise and help us
understand the resources and the commitments necessary for the
Coast Guard to carry out its missions under the Sustainable
Fisheries Act. To all of you who are here from the industry or
from science or the public side of the policymaking, we really
do welcome you. This is a great opportunity just to listen and
have a dialogue with us and others interested in these issues,
and not to just talk at each other. We really welcome that
opportunity.
I'm very pleased that we're here at Northeastern. It is a
terrific university, as everybody knows. It's an appropriate
place for us to be talking about these kinds of issues because
of Northeastern's commitment to sensible approaches to public
policy issues, and its understanding of the problems of working
people's needs as they adjust to the rapid changes that we face
in our marketplace today. Nowhere do they do a better job of
helping people do this than here at Northeastern. And I'm very
grateful to President Freeland for his welcome, and to Tom
Keedy, for helping to facilitate our being here today.
Let me just try to focus very quickly on a couple of
things, building on what the Chairman has said. We in the
United States harvested 3.1 billion dollars of fishing product
in 1998, the last year we have the stats for. That's 9.2
billion pounds of seafood. By weight that ranked us as fifth
largest fishing nation in the world, and I think third in
fishery exports. Here in Massachusetts, as Senator Snowe said,
we are combined with Maine and New Hampshire and Rhode Island
and the New England states to be extraordinary providers of
fish product, not just to our own country, but to the world. We
brought in $204 million worth of product to Massachusetts in
1998. That is a 33 percent reduction from 1990 when it was a
$300 million industry. And no one in this room would doubt the
impact of the decline of the groundfish stocks and the
regulations enacted to help rebuild those stocks. The impact
these tough, but necessary, measures have had on our economy,
on individual lives within our communities as a result is
unquestionable.
We've tried to provide transitional assistance to people. I
see a lot of faces around the audience--we have worked closely
with you to try to mitigate the unfortunate impact of these
realities. Our fisheries are beginning to recover, and this
current progress shows we need to stay the course. Obviously
part of the discussion today will be figuring out how we stay
the course.
A little over 3 years ago, we enacted the Sustainable
Fisheries Act that substantially amended the Magnuson-Stevens
Act so that we would better conserve and manage these vital
marine resources. That was the most important rewrite of the
Federal fishing laws since the enactment of the Magnuson
Fisheries Act in 1976 when we Americanized the fisheries within
200 miles of our shores. Senator Stevens and I were the
original co-sponsors of those 1996 amendments, and we set out
some very clear restraints on reducing bycatch, rebuilding
depleted stocks, and designated and conserving essential fish
habitat. We tried to put solid principles and conservation
requirements into place, and needless to say, some people had
to make some sacrifices in order to help increase the abundance
of many of these species.
This time around, I don't think we have to do that kind of
dramatic restructuring of the Sustainable Fisheries Act. Now,
maybe some of you have a different notion about that. I think
the key questions that we face are: Do we have the resources
necessary and the tools necessary to be able to make the
existing fisheries management structure work properly? Are we
able to implement the changes made in 1996 as we envisioned,
and to the degree that most people think are necessary to
sustain fisheries? And do we have the necessary information,
and are we using this information effectively to help us make
sound management and conservation judgments?
Now, the recently released General Accounting Office report
highlights a lot of these implementation issues. The bottom
line is that it's difficult to implement the Act given the
current level of information and the current level of funding.
The GAO found that NMFS is using the best scientific
information available to make fishery management decisions, but
they also say we've got to work to increase the availability of
that information, including collecting data with fishermen.
The New England delegation recognized that gap, and we
worked together--and I might say Senator Snowe and Senator
Stevens and the rest of the Committee, I've never seen this
Committee become partisan. I've never seen us divide our issues
Democrat/Republican. We have a terrific way of working
together, and it's been very, very helpful in terms of our
approach to these issues. It was working together that Senator
Stevens was able to help Senator Snowe and I get $20 million in
Federal funds to help establish the cooperative research
program between scientists and fishermen. But everybody
understands that's just a drop in the bucket. I think we
definitely need a national observer program, electronic or
real-time reporting, increased surveys, better understanding of
habitat protection needs, more socioeconomic data, not to
mention designing more effective ways to conserve and manage
our stocks and ultimately our fishing communities. Modernizing
the fishery management process is also long overdue. I think we
can get there from here with a concerted effort.
Let me say finally that there's a certain irony in the fact
that in New England some of the new management challenges
actually come from the very thing that we hoped for--the
rebuilding of the stocks. Now is the time to work together to
plan for managing those stocks as they do rebound. The
extraordinary scallop harvesting that we saw is a classic
example of what can be achieved by restraint and by proper
management. Rebuilding of the stocks really ought to be just a
bell weather signal to all of us about the capacity of our
fisheries to ultimately come back.
But there are still unanswered questions. How do we improve
the quality and use of scientific and economic data in
conservation and management decisions? Are we doing all we can
to reduce bycatch? Again, have we done enough to identify and
protect essential fish habitat? There, of course, the research
process itself is critical. What can we do to improve our
management options? Senator Snowe mentioned a moment ago the
question of the individual fishing quotas. Well, we all know
the current moratorium expires at the end of September. We
haven't been able to consider even the transferable quotas and
issues about cooperatives and community quota systems that were
mentioned. I personally am very interested in those. I think
that they may be some terrific tools, and it may be that under
these scenarios we can find a way to satisfy some of the
complaints of fishermen who say people don't use their
expertise enough, people don't rely on the fishermen enough to
not only provide data but also to use techniques built up over
a long period of time to make responsible decisions.
So what we do with respect to that issue is going to be, I
think, very important in the proper implementation of this Act
ultimately. So whether you're a fisherman or a manager or a
conservationist or a scientist or just an interested party, I
think this hearing is vitally important to our ability to tweak
the process to address pressing issues. And we're blessed that
we happen to have Senator Stevens here, the Chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, which has a great ability to have an
impact on a lot of these issues. I hope I'm not putting too
much weight on him by saying that. But in a sense maybe I do
hope I am.
So Madam Chairwoman, thank you very, very much.
Senator Snowe. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator
Kerry, for those comments.
Senator Stevens, do you care to make any comments?
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman----
Senator Snowe. We welcome you.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Stevens. --and Senator Kerry. It is nice to be back
here again. I have fond memories of Boston and Cambridge, but
beyond that I really have a great memory of the time we held
hearings here--we have held them here several times over the
years as you know, but when will we get a chance to go into
that grand aquarium you have here. I wish we had time today to
go back and see how you've maybe improved that. It's a
wonderful asset to your community.
Senator Kerry. We were going to maybe be there, but the Big
Dig is there, and so we----
Senator Stevens. I figured you didn't want me to see that,
John. That's why . . .
(Laughter.)
The proper management of fisheries and our resources was
really the motivating factor of our becoming a state, and I
have been involved in this general area now for a very long
time. I think it's a very wise thing that we decided that the
Magnuson Act, now renamed and carries my name too, that it
should be renewed periodically so we can be forced to go around
the country and get the attitude of the people affected by the
kind of management that's going on.
I don't want to add too much to what's already been said.
We've been in Anchorage and Seattle. You've been in New Orleans
and Maine, and now we're here. I hope we can now get down to
marking up this bill and getting an agreement so that we can
take it to the floor.
Ms. Dalton, Penny, as we all know you, you're a good
traveler too. You've been at all these hearings, and I
congratulate you for that. I say that so I can say something
nice about you before I say this: The one thing that's happened
recently that has not been what I thought it should be--we all
have supported the essential fish habitat concept, but when the
agency designated the entire 200-mile zone as essential, I
think it put an enormous burden on entities that are not
associated with fish habitat to clear with National Marine
Fisheries Service, and I hope we find some way to turn that
off. We have half of the 200-mile zone of the United States off
one state, my state. And when you look at the impact of that on
our state, I think it's just overwhelming. So I do hope that
we'll hear if there's any comments about that here today. But
I'm really here to learn. One of the problems we have now on
the west coast and up in the Baring Sea and the North Pacific
is the problem of individual fisheries quotas. Our attitudes
there are changing. There's no question about it. Many more
people now are in favor of IFQs as one of the management tools
to help us as we must reduce our gear as product is slowly but
surely being reduced--I think from overpressure from marine
mammals--but that will take awhile to prove. So while we wait
for that proof, we must protect the species.
Senator Magnuson and I, when we first introduce this bill,
agreed on one goal: This bill was not a bill to protect
fishermen; it was not a bill to protect jurisdiction of states;
it was to protect the reproductive capacity of our fisheries.
And I think that should continue to be the goal as we go
forward. It's nice to be with you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Senator Stevens.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD FREELAND, PRESIDENT, NORTHEASTERN
UNIVERSITY
Mr. Freeland. My name is Richard Freeland. I am the
president of Northeastern University, and it's my pleasure this
morning to welcome you all to this hearing. I'd like
particularly to welcome the three members of the U.S. Senate
who honor us with their presence today; Senator Olympia Snowe,
Subcommittee chair of the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries;
and in the center, our old friend Senator John Kerry, the
Junior Senator from Massachusetts. It's always a pleasure to
welcome Senator Kerry back to the Northeastern campus; and at
the far end of the table, Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska.
I also want to welcome those who will testify here this
morning: representatives of the fisheries industry, experts on
this subject, and members of the general public.
This is an important topic to the region, to the nation.
It's one that we here at Northeastern follow with great
concern, and we're very happy to be able to provide this forum
for these important issues to be heard. So with that, welcome
once again to Northeastern, and Senator Snowe, welcome once
again.
Senator Snowe. We now begin with our first panel. Our first
witness is Ms. Penny Dalton, the Assistant Administrator for
the National Marine Fisheries Service. Penny, I do want to
express my appreciation and gratitude to you for your testimony
here today and at the five other field hearings held across the
country.
Mr. Tom Hill, chairman of the New England Fishery
Management Council, is our second witness. We know that your
testimony will be very important to us here today because of
your familiarity with New England issues.
Our final witness on the panel will be Rear Admiral George
Naccara, Commander of the First Coast Guard District here in
Boston. Congratulations to you, Admiral, for your recent
selection for this very important post.
Accompanying Ms. Dalton is Ms. Kurkul, who is the Northeast
Regional Administrator for NMFS.
We also have Dr. Mike Sissenwine, from the Northeast
Fisheries Science Center.
Ms. Dalton, would you please begin. We'll include all the
statements. We would please ask to you limit your testimony to
five minutes. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF PENELOPE D. DALTON, ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, AND PATRICIA KURKUL, NORTHEAST
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Ms. Dalton. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify on the Magnuson-Stevens Act and on New England fishery
issues. Just thank you also for the opportunity to have
attended these hearings around the country. It's been a great
learning experience for me. I'm Penny Dalton, Assistant
Administrator for NOAA Fisheries. Accompanying me are Pat
Kurkul, our Northeast Regional Administrator, and Dr. Mike
Sissenwine who heads the Northeast Science Center.
My written statement includes a detailed discussion of our
implementation of Magnuson-Stevens Act and suggestions for
amendments to the Act. So in the interest of time, I'll limit
my comments to a few key issues.
In 1998 New England fisheries harvested close to 600
million pounds producing almost $540 million in dock-side
revenues. If rebuilt, these fisheries could sustain a billion
dollar industry. However, rebuilding cannot be achieved without
significant socioeconomic costs. The past five years have been
difficult for almost all sectors of the industry. But this
investment is beginning to payoff. And we're starting to see
signs of recovery.
NOAA stock assessments indicate there is good news for many
stocks and for a few species we actually have seen substantial
improvement. For instance, the biomass of George's Bank haddock
has increased fourfold since early 1993. And the 1998 year
class is the largest in the past 20 years. One Cape Cod
fisherman reported that the 1999 haddock harvest by the Cape
Hook Fleet was the best in 30 years.
The situation also has improved for George's Bank cod where
populations have increased 43 percent above record low 1995
levels. Yellowtail flounder is improving with growing numbers
off George's Bank, southern New England and Cape Cod. In
addition, witch flounder is well on its way to recovery. We've
seen good recruitment and a doubling of the adult biomass since
1995.
Despite these positive signs, other fish stocks are still
threatened by overfishing or in the early stages of recovery.
The Gulf of Maine cod situation remains particularly troubling.
Fishing pressure has been reduced, but mortality is still two
to three times what it needs to be to promote rebuilding. For
cod populations on both Gulf of Maine and George's Bank, few
young fish are entering the fishery, and we have not had a good
cod year class in many years.
Despite these concerns, we remain cautiously optimistic
that we can reestablish the full potential of New England
fisheries. The cultural and economic benefits that healthy
fisheries can provide to coastal fishing communities are
enormous. However, to realize this potential, we must stay the
course. That is not to say that we cannot or will not take
steps to improve our fishery management programs. Such steps
are necessary to improve the scientific base for decisions, to
minimize the impacts of our regulations on fishing communities
and to ensure that no future generation of fishermen has to
suffer through the protracted rebuilding effort that is ongoing
today.
Toward that end, we are looking for more flexible ways to
achieve our conservation objectives and improve our working
relations with the fishing industry. Last year's experience in
the scallop fishery illustrate several of the approaches we are
pursuing, and that may be useful to think about in the
reauthorization.
As you know, large areas on George's Bank were closed in
the mid-90's to rebuild groundfish. These area closures allow
productive scallop beds to rebuild in the absence of fishing.
The wealth of scallops that now exist in the closed areas
demonstrates the effectiveness of protected areas as a fishery
management tool. NOAA Fisheries surveys documented growing
populations of scallops in the closed area and the cooperative
research program was initiated in 1998. The program involved
many here today, including our Northeast Science Center, U-Mass
Dartmouth, the fishery survival fund and several fishing
vessels. It collected essential data on scallop density,
habitat and bycatch. It was used by the New England Council to
develop an exempted fishery for closed area two. In setting the
ground rules for the fishery, the Council and NOAA Fisheries
incorporated a number of conservation safeguards. First, the
fishermen agreed to a cap on bycatch of yellowtail flounder and
modified their nets and fishing practices to minimize that
bycatch. They also use electronic reporting to track landings
and avoid hitting the cap.
Second, the Council established an observer coverage target
of 25 percent. Scallopers carrying observers were allowed to
harvest additional scallops to finance observer costs through
an innovative arrangement with the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation. To the extent possible, fishermen were trained as
observers. Finally, additional surveys were made to assess the
effects of the fishery on habitat. The results was a limited
opening that put as much as $40 million in the southeast New
England fishing communities.
In addition, the improved conditions of the scallop
resource will allow fishermen to forego the reductions in days
at sea scheduled for the upcoming fishing year. The Council is
now following up with a proposal to expand the exempted fishery
this year and formalize an area rotational system in the
scallop plan.
Recent appropriations by Congress will significantly
increase opportunities for such partnerships in other northeast
fisheries. More than half of the new funds provided in our
fiscal 2000 budget will be dedicated to cooperative research
activities. The remainder will support the deployment of
observers, data collection and analysis and agency costs for
collaborative research and enforcement. NOAA Fisheries will
work with the New England Fishery Management Council, the
fishermen and the academic community to ensure that research
projects target priority issues and are grounded in good
science.
I also want to reiterate our commitment to improving our
understanding of the potential economic impacts of management
measures on fishing communities. Progress toward addressing
this issue requires additional funding, and the NOAA budget
requests $2.5 million to establish a core economic program and
develop a national economic data base. In addition, we have
requested $1 million for the collection of social and economic
data to improve analyses for management.
I will conclude by saying that NOAA Fisheries is continuing
to work to fully implement the changes made by Congress in 1996
and to strengthen our foundation for future management
decisions. Our goal is restored fisheries that support a
healthy coastal economy and the vibrant fishing industry that
is New England's tradition. Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Ms. Dalton.
Mr. Hill.
STATEMENT OF TOM R. HILL, CHAIRMAN, NEW ENGLAND FISHERY
MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and members of the
Committee. I'm grateful to be here this morning in order to
offer our Council's perspective on the implementation of the
1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
First, I want to indicate that it is my opinion and I
believe the opinion of our committee that--of our Council,
rather--that the basic tenants of the Sustainable Fisheries Act
are sound. And that although we have wrestled with some
components of the implementation of the Act, the fundamental
tenants of the Act are sound and we look forward to working
with the Committee in dealing with the refinements that are
necessary.
I also want to thank both Senator Snowe and Senator Kerry
and Senator Stevens, all of you for your support on dealing
with the cooperative research effort this year. I think that
program will I think contribute benefits to our relationship
with the industry and the relationship with the scientific
community that will be multifold, and I suspect that as we
enter into that over an extended period of time that we'll see
the benefits that come from that kind of cooperation.
I also wanted to touch on what I think is a significant
point that's already been made, and that is that we are making
progress with many of our stocks. That the issue noted here
earlier of scallops the recurrence and resurgence of scallops
has added tremendously to the economic opportunities of the
fishing industry. We've also had a significant recovery of
haddock. In fact, we've gone from a 500-pound trip limit only
several years ago to a 50,000-pound per trip limit, and that's
a significant recovery. In addition, we've had gray sole and
George's Bank yellowtail flounder and a number of other stocks
that are on the mend, and I believe that is a consequence of
the implementation of management regulations that the Council
has put into place.
On the other hand, we do have some challenges. We've--as
the Sustainable Fisheries Act required--why we've had to
implement a number of management plans and a number of
amendments in order to alter existing plans or to implement new
ones for either fish stocks that did not have management plans
in place, or to alter the plans in order to achieve the
rebuilding schedules as required under the Act.
I won't go into all of the requirements of the Act. I'm
sure you're all familiar with them. But I want to emphasize it
is not just a case of the inclusion of this information in the
fisheries management plans, it often tends to, in order to stay
on schedule where we're required to amend those plans on an
annual basis, particularly those plans where we have
significant overfishing that requires closer scrutiny versus
less scrutiny. And as a result of that, we're amending and/or
changing management regulations on an annual basis. And that
burden is significant. As well as dealing with all of the other
requirements under the Act, and this includes dealing with SAFE
reports, largely a staff work product, more comprehensive
social and economic analyses are necessary and required under
the revisions of the Act. Many of the Council meetings that
used to be one or two days long are now three days long. And
the number of committee meetings that are required in order to
deal with the complex issues that are at stake here in New
England require extended oversight committee meetings in the
various communities that are affected.
I won't take the time to list all of these items because
the mandates are not appropriate, but to note that the number
of meetings and the amount of effort that is required to deal
with these is significant. The workload of the Council has more
than doubled over the last couple of years. And the resources
that the Council has had at its disposal has not kept pace with
that doubling of effort. In fact, in order to address that very
serious issue, and it's a significant issue, we had staff
working 70 and 80 hours a week for extended periods of time. I
want to compliment my staff publicly. They've done an
extraordinary job in keeping up with the demands that have been
placed on them. I am proud of every single one of them.
On the other hand, that pace could not be sustained. And we
have recently--the Council has agreed on a series of
initiatives for this coming year, and it left out a number of
items that we just are not capable of dealing with. And it
includes the development of an annual or an adjustment
including limited entry for whiting. It included an industry-
supported controlled access system for herring. It included an
FMP for red crab, which is a fishery that has collapsed in the
past, and is now, we believe, at near sustainable levels. And
yet we're not going to get to that this year. And there are
measures that we feel are necessary to deal with capacity
issues in New England. We've got far more capacity than we've
got resources available in various portions of our fisheries.
And due to these complex issues and reasons why I would
only bring to the Committee's attention that the Council has
very good intent but nevertheless a big challenge in front of
it in trying to deal with these very complex subjects.
Finally, I want to add a personal note. When I was elected
as Chairman of the Council, one of the commitments I made was
to do--to bring to the Council a more orderly way of developing
our fisheries management plans. As the Committee knows, New
England has had a reputation for a rather lively environment at
our Council meetings. We have been working since I've been
elected at trying to bring a little more deliberative
perspective to the development of management plans. And we have
done that. And I think that it's a credit to the members and to
the industry that they've worked with us in order to work
through our Subcommittee process in developing options that are
deliberated by the full Council. We needed to avoid the
midnight decisions that were occurring on occasionally after an
18-hour meeting. We don't make good decisions under that kind
of environment. I don't believe the Senate would do so, and I
don't believe a regional management Council ought to do that.
And in closing, I believe that it is important for our
region to deal with the challenges before us, but we need to do
so in an orderly manner. It is my commitment to do outreach
with the industry. In fact, I'm going to be in Maine a couple
of weeks from now meeting with industry groups, with Pat
Kurkul, and we're making an effort to do public outreach. We're
making an effort to make the process understandable and to be
accessible to all of the industry participants. There is a
corresponding responsibility on their behalf to deal with the
management system that the Congress has put into place. And we
look forward to doing that to the benefit of the region and the
Nation as a whole. And I'd be happy to answer questions at the
appropriate time. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hill follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom R. Hill, Chairman,
New England Fishery Management Council
I would like to thank the members of the Subcommittee for inviting
me here to offer our Council's perspectives on the implementation of
the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. First, let me say that
while I believe there are some issues of concern, I also believe that,
overall, the Act is a sound piece of legislation. The New England
Council's revised fishery management plans have produced some
substantial improvements in the status of many of the commercially
valuable species we manage. Haddock, gray sole (witch flounder),
Georges Bank yellowtail flounder and sea scallops in particular, are
among our success stories and I would like to take a moment to discuss
them.
Haddock--The adult stock biomass has increased fourfold since 1993 and
is at its highest levels since the early 1980s. Stock biomass is
expected to continue to increase because of low fishing mortality and
favorable recruitment in 1998.
Gray sole--This traditionally valued flounder species in the Gulf of
Maine has rebounded to near maximum sustainable yield conditions.
Favorable recruitment (new fish entering the population each year),
lower fishing mortality and reduced bycatch in small mesh fisheries
have contributed to its resurgence.
Georges Bank yellowtail flounder--The total stock biomass has increased
in both 1998 and 1999 to its highest level since 1973 and could be
rebuilt in about three more years. The 1997 year class is the largest
observed since 1973, and since 1996, fishing mortality is lowest
observed in over 20 years.
Sea scallops--The biomass on Georges Bank is the highest observed since
1982, primarily in the groundfish closed areas and due to favorable
recruitment. Biomass in the Mid-Atlantic increased in 1998, but still
remains below the management target, although overall fishing mortality
has declined significantly from effort reductions and closed areas.
Furthermore, the Council's 1999 groundfish closed area access program
provided a much-needed economic boost to the scallop industry while at
the same time conserving yellowtail flounder and protecting areas with
sensitive habitat.
These are some of the positive results that have been achieved
through fishing regulations and the sacrifices of New England
fishermen. On the other hand, we continue to face several serious
challenges. The new requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as
amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA), have placed an enormous
burden on Council members and its staff, as well as on the National
Marine Fisheries Service, without providing a commensurate increase in
resources to carry out the new mandates.
While the previous Magnuson Act, along with National Standard
guidelines already required the Councils and the Secretary of Commerce
to take steps to end overfishing and rebuild depleted stocks, fishery
management plans (FMPs) must now specify for each stock:
objective and measurable criteria for identifying whether a
fishery is overfished;
if a fishery is overfished or approaching an overfished
condition, the plan must contain measures to prevent
overfishing or to end overfishing and rebuild the fishery;
the plan or amendment must be developed within one year of
notification by NMFS that a stock is overfished or approaching
an overfished condition and must specify rebuilding periods
that ``are as short as possible,'' but are not to exceed 10
years; and
if rebuilding plans call for reduced harvests, the
restrictions and recovery benefits must be fairly allocated
among the harvesters.
Plans must, to the extent practicable, also address bycatch issues,
including minimizing bycatch and the mortality of bycatch that cannot
be avoided. Further, FMPs must now describe and identify essential fish
habitat (EFH), minimize ``to the extent practicable'' adverse effects
on such habitat, and identify other actions to encourage the
conservation of such habitat. Fishery impact statements also must
assess the likely effects of management measures on fishing communities
and, to the extent practicable, minimize economic impacts (National
Standard 8).
I want to emphasize that work does not simply cease with the
inclusion of this information in fishery management plans. In order to
stay on schedule with many of the new stock rebuilding plans, FMPs
require annual reviews and adjustments to assess progress, as well as
Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) reports, largely a
Council staff work product. More comprehensive social and economic
analyses are necessary to meet Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
requirements to adequately respond to National Standard 8. Many Council
meetings are now several days longer to provide for the level of public
input generated by the imposition of new and often very complex
management measures. The development of new measures also has required
more frequent meetings of our oversight committees, resulting in a
corresponding increase in related costs. As you know, our Council also
will have an additional seat beginning in August, adding to our
overhead.
I take the time to list all these issues, not because the SFA
mandates are not appropriate, but to emphasize that the steps
undertaken to meet the new requirements have increased the Council's
workload by well more than 100 percent. In response to SFA, our Council
has developed four new FMPs (for herring, monkfish, whiting and
dogfish), six plan amendments (for groundfish, scallops and for
essential fish habitat (EFH) designations), seventeen framework
adjustments and three SAFE reports--an enormous body of work by almost
any standard. All of these actions have been completed since 1997.
In contrast, increases in Council funding since 1997 have totaled
approximately 28 percent. While I assure you that our work is being
accomplished, it is occurring at a pace that cannot be sustained.
Without question, more resources are needed to enable the Council to
continue to meet its responsibilities, including maintaining public
outreach efforts and meeting with affected stakeholders.
In order to address this very serious situation, the Council
recently developed a list of priorities for the purpose of focusing on
what it could realistically accomplish in 2000. The document was as
significant in what it listed as initiatives as for the issues that
were postponed for consideration until 2001. Council actions in 2000
will include:
Groundfish Amendment 13--to develop SFA rebuilding plans;
Skate management measures--the Council was recently given
management authority for seven skate species, four of which are
overfished and will require the development of rebuilding plans
within one year;
Sea Scallop Amendment 10--to develop a rotational area
management system;
A framework adjustment for whiting--to develop measures for
a raised footrope trawl fishery;
A framework adjustment for monkfish--to review the
effectiveness of management measures implemented in 2000 and
make any necessary changes;
Annual specifications for Atlantic herring fishery--these
include only optimum yield, domestic annual harvest, domestic
annual processing, the total amount allocated to processing by
foreign ships, the amount of herring that can be taken in U.S.
waters and transferred to Canadian herring carriers for
transshipment to Canada and an allocation for internal waters
processing;
A Habitat Annual Report--including the possible development
of a dedicated habitat research area, EFH designations for the
seven skate species and a formal process for designating
habitat areas of particular concern (HAPCs);
Research Steering Committee activities--to provide input to
NMFS concerning the expenditure of Congressional appropriations
earmarked to fund cooperative research efforts developed by
fishermen and scientists; and
U.S.-Canada activities--to support efforts to coordinate the
management of transboundary stocks, especially the rapidly
rebuilding Georges Bank stocks of haddock and yellowtail
flounder; it is of critical importance to maintain a New
England perspective in this arena through Council and
grassroots involvement.
Because of the need to make choices given the overall workload and
the shortage of resources with which to accomplish these tasks, the
Council will not address a number of key issues this year. Actions to
be deferred until next year are:
the development of a whiting annual adjustment with a
limited entry program and establishment of Total Allowable
Catch levels;
consideration of an industry-supported controlled access
program for the herring fishery;
an FMP for red crab; and
measures to address capacity in New England fisheries.
In the case of the Spiny Dogfish Plan, the Mid-Atlantic Council is
the lead and therefore will assume most of those plan development
responsibilities. These decisions were difficult ones, especially in
view of the level of industry interest in most of the programs listed.
Personally, I am very concerned about the potential consequences of
inaction this year. Whiting is an overfished resource. Alternatively,
herring is a healthy resource that could only benefit from pro-active
management. We witnessed the collapse of the red crab fishery in the
mid-1980's because of increased effort by new boats which could not be
supported by the available resource. Estimates of landings this year
suggest that the red crab fishery may be operating at close to maximum
sustainable yield levels at this time, and the Council is concerned
about the long-term stability of this fishery absent a management plan.
The expansion and contraction of fishing capacity remains one of the
most important issues yet to be addressed in our region and one that
merits attention if we are to achieve sustainability in our fisheries.
Ideally, I would like to report to you that we will undertake all
of the actions and initiatives listed above. With our current funding
shortfall for fiscal year 2000 and a greater shortfall projected for
next year, which includes the addition of new staff, however, I am at a
loss to determine how we may accommodate any workload increase. We will
be unable to add additional staff and schedule the necessary meetings
to consider action on the issues that are currently deferred.
Finally, I would like to add a personal note here. When I was
elected Council Chairman last August, I made a commitment to ensure an
awareness of and support for the benefits of sound, long-term resource
management. I believe I have held to that commitment. However, I also
pledged to increase the Council's outreach and education efforts and to
pay special attention to fishermen who have traditionally been out of
the mainstream, those who rarely attend our meetings, but who are
nonetheless affected by our actions. It is perhaps one of my greatest
personal disappointments that informal meetings with fishermen's
associations and information exchanges in other venues outside of the
formal atmosphere of Council meetings, will likely not occur because
our staff simply cannot undertake these activities. To do so would
compromise the timely completion of our management responsibilities.
I believe I have made my point to the Subcommittee. The New England
Council is striving to comply with the SFA requirements. We have
committed Council members and an experienced and hard-working staff. We
have made significant progress in rebuilding fish stocks to sustainable
levels, but we are in real need of increased resources to do the job
right. I sincerely hope you will give this issue serious consideration.
Madam Chairman, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to
comment on the implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens and Sustainable
Fisheries Acts. I'm happy to answer questions or provide further
information about the issues I have brought forward here today.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Admiral Naccara.
STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL GEORGE NACCARA,
COMMANDER OF THE FIRST COAST GUARD DISTRICT,
BOSTON, MA
Admiral Naccara. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, and
distinguished members of the Subcommittee. I'm George Naccara,
Commander of the First Coast Guard District. On behalf of the
Commandant, Admiral Jim Loy, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss the Coast Guard's efforts in
support of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act.
Please let me explain to you that I've been on the job for
just over six weeks, and I'm working hard to understand the
complexities and the subtleties of our fisheries program.
Let me begin by outlining our operations today. Four
cutters and two aircraft are on patrol as part of our ongoing
operation called ``Atlantic Venture.'' Coast Guard personnel
are also conducting increased at-sea and dock-side voluntary
commercial fishing vessel safety examinations as part of our
operation ``SAFE CATCH,'' an Atlantic area-wide initiative to
reduce lives lost at sea.
First District unit commanders are also conducting
operation ``Tango Orange,'' interfacing with coastal fishermen
and vessel safety and multispecies fisheries enforcement. Our
cutters, boats, and aircraft are also positioned and prepared
to respond to any emergent search and rescue case. This is
certainly critical in winter when bitter-cold temperatures and
frequent heavy weather drastically reduced survival times.
The Coast Guard is firmly committed to providing effective
at-sea enforcement of fisheries management schemes established
by the Fishery Management Councils and the National Marine
Fisheries Service under the Act. We work closely with the
National Marine Fisheries Service, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and all stakeholders to exercise
this stewardship.
Of course, the fishing industry continues to play an
integral role in the New England culture and economy. New
Bedford, Massachusetts is second only to Dutch Harbor, Alaska
in the value of domestic catch landed in the U.S., and the
industry, both commercial and recreational, provides
approximately $1.5 billion of revenue to the region.
The First Coast Guard District encompasses the lateral
Northeastern United States from Shrewsbury River, New Jersey to
the Canadian border, out to 200 nautical miles off-shore. The
fishery management plans have implemented closed area and
regulated areas throughout this region. There are numerous
year-round, seasonal and protected species enforcement schemes
in effect throughout the northeast. This chart reflects some of
those areas. Over 10,000 square nautical miles of year-round
closed areas, when combined with over 60,000 square nautical
miles of seasonal closures and regions delineated to protect
endangered marine mammals, comprise a large proportion of the
available fishing area.
To carry out our enforcement responsibilities under this
contract, the Coast Guard has adopted a strategic plan called
``Ocean Guardian'' that outlines the Coast Guard's long-range
strategy to provide effective enforcement in support of
national goals for fishery resource management and
conservation. Under this Ocean Guardian program the First
District conducts Operation Atlantic Venture, an operation
based on an intelligence-driven framework for Coast Guard
patrols enforcing the 13 Fishery Management Plans, the Marine
Mammal Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act involving
more than 40 different species of marine life.
In fiscal year 1999 alone, First District units contributed
more than 19,000 resource hours to these operations. Future
modernization is important if our fisheries law enforcement
efforts are to be sustained. The Coast Guard, through the
innovative Deepwater Capability Replacement Project, is
addressing these modernization needs. The project is designed
to ensure timely acquisition of systems that will leverage
technology to meet the demanding mission requirements.
As I've indicated previously, there is an enduring demand
for our unique off-shore enforcement capabilities under this
Act. The Deepwater Project is the Coast Guard's plan to ensure
that this capability exists into the future. And I ask for your
full support of the President's fiscal year 2001 funding
request for this project of national importance.
We do not conduct the fisheries enforcement mission alone.
In carrying out our mandate, we partner with the National
Marine Fisheries Service, the NOAA General Council, and many
state agencies such as the Massachusetts Marine Environmental
Police and the Maine Marine Police, local fishing industry
groups, and of course, the New England Fishery Management
Council. Together, we all work to achieve a balance of safety,
enforcement effectiveness, and service to the industry.
Our focus as a non-voting member of the Council is on
enforcement and safety issues. The Act provides the mechanism
the Coast Guard needs to address these issues, particularly
with the 1996 addition of the National Standard 10. An
enforceable plan that encourages safety at sea is essential to
ensuring the safest environment possible for the fishing
community. We view the well-being of fishing vessel crews and
their vessels as our highest safety priority. During the past
few months the Coast Guard has been conducting a commercial
fishing vessel safety initiative called ``Operation SAFE
CATCH'' along the Atlantic Sea Board and the Gulf of Mexico.
Operation SAFE CATCH is the Coast Guard's effort to expand at-
sea and onshore vessel examinations. During these examinations
fishermen are required to meet regulatory demands including
specified safety equipment as well as to encourage the
fishermen to critically examine the non-regulated material
condition of their vessels for safety deficiencies, such as
hull condition, vessel stability, and watertight integrity.
During the first 90 days of this Operation SAFE CATCH, we
identified more than 100 commercial fishing vessels in our
district that are high risk. Every one of these vessels was
approached in port and assisted by Coast Guard personnel to
reach higher safety standards. The early results of this
operation are very promising.
I also remain focused on our people that carry out this
important national mission. Maintenance and availability
problems with cutters and aircraft, workforce shortages, and
decreasing levels of experience have necessitated a 10 percent
cut in medium endurance cutter hours and the reduction of
aircraft hours dedicated to law enforcement in this fiscal
year. In 1999 the Coast Guard faced the same challenges as the
other services in recruitment and readiness. We are requesting
additional resources for recruitment and retention initiatives
in fiscal year 2001 that are necessary for the Coast Guard to
maintain a ready work force. Funds requested in 2001 will
provide an important first step in enabling us to train,
retain, and outfit our personnel allowing us to meet national
objectives.
The Coast Guard is a key partner in the complex fisheries
sustainability. Sustaining our country's natural resources and
ensuring the safety of fishermen are high Coast Guard
priorities. Our contributions will be most effective only with
the continued cooperation and support of fishing communities,
the Councils and state and local agencies. This Act provides
the tools we need to address Coast Guard fisheries concerns,
and I do not recommend any changes.
Thank you for your continued leadership and support of the
Coast Guard and for providing this opportunity to discuss these
important issues with you today. I'll be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Rear Admiral Naccara follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rear Admiral George Naccara, Commander of the
First Coast Guard District, Boston, MA
Good morning, Madam Chairman and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee. I am Rear Admiral George Naccara, Commander of the First
Coast Guard District. On behalf of the Commandant, Admiral Jim Loy,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
Coast Guard's efforts in support of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA).
The Coast Guard is firmly committed to providing effective at-sea
enforcement of fisheries conservation and management programs that are
established by the Fishery Management Councils (FMCs) and the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the MSFCMA. We recognize that the
proper stewardship of our fisheries resources, and of all marine
protected species, is of great importance to protect both the
environment and the economic impact fisheries have on this nation. We
work closely with NMFS, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), and all stakeholders to exercise this
stewardship.
The fishing industry continues to play an integral role in the New
England culture and economy. New Bedford, Massachusetts is second only
to Dutch Harbor, Alaska in the value of domestic catch landed in the
U.S., and the industry, both commercial and recreational, provides
approximately one and one-half billion dollars of revenue to the
region. American lobster is the single most valuable marine species
landed in the U.S.--worth over $253 million in 1998.
The First Coast Guard District encompasses the Northeastern United
States from Shrewsbury River, New Jersey to the Canadian border. This
area includes such traditional and bountiful fishing areas as Georges
Bank, Davis Bank, and the Southern New England Canyons. To help sustain
the fisheries in this vast area, the fishery management plans (FMP) and
amendments have implemented closed areas and regulated areas throughout
the region. The following list reflects the enforcement regions for
fiscal year 2000:
10,600 square nautical miles of year-round closed areas
(Closed Areas I & II (CA I/II), Western Gulf of Maine (WGOM),
and Nantucket Lightship Closed Area (NLCA);
3,400 square nautical miles of year-round restricted gear
areas (to prevent gear conflicts);
53,200 square nautical miles of seasonal closed areas
(rolling closed areas);
5,280 square nautical miles of critical habitat (to protect
the northern right whale);
490 square nautical miles of marine sanctuary (Stellwagen
Bank);
15,000 square nautical miles of pinger-only gillnet areas
(to protect harbor porpoises);
And, in just a few weeks, an additional seasonal closure
covering 6,000 square nautical miles of fishing grounds north
of the tip of Cape Cod designed to protect the threatened Gulf
of Maine cod stocks.
Enforcement of the fisheries regulations associated with these
specific areas, in addition to protecting the more than 100,000 square
nautical miles of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off New England, is
a high priority to the Coast Guard. To carry out our enforcement
responsibilities under the MSFCMA, the Coast Guard has adopted a
strategic plan, OCEAN GUARDIAN, that outlines the Coast Guard's long-
range strategy to provide effective enforcement in support of the
national goals for fisheries resource management and conservation.
Under OCEAN GUARDIAN, the First District conducts the only permanent
operation dedicated to fisheries enforcement in the Atlantic, Operation
ATLANTIC VENTURE. ATLANTIC VENTURE is based on an intelligence-driven
framework for Coast Guard offshore enforcement operations. It also
guides our cutter and aircraft commanders who are tasked with enforcing
the 13 fishery management plans, the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), involving more than 40
different species of marine life. In fiscal year 1999 alone, the First
District devoted more than 29,000 resource hours to patrolling offshore
by Coast Guard aircraft and cutters in support of living marine
resource regulations. In addition, we conducted nearly 1,600 boardings,
resulting in improvements to commercial fishing vessel safety and
improved compliance with the fishery management plans.
We do not conduct this enforcement mission alone. In carrying out
our mandate to enforce fisheries conservation and management
regulations, we partner with NMFS, NOAA General Counsel, state
agencies, local fishing industry groups, and the New England Fishery
Management Council (NEFMC). Together, we all work to achieve a balance
of safety, enforcement effectiveness, and service to the fishing
industry, thus ensuring the long-term sustainability of our living
marine resources.
The NEFMC, consisting of representatives from maritime states,
environmental organizations, and fishing communities, exists under the
authority of the MSFCMA and serves to produce management measures to
attain sustainable fisheries. As I said, we partner closely with the
Council, and we participate in the Council as a non-voting member to
advise on the enforceability implications of proposed fisheries
management plans and the impact of those plans on fishing vessel
safety. It is imperative that safety and enforceability concerns be
addressed in the regulation development process. Adequate weighting of
enforceability can be a challenge as many variables including
statistical, biological, and social considerations factor into this
complex decision-making process. Regulations that may tempt smaller
coastal fishermen farther offshore to fish or exemptions to closed
areas that reduce the effectiveness of our enforcement efforts are of
concern to me. The MSFCMA provides the mechanism the Coast Guard needs
to address these issues, particularly with the 1996 addition of
National Standard Ten. An enforceable plan that encourages safety at
sea is essential to ensuring the safest environment possible for the
fishing community while ensuring the sustainability of the living
marine resources of our nation.
We view the well-being of fishing vessel crews and the safety of
their vessel as our highest safety priority. During the past few
months, the Coast Guard has been conducting a commercial fishing vessel
safety initiative called Operation SAFE CATCH along the Atlantic
seaboard and in the Gulf of Mexico. Operation SAFE CATCH is the Coast
Guard's effort to expand the focus on at-sea and onshore examinations.
During the examinations, fishermen are required to meet regulatory
demands including specified safety equipment (immersion suits, life
rafts, and Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRBS)). We
also encourage the fishermen to critically examine the non-regulated
material condition of their vessels for safety deficiencies. Areas of
critical importance are the hull condition, vessel stability, and
watertight integrity. When vessels capsize and sink at sea, the reason
is usually related to one or more of these physical conditions of the
vessel. Many watertight integrity and stability issues are based on a
lack of crew awareness and training. These non-regulatory measures are
founded on good engineering practice rather than regulation, and our
primary focus is to educate the mariner and improve the seaworthiness
of the vessel.
Operation SAFE CATCH continues the Coast Guard's strong emphasis on
people helping people in our common workplace, the open ocean. During
the first 90 days of Operation SAFE CATCH, we identified more than 100
commercial fishing vessels in our district as ``high-risk'' vessels.
(``High risk'' is defined as any vessel that engages in a high-risk
fishery (e.g., inshore scallop, urchin, or derby fishery); has a
history of prior safety violation or casualties; has a history of
material conditions requiring serious search and rescue interventions;
or upon boarding, is found to have conditions warranting termination.)
Every one of these vessels was approached in port and assisted by Coast
Guard personnel to reach the higher safety standards. The early results
of this operation are promising. In fact, I believe it has already
saved lives.
I also remain focused on my people that carry out this important
national mission. In 2000 and 2001, active duty military full-time
equivalents (FTE) will increase by 959. This significant increase will
improve the Coast Guard's operational capabilities both in the First
District and nationwide. Although attracting quality candidates to
serve in the military remains a challenge, the Coast Guard recently has
been as successful as the other sea services in recruitment, and the
fiscal year 2001 budget includes an increase in recruitment funds. The
Coast Guard is building on this success by requesting additional
recruitment and retention initiatives in fiscal year 2001. Funds
requested in 2001 will enable us to train, retain, and properly outfit
Coast Guard personnel, allowing the Coast Guard to meet national
objectives and giving Coast Guard personnel the right skills and
equipment to do their jobs safely and effectively.
Future modernization is also important if our fisheries law
enforcement resources are to be sustained or improved. The Coast Guard,
through the innovative Deepwater Capability Replacement Project, is
addressing the modernization needs necessary to provide this important
enforcement through the coming decades. The project is designed to
ensure timely acquisition of a system of systems that will leverage
technology to meet the demanding mission needs in the offshore
environment. As I have indicated previously, there is an enduring
demand for our unique offshore enforcement capabilities to enforce the
fisheries conservation and management goals of MSCMFA, as well as
increasing responsibilities under the MMPA and ESA. The Integrated
Deepwater System is the Coast Guard's plan to ensure that this
capability exists into the future and I ask for your full support of
the President's fiscal year 2001 funding request for this project of
national importance.
The Coast Guard is a key partner in the complex fisheries
sustainability effort and we appreciate being included in the
continuing efforts to implement and, when necessary, improve the
MSFCMA. Sustaining our country's natural resources and ensuring the
safety of fishermen are high Coast Guard priorities. We are dedicated
to reaching both goals, realizing our contributions will be most
effective only with the continued cooperation and support of fishing
communities, the councils, and state and local agencies. The MSFCMA
provides the tools we need to address Coast Guard fisheries concerns
and, as such, I do not recommend any changes during this re-
authorization.
Thank you for your continued leadership and support of the Coast
Guard, and for providing this opportunity to discuss these important
fisheries issues with you today. I will be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Senator Snowe. Thank you. Thank you all for testifying here
this morning.
Ms. Dalton, I'd like to begin with you, and Admiral, I'd
like to have you jump in. I want to begin, with the whole issue
of the groundfish industry, obviously rebuilding the cod stocks
here in New England. Again, I think it sort of underscores some
of the problems that we're facing with the implementation of
the Act and the decisions that are made and so on. We're at 20
days out before the beginning of the fishing season for the
groundfish industry, and NMFS has yet to approve the changes
that were made by the Council in January. Now, you know last
year there were five different plans and adjustments to the
groundfish industry and with respect to closures and trip
limits and all the other implications of those decisions, the
industry ultimately faced five different plans last year. Here
we are 20 days out and they have yet to receive an indication
from your agency in terms of what is going to be approved,
disapproved and so on. That's wrenching for an industry. That
it's obviously so important here and to New England, but for
all of the people who rely on industry, they don't obviously
know; they can't plan. It's very difficult. So can you tell us
exactly what has happened and why the agency has not yet made
that decision?
Ms. Dalton. The final rules should be coming out within the
next couple of days. So I'm not, right now, since it hasn't
come out, I'm not supposed to, I guess, talk about what's in
the rule, but it will be out within the next couple days.
Senator Snowe. Could you give us an indication as to why it
takes so long when you have an industry that relies on a course
of action? We know what happened last year in the 1999 season.
It was a very difficult experience for the groundfish industry.
Mr. Hill, I'd like to have you jump in here because,
something happened in which the scientific objectives were not
met by the original decision and subsequent decisions by the
Council, because a third of entire catch was caught in the
first three weeks of the season. Obviously, the action missed
its mark and never would have worked had it been in effect
throughout the entire season. So what has happened here? This
is something that we've got to avoid in the future. You stated,
Ms. Dalton, that we have to minimize economic consequences and
make adjustments. I think everybody understands that along the
way there will be adjustments, but you had five different plan
amendments in one season and still missed the mark. Here we are
20 days out from beginning the new season, and we have yet to
make those decisions. So for one, it's the process. Second, how
were the scientific objectives approved that ultimately did not
achieve the goal?
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the opportunity
to comment on the subject. The development of an FMP or its
amendment or framework action is, starts from the Committee.
The Committee develops with the industry three or four or five
different options that they bring to the Council. During the
development of framework 33, there were several options that
were brought to the Council. One was to increase the closed
area significantly. The other was to decrease the number of
days, opportunity days in the industry. The third was a
combination of closed areas and trip limits. The decrease in
the number of days at sea would have prevented the discards
that we have experienced. That was not a popular option because
those days, opportunity days, if we reduced them would have
affected other participants in the fishery who were not
targeting groundfish or were not targeting Gulf Maine codfish
would be a better way of describing it.
The combination of days at--of closed areas and trip
limits--was ultimately decided to be the best tool, but nobody
anticipated--I don't believe anybody anticipated, including the
scientific community or the Council--that at the same time this
rule was being implemented, we had a significant movement of
fish in-shore that was right in the areas where these fishermen
were fishing. We had what is called ``sand eel bloom,'' which
is a bait fish and codfish chase those. And when they show up,
why the codfish show up, and nobody anticipated that, and as a
result we had very high landings and very high discards in a
very brief period of time. It was the Council's perspective
that there was an automatic trigger involved in the trip limit
system that if we got to a certain point in the target quota
that a lower trip limit would be triggered. And all that did,
unfortunately, was to increase the number of discards that
occurred.
There are some clear options to deal with that. One, we
could have gone to a quota system, which was not popular, that
would have closed the fishery subsequent to reaching a certain
target. The other was we could have used days at sea as a
methodology which when they used up their days at sea, the
reduced level of days at sea, they would have stopped,
individually stopped fishing. There were several options that
would have avoided the experience we had last year. Neither of
them were popular. Neither of them gained the kind of support
in the Committee in the development of the framework that
brought it to the Council that it had a chance, that either of
them had a chance of being approved. In retrospect, would the
Council have done something different? I suspect so. Will the
Council be looking? We're engaged in development of Amendment
13 right now which is going to look holistically at groundfish
management in dealing with the consequences of that action. And
I suspect we may take a different path in the future, but I
must tell you that it is profoundly complex. Groundfish stock
represents 13 different species. They're all caught in varying
combinations.
We've got different sectors of the fishery saying, I can go
fishing for this particular species, and I won't catch many
codfish, so why are you impacting me by creating these kinds of
regulations? It's very complex. I wish it was simple. It's not
like individual species management like scallops where you're
basically establishing a regulation for a single species.
Multispecies management, the reason we chose--and I know this
is a long-winded answer, but it's a very complex subject--the
reason that the Council initially chose days at sea as a
methodology for managing fisheries in New England in 1993 was
for the very reasons that we've experienced when we've gone
toward other management methodologies. And there were reasons
to go in that direction. And my personal opinion, they were not
sufficient to overcome the reasons to not use days at sea. But
that is a personal opinion. That was not the collective opinion
of the Council, and we therefore have the circumstances we have
today.
Senator Snowe. To follow-up, the question is: With five
different regulation changes, at what point does it work?
Mr. Hill. Okay.
Senator Snowe. And that's the issue here. The scientific
objectives were not met. What is the problem?
Mr. Hill. The problem is----
Senator Snowe. Is it the information? Is it the will?
Obviously we expect adjustments, but having five different
regulation changes in a given year and missing those objectives
creates a problem. That's what I'd like to underscore here, to
see if we can get to the heart of the matter.
Mr. Hill. Well, I think I testified earlier in Washington
from an individual perspective before I ascended to the chair.
And my opinion, personal opinion, is that the reason we keep
exceeding our mortality targets is because we can't agree on a
methodology that will keep us within them. And the reason we
can't agree on that methodology is because it has allocation
implications and many industry people don't agree with the
science that underpins the rationale that we're using to set
our targets. And result ofthat, we've used what are generally
called ``input controls,'' which are closed areas and other
methodologies to try to control fishing mortality without
closing the fishery.
My opinion is that it is--this is a personal opinion--I'm
not speaking for the Council--but it is my opinion that when we
exceed our mortality targets why we do ourselves no service as
all. The following year we're back at the table trying to
figure out how to cut mortality further. And that's been the
history of this fishery here in the region. It is a lack of
consensus--to get at your question--it is a lack of consensus
in the industry and on the Council on what the appropriate
target should be, and then what methodology should be used to
ensure that we do not exceed our targets. And currently, there
has been no consensus in New England that we would be choosing
hard quotas as is used in Alaska and the North Pacific as a
methodology of controlling fishing mortality. It's a
significant issue. When you're using input controls and other
soft targets, the risk factor is very significant. And in my
opinion, in this particular instance, why it has demonstrated
one of the fundamental weaknesses of that methodology. Is there
a consensus to go in a different direction? I certainly hope
so. But I won't know that until we develop Amendment 13 and
take a look at the consequences of using a methodology that has
within it the potential of this kind of what I'll call
``discard problems.'' And in fact, exceeding the TAC. That's
the best answer I can give. And if I haven't been clear, I'd be
happy to have another shot at it. But I suspect the other
speakers might offer some additional comments.
Senator Snowe. Thank you. Admiral Naccara, you mentioned
that you're going to be reducing operational air patrol hours
by 50 percent. I recently had a chance to talk with the
Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Loy, about the need to
reduce the operational pace to provide more training and to
maintain equipment. But this is a significant reduction in air
patrol hours. What will be the general impact and what will
happen during this fishing season?
Admiral Naccara. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. It was not
quite 50 percent. What I discussed was some amounts, 10 percent
on our cutters, medium endurance cutters in particular, and
probably 14 to 15 percent on air surveillance time. It's an
effort on the part of the Coast Guard to try and restore
readiness in the Coast Guard. We have noted many readiness
shortfalls during the last couple of years. And we're trying to
establish an equilibrium in which we can still sustain normal
operations, we can perform the appropriate amount of training,
maintenance, and administrative work and at the same time not
impose any unreasonable workload on our folks while still
having that search capability to respond to emergencies.
We found that was absolutely necessary for this year. And
I'm hoping that we can once again return to our normal numbers,
both for surface and air surveillance next year.
What does that mean for us? It means fewer cutters on
patrol in the Atlantic. It means fewer aircraft in the air. For
us in the First District, it's going to mean a substantial cut
back in the number of aircraft patrolling the fishery zones. It
will mean less cutters involved with drug law enforcement. It
will mean less harbor patrols for the Coast Guard in our
internal waters. It could have a potential impact on pollution
in the harbors if we're not there with the same level of
presence that we normally have. There could be a probable
change on those different issues. We'll still have the
capability to respond to emergencies in any case, but we found
this absolutely necessary, ma'am.
Senator Snowe. That does represent a serious reduction.
Admiral Naccara. Yes, it does.
Senator Snowe. So it could be 14 percent? Or it could be
more?
Admiral Naccara. Yes, that's it. That's true.
Senator Snowe. From what I understand, that's not been
established. Is that true?
Admiral Naccara. Well, our Atlantic Area Commander
established limits, and we're working to try to meet those.
Now, a 10 percent cut over the fiscal year since being
implemented halfway through the year will be an appreciably
higher number in the short-term. So for us in First District,
it could mean as much as 35 percent cut back in the short-term
for the remainder of this fiscal year.
Senator Snowe. Thank you. Senator Kerry.
Senator Kerry. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I might just
stay with where we are on that. Admiral, assuming you were at
what you call ``normal level,'' are you able to do the job
that's been set out for you with all these additional
restraints?
Admiral Naccara. We can do it in a fairly capable manner,
Senator----
Senator Kerry. But it's really not where you'd like to be.
Admiral Naccara. No. That is correct. I would like to have
more resources. I think our presence has been shown to have a
very beneficial effect. We're doing the best that we can with
our current level of resources.
Senator Kerry. That's what concerns me overall here. I
mean, you're going to go through a period of reduction. I think
there's a critical level of basic deterrence/enforcement
oversight. If you're not capable of doing that now with the
reduction, if you're really not capable of doing what we've now
set out for you in all of these enlarged closed areas, then
we're in trouble.
Admiral Naccara. Yes, sir. And of course, in a multimission
service we have very many competing demands for our cutters and
our aircraft. Some of the zones and the areas are very
challenging for us to enforce, restricted gear areas in
particular. We look to simplistic forms and shapes that can be
enforced relatively easily. But certainly again, the Deepwater
Project, as I've mentioned, is a system of systems, which will
include sensors, which certainly will help our effectiveness
into the future.
Senator Kerry. Well, I want to emphasize to my colleagues
that this is not just a passing comment at a hearing. I think
it goes to the core of what we're trying to achieve here.
There's nothing more damning to the Congress or to the public
process than us passing a law--we've done it in education,
we've done it in a number of areas where we say an agency has
to go do something, but we don't provide the resources, and
then we go through these accountability processes, and we sit
here scratching our heads, asking why isn't it working? Well,
it's pretty fundamental. It brings me back to the points about
consensus and information needs that were discussed I believe
by both Mr. Hill and Ms. Dalton. You've just underscored that,
Tom, the need to have adequate information, the need to have
consensus. But if we're not structured in a way that allows us
to gather that information, either through observers or through
science or the process, we're sowing the seeds of either a very
confusing, haphazard kind of rudimentary management where we
stumble along when we get there. Or even more destructively, we
develop a management plan where people lose faith in the
process and its credibility. I thought I heard you say that
mortality rates are two to three times what they ought to be?
Is that correct? You did say that?
Ms. Dalton. Yes.
Senator Kerry. Well, isn't that the nub of this? I mean, if
mortality rates are two to three times what they ought to be
and we know that, but we don't have adequate enforcement, it
seems to mean we're on a very dangerous slide. Do you want to
address that, Tom?
Mr. Hill. I would. Thank you, Senator. I think you've made
an excellent point. And I would go further by saying that we're
currently realizing $40 million out of the groundfish fishery
on annual revenues. I think it's an excellent question. And the
reality is we're currently realizing about $40 million of
revenue out of the groundfish fishery and the potential if all
13 stocks are rebuilt it's $450 to $500 million worth of
revenue. So we have a long ways to go. It isn't just Gulf of
Maine codfish. There are a number of other species in that
species complex that need to be rebuilt. On the other hand,
there are some other stocks in that species complex that are
making significant recovery, the projections are pretty good.
My read is that we are not doing things from a
comprehensive perspective. I agree with the Admiral's concern
and your stated concern that things--we're not tying things
together adequately either on analysis basis or on a resources
basis to be able to say this is a holistic look at this
problem, and all of the components that are necessary for
success are adequately dealt with and adequately--I don't know
what the right word is--but assessed and appreciated and then
implemented in a manner that is consistent.
We're all doing, I suspect, the service and the Council and
the Coast Guard, are doing the best that we can with the
available resources. I think that it is a credit to the Coast
Guard and the Council and the service that we do the best we
can. But these are complex problems, and they don't get fixed
easily. And because there are significant differences of
opinion about things, when there is a scarcity of information
or when that information is not available in a timely way, it
adds to the confusion, it adds to the opportunity for those who
want to take a different perspective, it calls into question
the validity of what we're doing, what anybody is doing, and it
adds to the discontent in the fishery, real information or not.
And I believe fully that we need to have an integrated system
that has real-time data. I agree with you, observers are a
necessity in this fishery in order for us to be able to get a
handle on what is being caught, what is being discarded, what
is the complex--it will help in our science efforts. It's
significant. And I'm a believer in fixing problems. I think
that the track record of our Council is we want to fix
problems. We're making some strides. But we need to take a
holistic look at this. And I agree with you, and I hope the
Committee does.
Senator Kerry. Let me ask you a budget question first of
all. Some people have been suggesting that the NMFS budget is
increasing, and that we don't need to provide more money to the
agency. People who say this argue that there's an issue with
how you prioritize funds. On the other hand, I look at the
budget request for this year. It's essentially a static or
decreasing budget for basic resource information at a time when
those resource needs, as we're hearing, are greater than ever.
Why is that? What's happening here?
Ms. Dalton. We've actually seen 57 percent increases since
1994 in our budget which looks like it's a really healthy
increase. Most of those resources have gone into Pacific
salmon. What has happened to us is while our budget has
increased, our responsibilities have also increased
concurrently. The other thing that has happened is that the new
money that we get tends to go for specific purposes. With the
number of different lines we have in our budget, we currently
have to manage our operations and research budget under 113
separate lines. And we can't move money between those different
lines. As a result, what we've seen in the northeast region
this year, we actually had a deficit in our spending. Where in
other regions of the country things are fine and our budgets
are adequate.
What we were doing to try to deal with this, because it's
been a gradual problem that's developed over a period of time
this year, is we've asked Ray Kammer, who is the head of NIST
(National Institute of Standards and Technology) now, to do an
independent budget assessment of our entire agency budget. He's
putting together a team with the Coast Guard, hopefully one
Coast Guard person, the chief scientist of the Canadian
National Marine Fishery Service, and some of our in-house
folks, to try to look at where we're spending our money and
what problems we have.
Senator Kerry. When will that be available?
Ms. Dalton. He is going to try to do it within the next 60
days, so it's germane to the funding process and the
appropriations process.
Senator Kerry. Are you going to share that with us?
Ms. Dalton. Sure, we'd be happy to.
Mr. Hill. And if I--I'm sorry----
Senator Kerry. Go ahead, Tom.
Mr. Hill. I would be more blunt and say that our workload
in the Council dealing with the changes in the Act and the
challenges that we face have gone up 100 percent, and our
budget has gone up 28 percent.
Senator Kerry. How much?
Mr. Hill. 28 percent.
Senator Kerry. 28 percent.
Mr. Hill. Since the----
Senator Kerry. I thought you made a compelling argument
about the number of hours and the amount of work the Council
has to do. Obviously, we don't want to just build
bureaucracies, but at the same time we've got to be able to
build the consensus and make good decisions.
Are there management tools that you know of in certain
places in the country, or in certain countries other than ours
that you think work? I mean, some people have suggested to me
that some other countries are doing fishery management better
than we are. I won't go into which or where, but there are
examples. Are there tools that you wish you had that you don't
have? And Penny, are there ways to build consensus among
stakeholders that you think you could achieve, and if so, are
there steps we could take to help you achieve it? Tom?
Mr. Hill. I think that there are a number of tools that are
successful for given regions for very specific reasons. And the
biggest reason is that the industry buys into a management
methodology that achieves their goals as well as the goals of
the Sustainable Fisheries Act. I must admit that I am troubled
by--and this is a personal perspective--but actually the
Council has gone on record in requesting that the Senate remove
the moratorium on individual fisheries quotas. That's probably
the only methodology that has denied the Council system in
terms of looking at how we manage our resources.
Am I suggesting that our Council is going to move toward
IFQs in the near future? Not at all. I just believe it is one
methodology that the Council ought to have an opportunity to
look at. I think community-based quotas, sector allocations and
a number of other allocations which empower the participants in
the fishery. Clearly, the service and the Councils are defining
what the playing field is by the volume of fish that are
available. We then need to empower the participants within the
fishery by defining the playing field and then asking them how
it is that they're going to prosecute that fishery to their
best economic and social advantage.
And so in that respect, I would request that the--on the
behalf of the Council or individually--that the Senate look at
the moratorium on IFQs. I think that from my individual
perspective that I think it is fundamental that we achieve our
mortality targets and not exceed them on a regular basis. It is
fundamental to success.
Senator Kerry. Admiral, you wanted to add something?
Admiral Naccara. If I may, I'd like to pile on for just a
moment here, Senator.
Excellent point you made before. And I can give you some
more substantive issues within the Coast Guard. First of all,
it's interesting to note that our work force in the Coast Guard
is equal to that of our 1963 levels. And I can guarantee you
that many new responsibilities have come to the Coast Guard
since that time.
In the fiscal year 2001 President's budget there are a
number of issues that I think will help in the issue just
addressed. Such as some money for Vessel Monitoring Systems,
the VMS system. I think there is some value in that system.
It's another tool that we may use to locate vessels. Of course,
we still need the at-sea enforcement capabilities, so we need
the cutters and aircraft. But it could be helpful. And we need
a more effective way to pass the information to our cutters. In
the budget there is money to help enhance that system of
interconnectivity.
There's also money in the budget for an additional 23
billets for the Coast Guard in our Fishing Vessel Safety
Program. Absolutely essential for us. It helps us, of course,
to rebuild our work force and focus on this issue. And of
course, there are also moneys for upgrading repairs of our
infrastructure and some of the critical steps with our
Deepwater acquisition project.
Senator Kerry. Well, I have talked to individual fishermen
who say to me that there are plenty of fish out there. I go out
there and we're being restricted from this area. A lot of fish.
Why don't they listen to us? We could go out there--if we were
allowed to make some judgments ourselves, we could avoid the
race and the trip limits. They propose that you'd wind up with
less risk to fishermen's safety because they wouldn't be
trundling around at sea because they can't come in to justify
their catch until they've been out there for a certain amount
time. So you run into the risk of being in a storm you
shouldn't have been in. Isn't there a more effective way to
create--I suppose you're smiling because you're going to say,
yes, we have IFQs, is that right?
Mr. Hill. Well, there are more effective ways, and many of
them are not popular. And it has to do with cultural and social
and economic differences in the fishing industry relative to
their vision of the future of the industry. And my opinion is
that fisheries management is an evolutionary process. It is not
a--it is not--well, this is the right answer forever. This is
the right answer for today. It is the best social and economic
and political, in parenthesis, conclusion that we can come to
based on the interest of the industry and the public today.
I have a fundamentally singular perspective on fisheries
management. I've articulated it before the Committee in the
past. And I think it's really important that as a national
standard that we identify controlling fishing mortality to live
within our limits as being a core element of success. How we do
that with the industry I think is multifaceted. It's my opinion
that the Council is looking seriously at regionalizing our
groundfish plan. And this is in the development of Amendment 13
where we're talking about breaking the groundfish plan up into
regions, southern New England, George's Bank, and maybe in-
shore and off-shore Gulf of Maine. And that will allow the
industry participants to have a more narrow input on the area
where they're actually fishing versus every time we amend the
management plan it effects everything from the New Jersey
border all the way to the Canadian border.
Senator Kerry. But this is not new. Every few years we sit
here and we've tried to tweak the Act in a way or even
radically change it in a way that empowers somebody to be able
to break this kind of cultural resistance you're talking about.
There is an evolutionary process going on. It's called ``two to
three times the mortality rate.'' And if we continue with two
to three times the mortality rate, the problem's going to solve
itself.
Mr. Hill. But if I could, I think that the critical
component here is not to overlook the fact that the Council has
been successful in many fisheries. This is the poster boy of
today. Gulf of Maine codfish is the issue of the day. The fact
of the matter is we've been successful with haddock, we've been
successful with George's Bank yellowtail. We've been successful
with gray sole. There are a number of areas where the Council
has wrestled through problems, and we have been successful. The
problem with Gulf of Maine codfish is that it affects almost
every segment of the fishing industry. Gulf of Maine cod has
the largest number of permits, the largest number of
participants that catch that species either directly or as a
bycatch. And it is a challenge. I believe that we will
eventually wrestle it to the ground. It has profound impacts in
the communities that abut the Gulf of Maine. It is a
significant issue, but we are wrestling with it.
Senator Kerry. Last question before I turn to my colleague.
Ms. Dalton. Cooperative research I think is really an
important way to get people to interact. That's one reason why
it's such a critical thing because it brings our managers
together and the scientists and the fishermen in a program
where they work together and they begin to understand each
other's viewpoints. So there are a lot of other things that we
are trying to do. The real-time reporting, the things that they
did in the scallop industry to try to maintain their discards
at very low levels, they're doing that in the North Pacific now
and using it to control discards of halibut and the Pacific
codfish and extending the fishery. We can do those kinds of
things in New England. We just have to begin that process of
making people aware that those capabilities exist.
Senator Kerry. Is there a tool that you wish you had that
you don't have?
Admiral Naccara. Money.
Senator Kerry. That's it, huh?
Ms. Dalton. That's it. Great answer.
Senator Kerry. Are you familiar with the effort of Cliff
Gowdy, researcher at the MIT Sea Grant Program who was trying
to get permission to go out and tow two dredges on the same day
in order to do a comparison with a video camera, recording
operations, and he couldn't do it because NMFS wouldn't sign
off on it?
Ms. Kurkul. I don't remember a lot of the specifics of it,
but I generally remember the issue. And it had to do with the
need to obtain an experimental fishing permit.
Senator Kerry. Correct.
Ms. Kurkul. And I think the length of time it takes to get
these experimental fishing permits, and that is something we've
been talking about quite a bit in the last few weeks. And we
are working on streamlining that process and, in fact, talking
about establishing a delegation for those permits at the
regional level instead of at the headquarters level, which we
believe will cut a significant amount of time off the length of
time it takes right now to obtain those permits.
Senator Kerry. Well, it's not just time. I think it's sort
of the sense of it. I mean, this fellow thought he was coming
up with a scheme to help protect habitat, and that you folks
ought to welcome that kind of effort. His quote is: ``They say
it takes 60 days, but there's a whole process of give and take
to get a proposal up to snuff. It typically takes much longer
than that, this process of getting an experimental fisheries
permit is ridiculous. It allows too much authority to NMFS.''
If that's true, it essentially blocks whatever was intended in
the original Magnuson Act and following refinements. The
process totally discourages research by scientists, let alone
by fishermen.
Ms. Dalton. We have heard similar complaints from a number
of people.
Senator Kerry. Why is it so complicated, folks? I don't
understand that.
Ms. Dalton. I think part of it is we have too many steps in
the process right now. What happens is the region works with
the people that want to do the research, goes ahead and
develops a program, does a package up for a decision, and then
it comes to Washington DC where people again go through a
review process.
Senator Kerry. This is the kind of stuff that sends people
away in despair. It drives everybody nuts, not to mention gives
the entire system a lousy name. I think when somebody brings in
a sound experimental fisheries proposal you ought to leap on it
and say: How can we help? Is there a way to make sense out of
this proposal? And if the proposal isn't going to make sense,
tell them right up front and tell them why. Maybe there are too
many cooks cooking this soup or something. I don't know.
I think the point is made. I think you've got to find a way
to work this out as part of the process of building credibility
and creating a relationship, built on common sense, with people
that you're regulating. If bureaucracies get in the way, we're
all going to have a hard time getting people to listen and
cooperate. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Senator. Senator Stevens.
Senator Stevens. Penny, where do we get the mortality
figures in this area?
Ms. Dalton. Our science center calculates them. If you want
to explain that, Mike, or----
Senator Stevens. Are they industry originated, or are they
estimates of scientists? What are the----
Ms. Dalton. They're scientific estimates.
Senator Stevens. They're estimates. Are those broadcast to
the industry, people in the industry?
Ms. Dalton. Yes. We do a stock assessment on each of the
stocks, and that's provided to the Council.
Senator Stevens. Is this excessive bycatch, or are they
discarding for size? What's the--why is the mortality rate so
high?
Ms. Dalton. Well, the problem with Gulf of Maine cod has
been that they have been aggregated in the primary fishing area
in Massachusetts Bay. And so it's very hard to avoid them when
the fishermen go out to fish. But it's one of the stocks that's
in the most trouble within that whole multispecies complex, so
what we've tried to do is set trip limits on it so that it
discourages a directed fishery but allows regular fishing
operations to go ahead and continue.
Senator Stevens. Well, money can't solve the mortality
problem.
Ms. Dalton. No.
Senator Stevens. That's discipline.
Ms. Dalton. Yes. And figuring out effective ways to try to
control the discards and reduce them.
Senator Stevens. It's also a violation of the last Act. If
you fish in an area where you're going to get an excessive
amount of bycatch, you're supposed to desist. I wonder
sometimes about how much we can enforce discipline on a
fishery.
Ms. Dalton. It's difficult. I know you're frustrated that
we had to go through five different rulemakings last year, but
we did manage to control the cod mortality last year to the
amount that was in the regulation. It was at a level that I
believe it stopped overfishing but it didn't provide for
rebuilding. And the next step is we have to get to levels that
allow us to go ahead and rebuild.
Ms. Kurkul. Part of what's happened with cod, that Tom
talked about a little bit, is that there's this continual
discussion about finding a balance between the different
measures of the tools that are available. Trip limits do create
discards. Everybody recognizes that. That was part of the whole
discussion. Closed areas, on the other hand, limit
opportunities. And so the goal was to find a package of
measures that would to the extent practicable reduce those
discards while still preserving some opportunities for the
industry. And so it's this constant balancing act that's made
the regulations and the situation very complex. It's a very
diverse industry. And so trying to accommodate each of the
regional differences has been part of the difficulty of the
process.
Ms. Dalton. There's also a small boat issue.
Senator Stevens. That's why it was my suggestion to create
Councils because the Federal Government just doesn't understand
every area. The Councils are supposed to understand every area.
Let me go to Mr. Hill, if I may. I went through your list
of the things that you're considering, Mr. Hill, and I have
great respect for Councils and the hard work that you all do.
But I found strange that one of the three areas that you
deferred this year were measures to address capacity in the New
England fisheries. If you overcapitalize, why has that been
postponed?
Mr. Hill. Because there was not a clear--well, the short
answer is there was not a clear consensus on what we needed to
do about it. The Council individually does not have the
authority under the Act to eliminate or to control capacity
other than through limited entry plans which we have
implemented in various fisheries. Limited entry in New England
has been historically a rather controversial issue. The
character and nature of the New England fishery has been an
open-access fishery and making a transition for limited entry
has been profoundly controversial in some quarters.
Senator Stevens. Well, I'm bombarded with plans that come
from the North Pacific Council from various species groups of
their own origination of how to deal with overcapacity. Do you
have plans coming from the fisheries themselves----
Mr. Hill. No.
Senator Stevens.--to deal with overcapacity?
Mr. Hill. Well, not specifically for capacity issues, no.
We have management plans, suggestions that come from industry,
but not ones that deal with capacity other than through the
traditional format.
Senator Stevens. But didn't I hear you say you had an
outstanding number of permits in one fishery that's just
overwhelming?
Mr. Hill. Yes, we do. That's in the groundfish fishery.
Senator Stevens. Has the Council addressed that, what you'd
like to do to get rid of those, or to limit those somehow?
Mr. Hill. Yes, we are. We are in the development, as a
matter of fact, our capacity committee, is looking singularly
at this time, looking at scallops and groundfish and is going
to make recommendations to those subcommittees relative to a
singular focus for this Amendment 13 process. And so yes, we
are looking at it.
Senator Stevens. Well, I'm going to be pursuing for the
king crab fishery a concept of trying to use their CCF as a
pool and, with almost a lottery system to have all the boats in
the lottery, some of them are going to be retired. And
hopefully, the CCF will pay for those boats, plus selling them
off as recreational boats never to be used in fisheries again.
Are your people thinking about things like that?
Mr. Hill. Well, I can't speak for the industry. The Council
is certainly wrestling with issues of that nature, yes. That it
is a--it's a--Senator, it's a complex subject, and I'm
uncomfortable speaking on the behalf of the Council----
Senator Stevens. I understand. I'm not asking you to speak
for the Council. I'm just wondering if people have presented to
your Council plans like they're presenting to ours.
Mr. Hill. Not to date, no, sir.
Senator Stevens. I see. Well, I would hope we'd find some
way to address capacity in fisheries nationally because we're
overcapitalized very clearly in view of the way the supply is
being reduced. And if you have any ideas, I'd be pleased to
join others in working with you to deal with this. This is the
historic fishery of the United States, and it ought to find a
more fertile field for renewal and even some of the newer areas
such as mine.
Mr. Hill. Senator, that's a wonderful invitation, and I
will bring that back to our Council and to our executive
committee----
Senator Stevens. I think there are many ways to be--to use
great ingenuity in dealing with capital--overcapitalization,
and I say that as one that's always opposed to individual
fisheries quotas, but I'm about ready to change my mind. It may
be the only tool we have left.
Admiral, I'm a little disturbed about the statistics you
have reported. I've been down to the east coast anti-drug
activities out of Florida, and I was out at the area there in
California at Alameda to deal with what they've got there in
terms of the Pacific effort now. How much have you lost of your
gear to the anti-narcotic trafficking efforts that the Coast
Guard's putting forth this year? Have you lost some of your
gear here?
Admiral Naccara. I can't specifically address that,
Senator. I know that we have constant competition for Coast
Guard assets. I know that we've all--all of our programs have
suffered in the country----
Senator Stevens. Have you lost any cutters?
Admiral Naccara. No, sir.
Senator Stevens. Lost any personnel?
Admiral Naccara. No, sir.
Senator Stevens. Most areas have. It sounds like you
believe you've had a cut of 10 percent?
Admiral Naccara. Yes, sir, yes, sir. Ten percent of our
medium endurance cutters, the primary large cutter that we use
in the fisheries----
Senator Stevens. You mean the utilization of your cutters
is 10 percent?
Admiral Naccara. Utilization, yes, sir, utilization.
Senator Stevens. Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you said
you had been cut 10 percent.
Admiral Naccara. No, sir. Well, I've been cut 10 percent of
my available usage of those cutters.
Senator Stevens. Yes.
Admiral Naccara. They'll remain ashore for training, for
maintenance and so forth. That was the cut that I was
discussing, sir.
Senator Stevens. And has that been allocated to law
enforcement, that 10 percent?
Admiral Naccara. No, sir. No, sir. All programs have
sustained a cut to their operations. All of our multimissions
have sustained that cut. So it's across all missions. The
cutters will be at sea 10 percent less.
Senator Stevens. Was your budget cut that 10 percent?
Admiral Naccara. No, sir, no, sir. We've just been trying
to help to restore the readiness problem that we've noticed
over the last couple of years. It's a very----
Senator Stevens. It's a catch-up in your operations, your
maintenance and your training?
Admiral Naccara. That's precisely it, yes, sir. It's a very
difficult cultural change for us, but that is something we felt
necessary.
Senator Stevens. Last question: What do you think of the
GMS (sic) system?
Admiral Naccara. The VMS system, sir? The vessel monitoring
system?
Senator Stevens. What is GMS?
Admiral Naccara. Vessel----
Senator Stevens. VMS, pardon me.
Admiral Naccara. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. A little trouble hearing up here. VMS.
What do you think of that?
Admiral Naccara. I think it's a valuable tool for helping
us to determine position of vessels. Right now we've only been
using it on the scallop fleets, so it's got limited
applicability for us.
Senator Stevens. And you would mandate all vessels in the
fishery to have that?
Admiral Naccara. I think in the long run it would be very
valuable in that way, yes, sir. We need an enhanced Command and
Control Communication Capability with the VMS systems, so I can
get that information to our cutters right away.
Senator Stevens. Who can tell me what the on-vessel cost
for the VMS system is for the fishermen?
Ms. Dalton. Right now, it's a few thousand dollars.
Senator Stevens. I can't hear you, Penny.
Ms. Dalton. I think it is about $2,000 or $3,000. It may be
more than that.
Ms. Kurkul. It depends on the system.
Senator Stevens. There's people back there raising five
fingers.
Ms. Dalton. Okay.
Ms. Kurkul. The system----
Senator Stevens. It's nice to be in Boston where they wave
at me with all five fingers.
(Laughter.)
Ms. Kurkul. The system that is being used on the scallop
fleet is about five or $6,000 to install the system. There are
other systems available in use in other parts of the country.
Senator Stevens. What does it cost the government?
Ms. Kurkul. There is no cost to the government for the
scallop fishery.
Senator Stevens. You have to monitor----
Ms. Kurkul. Yes, I'm sorry. The in-house capability to
monitor the system as well as compile the data and make the
data available is fairly significant.
Senator Stevens. What's holding that up? How much? You
requested money this year?
Ms. Dalton. Yes. We have an increase for it, and we do have
money in our budget this year for it. We just did a contract
with Volpe, the transportation group, and they're going to be
setting up a national VMS system for us. And they think that
they'll be able to handle I think up to 10,000 vessels in that
system. So we have a couple systems. There's one for mackerel.
There's one in the Western Pacific for the long lines.
Senator Stevens. This is the beeper system satellite to
monitor----
Ms. Dalton. It would be. You can monitor. It also has some
capabilities. You can tie it in with communications. We've also
been looking at the possibility of tying it in with electronic
log books.
Senator Stevens. And is it GPS integrated?
Ms. Dalton. I think so.
Senator Stevens. I see. Okay. Thank you very much, Madam
Chairwoman.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Senator Stevens. I know we have
to go on to the next panel, but I just wanted to ask you, Ms.
Dalton, have you had a chance to review the GAO report that was
released last week?
Ms. Dalton. I read it on the plane.
Senator Snowe. You read it on the plane, great. I certainly
want a response from you with respect to a number of the
issues. One of the major issues, of course, is how to utilize
and incorporate the socioeconomic impact when making these
decisions. GAO has said that this decision is not incorporated
at the outset of the NMFS decision-making process. The impact
is identified, but we don't identify ways to minimize it. Do
you have any ideas about how we can restructure the decision-
making process within the agency?
Ms. Dalton. There are two different things. One is that we
have, again, requested additional funding to go ahead and do,
collect, establish data bases and do some of the economic
analysis. We have a $3.5 million increase in our budget for it
this year. Thus far, the increase that we had for last year of
$1 million was not funded. So that's one of the things that we
need to do.
In addition to that, we've been working on revamping our
guidelines because we recognize the same thing as GAO did.
Particularly in some of the litigation these kinds of issues
have come up.
So we're trying to revise our guidelines for both the
Councils and for our own internal reviews to move things up in
the process. We had hoped to have those guidelines redone.
Senator Snowe. What's the timeframe?
Ms. Dalton. What?
Senator Snowe. What's the timeframe?
Ms. Dalton. The timeframe is probably this summer, because
it requires more analysis.
Senator Snowe. I just think that one of the things against
the agency is time, time, time, time. We really need to move
this process forward. I think that is one of our critical
challenges. The decision-making process is too open-ended.
Let's get back to groundfish. Many livelihoods depend on the
fishery. The requirements have been in the Act since 1996, so
this is not a new discovery. The agency needs to focus on
getting this done. It is very critical, which is why we had the
GAO conduct this study. We realized it wasn't being
incorporated in the agency's decision-making.
As in the groundfish industry, there is not an isolated
decision. There are many, and we have to weigh all of them. The
agency has to give a sense of urgency to these issues. In your
statement you said that, ``A great deal of work remains to be
done with respect to the SFA requirements. We are laying a
better foundation for future fisheries management, yet the
benefits of the changes made by Congress will take years,
perhaps decades to realize.''
I don't want this to be a lethargic process. Focus on the
key issues that will make a difference. We need the agency's
commitment. To use the national standards, the best science,
and the amount of money we're going to need for research, we
have to decide that these are the key issues to focus on. I
want to use this reauthorization process to identify the key
issues. Otherwise, we're just going to continue to go in
circles.
I would hope that in the next few months we can get an idea
of how that's going to be incorporated. The GAO made some very
constructive suggestions, and I think we ought to try to review
those. I hope that in the final analysis, we realize that it's
going to take an enormous commitment to make sure this process
moves forward in a way that affects people's lives today. We
have to make those decisions now.
Mr. Hill, one other suggestion: In talking to a number of
people about the Council process, I know there are a number of
advisory panels within the New England Council. How do you
incorporate their decisions? Are there standard operating
procedures that could be used, or established, so that people
who do the work on those subcommittees see the results of their
work?
Mr. Hill. Well, the advisory panels for the Council are
established for each species committee. And the species
committee utilizes the advisory panels for responding to areas
where the industry has greater expertise than the committee
itself. And that's been the traditional role where we seek
advice from the advisors. The advisors often then meet
concurrently with the oversight committee. During the
presentation before the Council, the oversight committee and
the chairman of the advisory committee often give them before
the Council before we act on a given item. In the multispecies
plan, and the groundfish plan, we're actually taking a
fundamentally different tact with the advisors in this upcoming
amendment process. And we've integrated the advisors into the
development teams that are developing options for the Council's
consideration. I suspect that the advisory process is either
supported or disliked depending on whether, in fact, the
committee or the Council does what it is that this particular
segment of the advisory panel may want. On the other hand, why
the advisory process is critical to the Council's development
of management plans because the industry often has expertise
that the committee or the Council does not, my read is that
there is a balancing act between the types of things--the
advice we seek from the advisors and our willingness to take
that advice. It certainly is not a simple equation. There are
many areas, policy areas of biological issues that are not
appropriate to seek input or advice from advisors. On the other
hand, the impacts of various regulations and/or corresponding
different regulations and how that will impact mortality, gear
changes, areas fished or not fished. Why that kind of input is
the area where the Council seeks that input.
And in fact, we've had industry groups over the years that
have provided us with management options wholly that we have
sent through our analysis process and have made suggestions
back to the industry on how to improve them. And in fact, many
of the plans that we have implemented have had significant
industry input. Unfortunately, as is in legislation, why you
generally end up with a modified version of a proposal and
often times why that doesn't meet with the full concurrence of
those who had authored the recommendations to begin with. It's
an iterative process, and no management plan that I am familiar
with is ever fully supported by everybody that is involved.
There are a number of compromises that come forward, and it's
from that perspective that the industry and the Council need to
work on the most.
Senator Snowe. There's no standard for them to be
incorporated in the same way in the decision-making process.
Mr. Hill. Well, I would say that the standard has been that
the industry advisory panels meet regularly with the committee,
and at times are charged specifically by the committee with
answering specific questions that are posed to it. And I
believe there is a standard. We are now trying a different
model in this upcoming amendment process groundfish, but I
would say, for instance, in scallops, the industry advisory
panel meets the day before our scallop committee meeting, and
then concurrently with the committee at times, and their advice
is incorporated into the decision-making process, and in fact,
that has been a very successful model. The process is used in
other species committees where more or less effectiveness,
depending on the nature of the policy issue that's being
wrestled with.
Now, that's been the methodology. Think it's been a
modestly effective one. We're looking for ways of improving
that. And we are taking a different model here in the
groundfish development of Amendment 13 trying to have the
industry being involved from day one on the development of all
of the various options that will come to the Council. We hope
that will improve the communication level between the industry
and the Council. I will tell you that I'm committed to
improving that process in areas where it has not been
successful. It's one of the various things I touched on in
talking to Council members prior to my election.
Senator Snowe. Okay. Thank you all very much. We
appreciate----
Senator Kerry. One quick question----
Senator Snowe. Yes, you may.
Senator Kerry. One quick question to the Admiral. No, no,
no, because I know we want to move on to the next panel.
And also, the record will remain open?
Senator Snowe. Yes. The record will remain open for
additional questions and comments.
Senator Kerry. We'll submit something to you in writing.
But just very quickly: I appreciate what you were saying
about Operation Safe Catch, and obviously you're committed to
the safety of fishermen in every way, but some news reports
recently have focused on what I mentioned earlier about the
trip limits issue, and the trip limits sort of forcing some
fishermen to remain at sea. Obviously sometime in the winter,
particularly with the cost of fuel now, it seems that you've
got two problems. One is the risk of being at sea when you
don't want them to be. And secondly, it doesn't further
conservation goals to have them out there burning fuel when
they don't need to be. Is there some way to achieve your goal
with respect to the enforcement regulations and compliance but
still flexible enough to increase the safety of fishermen? Does
this situation raise the question of the IFQ program, and
what's your attitude about it?
Admiral Naccara. It's a little bit out of our realm there,
Senator. But I would say up front that the Coast Guard would
never encourage to remain at sea when bad weather is
approaching. I think reason must prevail. We don't enforce the
trip limits at sea. That enforcement is conducted at the dock,
of course. I feel that we've had a positive example over the
last couple of months, in which fishermen had come ashore,
perhaps exceeding their trip limits, and through arrangements,
through some kind of a compromise between the Coast Guard and
National Marine Fisheries and the fishermen, they were allowed
to come ashore. I think some of the catch was put in escrow,
and I think safety prevailed and good logic and reason
prevailed. That may be necessary on a case-by-case basis. I
think working together we can establish the proper standards
and apply reason to those. I think that we're very willing to
work together into the future. And that's as much as we can
hope for.
Ms. Kurkul. Senator, may I also respond? As a result of the
issues that have been raised around this issue of safety and
the trip limits, we have convened a meeting that will include
the Coast Guard, the Council, our office of law enforcement,
our NOAA office of General Council as well as the fishing
industry to discuss some of these issues. It's scheduled for
this Wednesday.
Senator Kerry. When will that be? This Wednesday?
Ms. Kurkul. This Wednesday.
Senator Kerry. Oh, well that's good. All right. Thank you
very much. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Senator Kerry. Senator Stevens,
any final comments? No. Thank you all very much.
We'll now proceed with the second panel witnesses. Our
first witness will be Mr. Russell Sherman, treasurer of the
Gulf of Maine Fishermen's Alliance, followed by Paul Parker of
the Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen's Association; Rip
Cunningham, publisher of the magazine, Salt Water Sportsman;
Peter Weiss, president of the General Category Tuna
Association; and Angela Sanfilippo, president of the Gloucester
Fishermen's Wives Association.
We thank all of you for being here today. I'd like to
remind witnesses to limit their statement to five minutes, and
we'll place your full written testimony in the record.
Mr. Sherman, we'll start with you.
STATEMENT OF RUSSELL SHERMAN, TREASURER,
GULF OF MAINE FISHERMEN'S ALLIANCE
Mr. Sherman. Madam Chair and members of the Committee, I
would like to thank you for the opportunity to address you
regarding the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act.
I've been a commercial fisherman for 29 years, fishing
primarily out of the port of Gloucester, Massachusetts, but
also from ports in Alaska, Maine and Virginia. As a commercial
fisherman and vessel owner, I have a vested interest in the
future of a viable commercial fishery and understand and
respect the need for effective conservation and management. I
am the treasurer and a director of the Gulf of Maine
Fishermen's Alliance. This group of fishermen representing
vessel owners and crew who fish in the Gulf of Maine and
surrounding waters seeks to ensure that regulations are
effective and sensible and treat fishermen fairly and equally.
The Gulf of Maine Fishermen's Alliance and I have been involved
for a number of years in the effort to implement management
measures that attain conservation objectives without
unreasonably burdening those who access the resource.
As the owner of an in-shore vessel currently unable to fish
due to extensive and lengthy in-shore closures, I believe that
I have also experienced and suffered through one of the most
dismal failures in the management process. With increasingly
stringent rebuilding measures mandated by the SFA and reduced
involvement of fishermen the management process has turned into
an allocation battle. With the winners being special interest
groups represented by well-funded lobbyists able to garner
support or who are actual members of the New England Fishery
Management Council. As a result, small owner-operated vessels
from small fishery-dependent coastal communities are being
forced out of the industry.
Effective conservation measures must be sensible and
practical and derive their authority from the consent of those
governed and affected. Rules must be fair and equitable and
take into account variations between fisheries. While the
Magnuson Act appears to provide many of the safeguards for
small businesses, particularly in the National Standards Four,
Six and Eight, we believe that the National Marine Fisheries
Service has been infective in ensuring that those standards are
properly applied. In many instances, I believe that the
shortcomings of the present Act result not from problems in the
Act itself but from improper interpretation or ineffective
implementation of existing provisions.
While all fishermen understand that the long-term goal of
the Act is to sustain a viable fishery, we do not believe that
Congress' intent is to sacrifice fishermen's lives nor their
livelihoods merely to hasten a recovery. Nor do we think
Congress' intent is to eliminate small businesses like mine.
In making my comments, therefore, while addressing the need
to revisions to the Act as presently drafted, I will also
address the problems we presently see in the Act's
interpretation which might in some respects be corrected
through clarification of the Congressional intent. The views
expressed here reflect my opinions and represent the consensus
of the Gulf of Maine Fishermen's Alliance. Congress must give
more guidance in prioritizing the national standards and
require that a balance is struck between them. Every time that
we ask for a balance to be struck between conservation and the
economic interests of the communities, we are told that the
fish come first. We do not believe that Congress really
intended this. Managers should have the flexibility to
coordinate management of interrelated stocks or manage them as
one. All species cannot be built to their historic levels at
one time.
National Marine Fisheries Service must be compelled to
enforce all of the national standards and correct Council
abuses. The in-shore fleet is currently bearing the entire
burden of conservation for codfish in the Gulf of Maine. The
ban on ITQs should be continued and any quotas distributed
equally among fishermen. Let us not give one group the
opportunity to receive everything.
Any latent effort buy-back should be made and should be
made entirely voluntarily. Congress should encourage community
and area-based management. Regional management will encourage
more responsible fishing and more involvement of fishermen in
the process.
Real-time data is badly needed. At present we are making
annual adjustments and amending plans on a few month's data or
data that is presently years out of date.
Cooperative research and management are vital to the
success of management plans and the Federal Government is not
doing enough to promote these efforts. Fishermen have been
begging for inclusion into the science process.
No more regulatory discards. All fish which cannot be
released alive should be landed, even if the proceeds from them
are given out to charity.
Council procedures benefit special interests and
undermining fishermen's confidence in management and the
Democratic process. We want industry people on the Council. No
more lobbyists or paid representatives on the Council.
Limitations must be placed on the scope of Council action
particularly in the abbreviated rulemaking process known as the
``framework.'' The Council is presently allocating more through
frameworks than through full amendments.
The constant changes in overfishing definitions, stock
rebuilding definitions and management objectives must stop.
Just once let us try to give a plan time enough to work. While
enforcement is crucial, fishermen remain citizens, harvesting
food for America, and the government must stop treating us like
criminals and respect our constitutional rights.
Judicial review of management measures should be made
easier or all plans, amendments and frameworks should
automatically be sent for review to another government agency,
perhaps the SBA. Consideration should be given to removing
management oversight from NOAA. Science should be objectively
performed without input from policymakers.
In conclusion, Madam Chair and distinguished participants,
I believe that the Magnuson Act has great potential for
maintaining a healthy and sustainable fishery. Congress must,
however, ensure that the national standards are enforced and
establish priorities so that managers achieve a balance between
biological objectives and the need of those dependent upon the
resource. More importantly, Congress must reverse the trends
seen on the New England Fishery Management Council that allow
special interest to allocate to themselves or their
constituents disproportionate access to the resources at the
expense of others. The Act as written appears to provide many
of these protections if only the National Marine Fisheries
Service would enforce them by refusing to implement Council
recommendations which do not comply with the law. Unless and
until fishermen are treated fairly and equally, the industry
will remain in turmoil and management of their objectives will
fall far short of their goals. American fishermen have a long
and proud heritage bringing food to these shores for over 375
years. While the desire of government to change the way we fish
by requiring MSY and every species is admirable, it may well be
impossible.
We need to ensure that goals are realistic and management
plans workable. While I may not agree with all that the
government is trying to do, I can accept the cutbacks, tie-up
periods, closed areas, inconvenience and personal loss
resulting from these management measures but only if I am
treated fairly, equally and with the respect that America
fishermen deserve. I ask you then to restore to the Magnuson
Act the most basic principles of fairness, equity and equality,
not just in words, but in the actions of the government and to
restrain the abuses of the Council process which threaten to
undermine these Democratic principles. I thank you for this
opportunity to speak.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sherman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Russell Sherman, Treasurer,
Gulf of Maine Fishermen's Alliance
I. Introduction
Madame Chair and members of the Committee, I would like to thank
you for the opportunity to address you regarding the re-authorization
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. I have
been a commercial fisherman for 29 years, fishing primarily out of the
port of Gloucester, Massachusetts, and also from Alaska, Maine and
Virginia. As a commercial fisherman and vessel owner, I have a vested
interest in the future of a viable commercial fishery and understand
and respect the need for effective conservation and management. I am
the Treasurer and a Director of the Gulf of Maine Fishermen's Alliance.
This group of fishermen, representing vessel owners and crew who fish
in the Gulf of Maine and surrounding waters seeks to ensure that
regulations are effective and sensible and treat fishermen fairly and
equally. The Gulf of Maine Fishermen's Alliance and I have been
involved for a number of years in the effort to implement management
measures that attain conservation objectives, without unreasonably
burdening those who access the resource. As the owner of an inshore
vessel currently unable to fish due to extensive and lengthy inshore
closures, I believe I have also experienced and suffered through one of
the most dismal failures of the management process. With increasingly
stringent rebuilding measures mandated by the Sustainable Fisheries
Act, and reduced involvement of fishermen, the management process has
turned into an allocation fight, with the winners being special
interest groups, represented by well funded lobbyists able to garner
support on, or who are actually members of, the New England Fishery
Management Council. As a result, small owner operated vessels, from
small fishery dependent coastal communities are forced out of the
industry.
Effective conservation measures must be sensible and practical and
derive their authority from the consent of those governed and affected.
Rules must be fair and equitable, and take into account variations
between fisheries. While the Magnuson Act appears to provide many of
the safeguards for small businesses, particularly in National Standards
four, six and eight, we believe that the National Marine Fisheries
Service has been ineffective in ensuring that those standards are
properly applied. In many instances, I believe that the shortcomings of
the present Act result not from problems in the Act itself, but from
improper interpretation or ineffective implementation of existing
provisions. While all fishermen understand that the long-term goal of
the Act is to sustain a viable fishery, we do not believe that
Congress' intent is to sacrifice fishermen's lives or livelihoods
merely to hasten a recovery. Nor do we think Congress' intent is to
eliminate small businesses like mine.
In making my comments therefore, while addressing the need for
revisions to the Act as presently drafted, I will also address the
problems we presently see in the Act's interpretation, which might in
some respects be corrected, through clarification of Congressional
intent. The views expressed herein reflect my opinions, and represent
the consensus of the Gulf of Maine Fishermen's Alliance
II. Congress Must Give More Guidance in Prioritizing the National
Standards and Require that a Balance is Struck Between Them
Congress should provide some guidance to the Administration as to
the priority to be given each National Standard. As fishermen, we are
often confronted with the statement that conservation goals set forth
in National Standard One override all others. As a result, I believe
managers are too quick to reject industry alternatives that might come
close to conservation goals, but which would significantly reduce the
burden on fishermen and harm to their communities. We do not believe
that this was Congress' intent. Managers must balance competing issues
such as health of stocks with the health of fishery dependent
communities, fairness and equity and safety at sea. If a slight delay
in rebuilding will permit a community to survive or promote equity or
safety, then every attempt should be made to delay rebuilding as long
as this does not affect the long term viability of a stock. Plans
should be flexible to permit some re-direction, or to avoid cumulative
effects of competing plans from suddenly increasing the burden on
fishermen who engage in a number of fisheries.
The present National Standards require consideration of the effect
of fishermen based on each individual plan or action. As a multispecies
fisherman, I am subjected to a number of management plans, each with
its own set of rules and limitations. Although considered a
groundfisherman, I am also severely impacted by the Lobster Plan, the
Monkfish Plan and the Dogfish Plan. For example, at the same time
inshore multispecies vessels are suffering from draconian restrictions
in the cod fishery, which deprive many of us access to other species
such as flounder and pollock, we are now required to discard many of
the lobster we previously landed; many others are required to discard
monkfish; and the dogfish fishery appears to be at an end for all
practical purposes. Nowhere has the cumulative effect of these plans
been evaluated. I can tell you that the value of any fish that the
regulations require me to discard represents a pure loss of profit--
without any conservation benefit. The cumulative effect of all plans,
including their regulatory burden, must be determined.
III. Managers Should Have the Flexibility to Coordinate Management of
Interrelated Stocks or Manage Them as One
At present, stocks are managed on a species by species basis, with
stock biomass targets set forth for each species based on their
historical levels. We, as fishermen, know that the peak levels of fish
never occur at the same time. Scientists tell us that the biomass of
the ocean actually remains fairly constant, with the balance between
species changing. Thus, not every species can be rebuilt to its maximum
potential at the same time, as presently required under the Magnuson
Act. Scientists have told us that the present management structure is
doomed to failure because the ocean can never hold all of the species
at the biomass level necessary for them to provide the maximum
sustainable yield (BMSY). We are doomed to a perpetual rebuilding
phase. The Act must be amended to permit managers to look at
interrelated species to determine what the overall stock size should
be, and the appropriate mix, and not base management decisions on
inflexible and unattainable goals. Management on a ``fishery by
fishery'' and not a ``species by species'' basis will allow combined
trip limits and reduce discards, thereby maximizing return from the
fishery. Congress should also permit managers the flexibility to
rebuild predators and prey at reasonable levels that make biological
sense rather than to adhere to arbitrary rebuilding targets which
accelerate the rebuilding of both predators and prey simultaneously.
IV. NMFS Must Be Compelled to Enforce All of the National Standards and
Correct Council Abuses
As a small businessman, I expect NMFS to ensure that National
Standards, in particular those governing fairness and equity and
community issues, will be enforced. In the past, our former regional
Director, Dr. Rosenberg was not afraid to tell the Council their
proposed actions were unfair to one or more sectors, or to reverse
unfair Council actions. NMFS must actively ensure that the little guy
does not become the victim of larger special interests as they try to
avoid their burden of conservation and gain further advantage. Congress
should ensure that those who bear the burden of conservation are still
around to benefit from the result.
V. The Ban on ITQs Should Be Continued, and Any ``Quotas'' Distributed
Equally Among Fishermen
I am generally opposed to any management scheme that privatizes and
allows a few individuals to accumulate exclusive rights to the
resource. I support a continued ban on the development of Individual
Transferable Quotas (ITQs).
I think that individual fishing quotas (``IFQs''), which are non-
transferable, might be considered a useful management tool, as long as
they are fairly and equitably distributed. Quotas should not be carried
from year to year, but available for use only in the year allocated.
Recent proposals for quota allocation raise serious questions as to
fairness. I do not believe that any individual quota should be directly
correlated to an individual's past fishing history. This merely rewards
those who have had the greatest impact on the resource, at the expense
of those who have either voluntarily reduced their effort, or been
forced to do so by the unevenly distributed burden of conservation. If
any individual quotas are to be implemented, everyone should be given
an equal share.
VI. Any Latent Effort Buy Back Should Be Entirely Voluntary
Although most fishermen understand the problem with so-called
latent effort, at the same time we realize that it is unfair to deny
access to the resource to those who have voluntarily reduced effort in
some or all fisheries. Any restriction on latent effort should be
carefully reviewed and any buyback should be voluntary.
VII. Congress Should Encourage Community and Area Based Management
I strongly favor the development of regional fishery plans with
local management. Under Magnuson as presently drafted, stocks must be
managed as a unit throughout their range. This leads to situations
where some fishermen are free to overfish in area after area. Managers
should have the option of dividing areas into regional management
blocks, with separate sub-TACs. Fishermen signing into these areas
would then be limited to a region for a fishing year. I believe this
would be more equitable and encourage more responsible fishing. It
would force fishermen to work more cooperatively with each other and
with managers to achieve a common goal.
VIII. Real Time Data is Badly Needed
A continual problem is that of obtaining timely data. Scientific
sampling and analysis is months or years behind. Management decisions
are routinely adjusted or altered with less than a year's data. Nowhere
has this been more dramatic than in the cod fishery, where large
movements of codfish have resulted in accelerated catch rates. With a
restrictive trip limit, the result is frequent discard. Scientists must
be able to correlate fishermen and observers' data on a real time basis
to ensure that decisions are made not on the ``best available data''
but rather on meaningful data. Stock assessments should be performed
more regularly, and daily catches and catch rates should be analyzed to
detect trends between full assessments. This could be accomplished
through use of industry trawl data, possibly collected through
electronic logbooks.
IX. Cooperative Research and Management Are Vital to Success of
Management Plans, and the Federal Government is Not Doing
Enough to Promote These Efforts
As fishermen, we possess special knowledge regarding the fish,
their habits and the health of stocks, which I often think scientists
lack. Fishermen are by their very nature assessors of the stocks, and
followers of migratory patterns. Too often scientists contest
fishermen's claims about quantities of fish being seen or caught, fish
migration, spawning habits, etc. We frequently invite the scientists
and managers to come aboard our vessels to experience what we see, but
are turned down. As a result, there has been an almost complete loss of
trust between fishermen and managers. I believe fishermen need a closer
working relationship with both scientists and managers, so they can
understand what occurs on the ocean, both in terms of stocks and how we
conduct our fisheries. We can tell scientists more than their computer
models can about the subtle changes in the environment that can be
discovered by daily observation. I have tried to become involved in the
stock assessment process, but find I am often frustrated by the failure
of managers to take seriously my involvement. For example, a Council
staffer invited me to participate in a stock assessment workshop, but
only notified me of the time and place less than a day before the
meeting, which was in a location far from my home. I encourage Congress
to mandate the Administration to involve fishermen in the entire
scientific process.
Despite many attempts to develop innovative conservation methods
through gear modification, etc., managers routinely reject fishermen's
experience as ``anecdotal'' information, not worthy of consideration in
management decisions. As fishermen we have spent years learning how
gear works, and what it can and can't do. We need to develop new
methods of protecting juvenile fish and non-target species. This can
best be done with the fishermen's knowledge of gear. There has been a
strong push by state officials, such as the Massachusetts Fishery
Recovery Commission initiative to involve fishermen in the gathering of
data and development of new gear, etc. The federal government has been
slow to follow the lead, despite calls for industry involvement at all
other levels. Even the recent peer review of the Northeast Multispecies
Stock assessment process performed by the National Academy of Sciences
called for increased industry involvement. Unless and until fishermen
are involved in the process, trust will never be re-established between
fishermen and regulators.
X. Present Plans Encourage Wasteful Discards of Bycatch--all Fish Which
Can Not Be Released Alive Should Be Landed, Even if it is Given
to Charity
Present plans do little to discourage or prevent bycatch despite
the existing National Standards. Nowhere is this more evident than in
the Gulf of Maine cod fishery, where managers have closed coastal
fishing areas to protect cod, including areas where fishermen have
traditionally caught other species such as pollock and flounder.
Vessels are bunched so closely together to make a day's pay that they
can not maneuver or relocate to avoid massive influxes of codfish. All
plans should provide for sufficient opportunity for vessels to avoid
aggregations of critical species, while permitting maximum flexibility
for fishermen to earn a living. All plans should also provide a
mechanism to permit vessels to land all that they catch with combined
trip limits, and any excess over trip limits should be donated to
charity. No fish should go to waste merely because regulators find it
more convenient to mandate discard.
XI. Council Procedures Benefit Special Interests and are Undermining
Fishermen's Confidence in Management and the Democratic Process
The Council process must be reviewed to ensure that affected
fishermen can be involved in making the decisions that affect their
lives. In the Northeast region, we have a multitude of interrelated
fisheries, prosecuted by fishermen from different ports, using
different gears and methods of fishing. The result is that given the
small number of Council seats, many fishermen are under-represented, or
not represented at all. Council members are often paid lobbyists, not
individuals merely economically dependent on fisheries for their
livelihood. As such, they are paid based on how they vote. This results
in less than objective consideration of a ``competitor's'' position,
and in cabals among Council members to promote the interests of their
collective clients. Paid lobbyists, whether they represent fishing
interests or other groups should have no place on the Council.
The problem with special interests on the Council is made worse by
the Administration's failure to ensure that management measures are
fair and equitable or to otherwise apply the existing National
Standards to prevent abuse of the Council process. In many instances
Council action is not merely a conservation tool. The first rule in
fishery management has always been ``shut down everyone but me'' and
Council action, unchecked by the Administration, becomes nothing more
than an allocation battle, where a few special interests hold all of
the cards.
Recent developments on the New England Fishery Management Council
raise even more serious questions as to the continued involvement of
fishermen in the management process. While the Magnuson Act mandates
public hearings, recent changes in New England Fishery Management
Council policies prohibit many from speaking at the Council hearings,
relegating public comment to subcommittees. While this may streamline
the Council process, it does so at the cost of democracy. These new
policies makes it virtually impossible for fishermen to promote plans
or ideas, as they must now go though a completely separate culling
process, before they can even approach the Council. Congress should
make clear that the Council must abide by all public notice and public
comment provisions of the Act.
XII. Limitations Must Be Placed on the Scope of Council Action,
Particularly in Abbreviated Rulemaking Known as the Framework
Process
As a small businessman it is very difficult to continually attend
meetings to determine what action may affect me. When Amendments Five
and Seven to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan were
formulated, it was believed these would control our fishery for years.
These measures relied on an even distribution of the burden of
conservation. Recent frameworks have dramatically and
disproportionately affected our inshore fishery, far beyond that which
we could have anticipated under the FMP or the subsequent amendments.
Councils should not be permitted to allocate through frameworks, or to
make drastic adjustments to rebuilding goals without a full amendment
process. Congress should place limits on the extent to which
abbreviated rulemaking can affect catches particularly where they
result in significant allocation. Perhaps a maximum change of 10
percent, in an allocation or in landings in any one fishery, would be
an appropriate limit on the scope of a framework.
XIII. The Constant Changes in Overfishing Definitions, Stock Rebuilding
Definitions and Management Objectives Must Stop
As fishermen, changing ``overfishing'' definitions continually
confound us. Stocks become ``overfished'' not due to a decline in fish
nor an increases in fishing effort, but merely because a definition is
changed. As fishermen it is difficult for us to understand how, when
measures meet or approach their objectives and we see more fish, NMFS
is always calling for additional restrictions. Each time we believe
that we are closing in on a management objective, we are informed that
Congress has changed the goal, ``raised the bar,'' so to speak, and
that therefore we must again suffer. In the face of increasing
conservation targets, industry plans always come up short.\1\ Public
perception of fishermen and the government is also negatively affected
by this apparent failure to meet objectives. We need to set goals and
meet them, or at least follow one course of action long enough to see
if anything we are doing is having any positive effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In a recent case, managers added a new twist, applying goals
not part of the rulemaking process. In the recent groundfish annual
adjustment, the New England Fishery Management Council staff indicated
a Gulf of Maine Fishermen's Alliance groundfish proposal did not meet
marine mammal objectives, but came close to meeting biological
objectives, and would have had the most positive effect on communities
of any alternative. Marine mammal issues had never been discussed at
the Council level or made a goal in the framework process. Sadly, the
staffers failed to realize that due to present closures, fixed gear,
the largest alleged threat to large marine mammals, has increased in
areas closed to groundfishing. The Alliance's proposed reopening of
those areas would have reduced the potential for interaction. Had the
matter been discussed openly, the obvious error would have been
realized. However, Council staff has never been receptive to industry
proposals, and at times it almost seems as if they conceal from us the
true goal until it is too late for us to adjust our plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
XIV. While Enforcement is Crucial, Fishermen Remain Citizens,
Harvesting Food for America, and the Government Must Stop
Treating Us Like Criminals and Respect Our Rights
While most fishermen recognize and respect that the rules must be
obeyed and violators punished the present manner and level of
enforcement has turned the fishing dock into a virtual police state. We
all suffer when fishermen violate the regulations, but the present
atmosphere of daily boardings and daily dockside interrogations is too
much. The ability to seize and hold a catch without a hearing gives the
government too much power. In recent months a number of vessels have
had catches seized and the proceeds of sale held for months without any
action by the government. In one recent case, the Coast Guard escorted
a boat from George's Banks to Gloucester, where the catch was seized
and sold. Months later, the Coast Guard admitted that they had made a
mistake and returned the monies without further compensation to captain
or crew. Because of the civil nature of the seizures, the lawyers have
a new joke--``What's the difference between an American fisherman and a
foreign drug runner?--The drug runner has constitutional rights.''
Having been rescued by a Coast Guard vessel \2\ after 14 hours in
the water, during which time two other men died, I will always respect
the men who put their lives on the line for us. It is unfortunate that
present regulations make us adversaries, and I believe that the Coast
Guard's role in fisheries enforcement needs to be re-examined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ At that time under the command of Paul Howard, current
Executive Director of the New England Fishery Management Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishermen are engaged in the most dangerous, and probably the
oldest profession in America. We risk our lives every day to put food
on the tables of our fellow citizens, yet even when in full compliance
with the law, we are treated with less respect by law enforcement
agencies than common criminals. The situation is unfair and demeaning.
As American citizens, we believe we deserve better treatment.
XV. Judicial Review of Management Measures Should Be Made Easier, or
All Plans, Amendments and Frameworks, Should Automatically Be
Sent for Review to Other Agencies, Such as the SBA
Under present law, management measures promulgated under the
Magnuson Act are subject to only limited judicial review. Challenges to
management measures must be brought within thirty days of promulgation,
and preliminary relief is unavailable. Regulatory change is frequent
and often dramatic, and regulations often run their course in a short
period. Fishermen, irreparably harmed by improper action are thus
deprived of any remedy at law. Congress should provide for an even more
expeditious hearing process than presently exists, or alternatively,
remove the anti-injunction provisions contained in Magnuson.
Another solution could be to submit all FMPs, Amendments and
Frameworks to another agency, such as the SBA, for review of compliance
with the National Standards. This reviewing agency could screen
regulations and comments, and reduce or prevent disputes resulting in
litigation.
XVI. Consideration Should Be Given to Removing Management Oversight
from NOAA
Congress should consider whether NOAA and NMFS are actually the
appropriate entities to manage the fisheries. We are concerned that too
often policy decisions may infect the science. We believe that Congress
should investigate placing control over management of fishermen and
stocks under another agency, such as Interior or Agriculture, with NOAA
and NMFS continuing with the scientific analysis only.
XVII. Conclusion
I believe that the Magnuson Act has great potential for maintaining
a healthy and sustainable fishery. Congress must, however, ensure that
the National Standards are enforced, and establish priorities so that
managers achieve a balance between the biological objectives and the
needs of those dependent on the resource. More importantly, Congress
must reverse the trend seen on the New England Fishery Management
Council that allows special interests to allocate to themselves, or
their constituents, disproportionate access to the resource, at the
expenses of others. The Act as written appears to provide many of these
protections, if only the National Marine Fisheries Service would
enforce them by refusing to implement Council recommendations which do
not comply with the law. Unless and until all fishermen are treated
fairly and equally, the industry will remain in turmoil and management
objectives will fall short of their goals.
American fishermen have a long and proud heritage, bringing food to
American shores for over 375 years. While the desire of government to
change the way we fish, by requiring MSY in every species is admirable
it may be impossible. We need to ensure goals are realistic and
management plans workable. As fishermen we know more about how
fisheries function and how to manage fishermen. While I may not agree
with all that the government is trying to do, I can accept the
cutbacks, tie up periods, closed areas, inconvenience and personal loss
resulting from management measures, but only if I am treated fairly,
equally and with the respect American fishermen deserve. I ask you
then, to restore to the Magnuson Act the most basic principals of
fairness, equity and equality, not just in words, but in the actions of
the government and to restrain the abuses of the Council process which
threaten to undermine these democratic principles.
Senator Snowe. Thank you very much, Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Parker.
STATEMENT OF PAUL PARKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
CAPE COD COMMERCIAL HOOK FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION
Mr. Parker. Madam Chair and members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for inviting me to testify.
I am Paul Parker, a commercial hook and line fisherman
aboard the fishing vessel PEGGY B II from the port of Wychmere
Harbor in Harwich, Mass. I also serve as the Executive Director
of the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association and as
a member of the Board of Advisors of the Marine Fish
Conservation Network. As an active participant in the New
England Fishery Management Council process I also serve on the
groundfish and habitat advisory panels.
Founded in 1993, the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's
Association is a community-based organization of over 800
members including commercial fishermen and concerned coastal
residents who want to ensure that New Englanders have a healthy
and productive fishery for the future.
The Marine Fish Conservation Network is a unique coalition
of over 90 national and regional environmental organizations,
commercial and recreational fishing groups, and marine science
groups dedicated to conserving marine fish and promoting their
long-term sustainability. Over the past year, the hook
fishermen's association has been active within the Marine Fish
Conservation Network in developing the Magnuson Act
reauthorization. The majority of the network's reauthorization
agenda is contained in the Fisheries Restoration Act.
While I wear a number of different hats in the fisheries
management arena, my testimony today is on behalf of the Cape
Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association. In order to bring
sustainable fisheries back to New England, we all need to work
together to protect essential fish habitat, avoid bycatch,
ensure adequate observer coverage and to ensure the long-term
economic viability of our coastal fishing communities.
Unless and until these conservation principles are
addressed in New England, there should be no consideration
whatsoever of lifting the current moratorium on individual
fishing quotas or individual transferable quotas.
Fish, like all other living creatures, need healthy habitat
to survive. Habitats are those places fish need for spawning,
feeding, shelter and growth. Science has shown that some of New
England's most valuable commercial fish stocks, such as haddock
and cod, depend on habitat along the ocean bottom for survival.
Many small in-shore dragger fleets fish sustainably on soft
bottom, including Cape Cod's own Provincetown and Chatham
fleets. In fact, for many years all draggers worked only on
soft bottom, avoiding the hard bottom that could snag and tear
their nets. Therefore, hard bottom became a refuge for the
fish. But as New England fish stocks diminished, some draggers
looked to technological advancements that allowed them to tow
nets and gear along almost any type of sea floor.
The major effect driving the failure of many of our
groundfish plans to rebuild is chronically poor recruitment. We
cannot possibly expect good recruitment when the habitat
necessary for survival is degraded. By better protecting fish
habitats, scientists predict that we will increase recruitment
in the future. Increased recruitment will quickly result in
increased total allowable catches and consequently increased
economic opportunity for all fishermen.
For fishermen, protecting fish habitat should not only be a
matter of common sense but of dollars and cents. Thus, the Cape
Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen advocate for incentives for
fishing gear that cause less impact to essential fish habitat
such as hook and line or soft bottom dragging and sensible
controls on overly aggressive gear such as rock hoppers or
rollers.
Landings are not the same as mortality. They should not be
treated as the same by NMFS or the New England Council.
However, because we lack any type of comprehensive observer
program in New England, we are forced to use landings as a
proxy for fishing mortality. The madness of this proxy was well
highlighted last May when the Gulf of Maine cod trip limit was
reduced to 30 pounds. Everyone knew, and many fishermen even
testified that such a draconian reduction of the trip limit
would not help to reduce mortality, it would only serve to
generate dead and wasted discards.
Equally reprehensible to the dead, unquantified and wasted
discards that ended up on the sea floor on the Gulf of Maine
last year was the fact that jig fishermen, like Roger Brisson
and Ed Skoniecki were put right out of business by the very
same regulation. Roger and Ed worked from small boats by
themselves and target directly on cod in the most sustainable
way. They hauled them up from the depths with rods and reels,
releasing undersized fish alive and having no impact on the
habitat. Jigging has been used sustainably in New England
waters to catch cod for 400 years. Never in modern fisheries
has jigging accounted for more than a few percent of the
overall catch.
But today, it is one of the most persecuted means of
fishing in the Gulf of Maine. Why? Because our current
management system ignores bycatch and fails to perform full
cost accounting of the bycatch impacts of fishing. We should
not be closing down sustainable directed fisheries to make room
for bycatch in other sectors. It's just plain wrong.
By instituting a comprehensive observer program in New
England we will begin to understand the true fishing mortality
on our stocks. Likewise, an observer program will assist in
generating regulations that provide incentives to sustainable
fishermen which would be viewed as a solution to our fisheries
and not as a problem.
I live in a small fishing community on Cape Cod. Without a
healthy fishery, my community will no longer exist. Sure, the
roads, the houses, the schools, the restaurants and especially
the tourists will continue to exist. For the centuries of
tradition, our unique character and the culture, the very heart
and soul of Cape Cod will be cut out and lost forever. The
first step to ensuring that we save the fishermen and our
communities is to ensure that we save the fish and the
diversity of the fleet.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act and National Standard Eight
should not be used to undercut fisheries conservation. Although
such arguments may appeal to the interests of some, it's short-
sided, and it may lead to more and greater economic hardships
for all of us in the long-term.
New England fisheries management is not ready to consider
the utilization of individual fishing quotas or individual
transferable quotas as a management tool. With pressing
problems like protection of fish habitats, reduction of bycatch
and ensuring survival of our fishing communities, we should not
even be considering adding a layer of complexity that offers no
solutions but guarantees added expense and conflict. It's
unthinkable. Commercial fishermen in New England do not trust
and consequently do not want IFQs nor ITQs. Fishermen are
living in a time of uncertainty. Time and time again we have
been advised to focus our attention away from groundfish. We've
been asked to target dogfish, to sell back our boats, to target
monkfish or whiting, even skates. Today many in-shore fishermen
are unable to access the groundfish resource. The stocks are
simply found too far off-shore. Other fishermen are waiting for
the stocks to recover. They're clamming or painting or
constructing. How would they be considered in an IFQ or ITQ
allocation? My answer is: They would not be considered.
The current Sustainable Fisheries Act provides the tools
that we need to build sustainable fisheries for the future. In
New England, we need more time to implement these provisions.
We need to protect fish habitats and to reduce bycatch to
ensure the future of our communities. We need to do these
things before anyone should consider the possibility of lifting
the moratorium on IFQs or ITQs.
Thank you very much for your attention and for this
opportunity to express our opinion. The Cape Cod Commercial
Hook Fishermen's Association is an organization dedicated to
providing assistance and valuable constructive criticism to the
New England fishery management process. We are encouraged by
some recent investment in fisheries management, and will
continue to work hard with all of you for the future of our
fisheries and our communities.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Mr. Parker. We have to ask
witnesses to summarize their statements, to keep them within
the five-minute timeframe. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Parker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul Parker, Executive Director,
Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association
Madame Chair and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify on implementation of the 1996 Sustainable
Fisheries Act and the ongoing reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
I am Paul Parker, a commercial hook and line fisherman aboard the
fishing vessel PEGGY B II from the port of Wychmere Harbor in Harwich,
Massachusetts. I also serve as the Executive Director of the Cape Cod
Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association and as a member of the Board of
Advisors of the Marine Fish Conservation Network (Network). As an
active participant in the New England Fishery Management Council
process, I serve on the Groundfish and Habitat Advisory Panels.
Founded in 1993, the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's
Association is a community based organization made up of over 800
members including commercial fishermen and concerned coastal residents
who want to ensure that New Englanders have a healthy and productive
fishery for the future. The Marine Fish Conservation Network is a
unique coalition of over 90 national and regional environmental
organizations, commercial and recreational fishing groups, and marine
science groups dedicated to conserving marine fish and promoting their
long-term sustainability. Over the past year, the Cape Cod Commercial
Hook Fishermen's Association has been active within the Marine Fish
Conservation Network in developing Magnuson Act reauthorization. The
majority of the Network's reauthorization agenda is contained in the
Fisheries Restoration Act, H.R. 4046, which was introduced by
Congressman Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), on March 21, 2000. The Cape Cod
Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association supports this legislation and
urges the Subcommittee to give serious consideration to the bill's
provisions as it develops its reauthorization agenda. While I wear a
number of different hats in the fisheries management arena, my
testimony today is on behalf of the Cape Cod Commercial Hook
Fishermen's Association.
In order to bring sustainable fisheries back to New England, we all
need to work together to protect essential fish habitat, avoid bycatch,
ensure adequate observer coverage and to ensure the long term economic
viability of our coastal fishing communities. Until these critical
conservation principles are addressed in New England, there should be
no consideration whatsoever of lifting the current moratorium on
Individual Fishing Quotas or Individual Transferable Quotas.
Protect Essential Fish Habitat
Fish, like all other living creatures, need healthy habitat to
survive. Habitats are those places fish need for spawning, feeding,
shelter, and growth. Science has shown that some of New England's most
valuable commercial fish stocks, such as cod and haddock, depend on
habitat along the ocean bottom for survival.
Ocean bottom habitat can be categorized as soft or hard bottom.
Soft bottom, such as sand and mud, is habitat for many commercial
species. Mobile fishing gear, or draggers, tow nets along this bottom
to harvest these stocks. Hard bottom, such as gravel, cobble, and rocky
substrates, is more structurally complex. Groundfish such as cod rely
on hard bottom for juvenile survival and successful spawning. Some gear
types, including hook and line, harvest fish along hard bottom without
damaging fish habitat. However, dragging along hard bottom destroys
vital habitat.
Many small inshore dragger fleets fish sustainably on soft bottom,
including Cape Cod's own Provincetown and Chatham fleets. In fact, for
many years all draggers worked only on soft bottom, avoiding the hard
bottom that could snag and tear their nets. Therefore, hard bottom
became a refuge for the fish. But as New England fish stocks diminished
some draggers looked to technological advancements that allowed them to
tow nets and gear along almost any type of seafloor. Hardware such as
rollers and rockhoppers were added along the mouth of the nets so that
fishermen could drag their gear along hard bottom without getting torn
or snagged. Similar advancements in scallop dredging have allowed
scallopers to work on hard bottom habitats as well.
In 1996, the Sustainable Fisheries Act called for fisheries
managers to identify and protect essential fish habitat from
destructive fishing practices such as the use of rockhoppers and
rollers. To date, the New England Fishery Management Council has failed
to do so, wrongly claiming that there is not enough scientific data to
warrant prompt action. The single factor driving the failure of many of
our groundfish plans to rebuild is chronically poor recruitment. How
can we possibly expect good recruitment when the habitat necessary for
survival is so degraded? By better protecting fish habitats, scientists
predict that we will increase recruitment in the future. Increased
recruitment will quickly result in increased Total Allowable Catches
and consequently increased economic opportunity for all fishermen. For
fishermen, protecting fish habitat should not only be a matter of
common sense but of dollars and cents.
Thus, the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association
advocates for incentives to fishing gears that cause less impact to
essential fish habitat such as hook and line or soft bottom dragging
and sensible controls on overly aggressive gears such as rockhoppers or
rollers.
Avoid Bycatch
As a fisherman, I can state with absolute confidence that landings
are not the same as mortality. They should not be treated as the same
by NMFS nor by the New England Fishery Management Council. However,
because we lack any type of comprehensive observer program in New
England, we are forced to use landings as a proxy for fishing
mortality. The madness of this proxy was well highlighted last May when
the Gulf of Maine cod trip limit was reduced to 30 pounds. Everyone
knew, and many fishermen even testified that such a draconian reduction
of the trip limit would not help to reduce mortality, it would only
serve to generate dead and wasted discards.
Equally reprehensible to the dead, unquantified and wasted discards
that ended up on the seafloor of the Gulf of Maine last year was the
fact that jig fishermen like Roger Brisson and Ed Skoniecki were put
right out of business by the very same regulation. Roger and Ed work
from small boats by themselves and target directly on cod in the most
sustainable way. They haul them up from the depths with rod and reel,
releasing undersized fish alive and having no impact on the habitat.
Jigging has been used sustainably in New England waters to catch
codfish for the past 400 years. Never in modern fisheries management
has jigging cod accounted for more than a few percent of the overall
catch. And today, it has become one of the most persecuted means of
fishing in the Gulf of Maine.
Why? Because our current management system ignores bycatch and
fails to perform full cost accounting of the bycatch impacts of
fishing. We should not be closing down sustainable directed fisheries
to make room for bycatch in other sectors. It is just plain wrong. A
dead fish is a dead fish, whether it is landed at the docks or whether
it is thrown overboard. To generate more sustainable fisheries and a
more complete understanding of the condition of our stocks, we must
immediately quantify the degree of bycatch in our fisheries. The best
way to do this is by requiring the establishment of observer programs
in each fishery as envisioned by the Fisheries Recovery Act.
We have learned a number of valuable lessons from the recent access
to the George's Bank Groundfish Closed Areas by the scallop fleet. One
of the best results of the access has been the development of a hard
bycatch quota on yellowtail flounder. Quite simply, scallops are worth
a lot of money. However, yellowtail flounder live in the same areas as
the scallops and they have traditionally been caught in the process of
scalloping. Because we are trying to conserve yellowtail and promote
rebuilding of the stock, managers created a hard total allowable catch
of yellowtail which, when reached would cause shut down of the access
to closed areas program. The program worked, and scallopers innovated
creative means to minimize yellowtail bycatch while maximizing their
access to the valuable scallops. Institutionalizing incentives to
reduce bycatch, like those that worked so well in the scallop fishery,
is also envisioned by the Fisheries Recovery Act.
By instituting a comprehensive observer program in New England, we
will begin to understand the true fishing mortality on our stocks.
Similarly, once we have a baseline of information regarding bycatch
rates in various fisheries and sectors, we will be better equipped to
predict the implications of our management decisions. Our managers will
be far less likely to call upon measures like a 30 pound trip limit to
conserve codfish. Likewise, an observer program will assist in
generating regulations that provide incentives to sustainable fishermen
like Ed and Roger who should be viewed as a solution to our fisheries
crisis and not as the problem.
Ensure Economic Viability of Coastal Fishing Communities
I live in a small fishing community on Cape Cod. Without a healthy
fishery, my community will no longer exist. Sure, the roads, the
houses, the schools, the restaurants and especially the tourists will
continue to exist but the centuries of tradition, our unique character
and the culture, the very heart and soul of Cape Cod will be cut out
and lost forever. The first step to ensuring that we save the fishermen
and their communities is to ensure that we save the fish.
In recent years, there has been significant debate over application
of National Standard 8 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Upon
developing fish conservation measures, NMFS must consider alternatives
that accomplish the objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act AND that
minimize significant impacts on small businesses, like fishermen.
Although economic impacts must be considered, they cannot take
precedence over the Magnuson-Stevens Act's mandate to conserve fish. In
an instance where several alternatives are equally protective of marine
fish, but have varying degrees of adverse economic impacts to
fishermen, then NMFS should choose the alternative with the least
economic impact. The Regulatory Flexibility Act and National Standard 8
should not be used to undercut fisheries conservation. Although such
arguments may appeal to the interests of some fishermen, it is a short-
sighted point of view that will lead to more and greater economic
hardships for fishermen in the long-term.
Extend the Moratorium on IFQ/ITQs
New England fisheries management is not ready to consider the
utilization of Individual Fishing Quotas or Individual Transferable
Quotas as a management tool. With pressing problems like protection of
fish habitats, the reduction of bycatch and ensuring survival of our
fishing communities, how can we consider adding a layer of complexity
that offers no solutions? It is unthinkable.
A rallying point for nearly all fishermen across New England is our
universal opposition to IFQ/ITQs. A handful of individuals have worked
to portray that there exists acceptance of this management tool but I
assure you that these contentions are false. Fishermen in New England
do not want IFQ/ITQs!
Fishermen are living in a time of uncertainty. Time and time again
we have been advised to focus our attention away from groundfish. We
have been asked to target dogfish, to sell back our boats, to target
monkfish or whiting, even skates. Today, many inshore fishermen are
unable to access the groundfish resource. The stocks are simply found
too far offshore. Other fishermen are waiting for the stocks to
recover. They are clamming or painting or constructing. How would they
be considered in an IFQ/ITQ allocation. The answer is: they would not
be considered!
If IFQ/ITQs were allowed in New England fisheries and the
allocations were based on catch history, which they always are, it
would generate a tremendous windfall profit for the largest operators
who have caused the most damage. Why would we choose to consider IFQ/
ITQs now, when allocation would reward those individuals whom had
contributed most to our fisheries crisis. This tremendous windfall
profit would then place today's fisherman, that is waiting for the fish
to recover, in the untenable position of having to sell their permit to
these newly created millionaires. If this is allowed to happen, our
fishery will no longer include thousands of independent operators, it
will be one of tenant farmers to a handful of large corporations. IFQ/
ITQs, if allowed, will do to New England fishing communities what
agribusinesses did to the family farmers in the 1960s and 1970s. Please
don't let that happen.
The current Sustainable Fisheries Act provides many of the tools
that we need to build sustainable fisheries for future generations. In
New England, we need more time to implement these provisions. We need
to protect fish habitats and to reduce bycatch to ensure for our
communities. We need to do these things before anyone should consider
the possibility of lifting the moratorium on IFQ/ITQs.
Conclusion
Thank you very much for your attention and for this opportunity to
express our opinion. The Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's
Association is an organization dedicated to providing valuable
constructive criticism to the New England fishery management process.
We are encouraged by some recent developments in fisheries management
and will continue to work hard for the future of our fishery and our
communities.
Senator Snowe. Mr. Cunningham.
STATEMENT OF C.M. ``RIP'' CUNNINGHAM, PUBLISHER OF SALT WATER
SPORTSMAN MAGAZINE, AND CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN SPORTFISHING
ASSOCIATION'S SALTWATER GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Madam Chair and distinguished
members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify on behalf of the recreational fishing industry. As
publisher of Salt Water Sportsman magazine and as chairman of
the American Sport Fishing Association's government affairs
salt water committee, we recognize that sound resources are the
basis for a strong industry and are united in our commitment to
proper management.
Sport fishing is big business. In 1996, 10 million
Americans spent over 100 million days fishing in salt water.
Approximately 750,000 of those individuals in Massachusetts
waters. The economic impact exceeded $8.5 billion nationally,
accounted for 288,000 full-time jobs, and generated $25 billion
in overall economic output. In Massachusetts alone, 5,000 jobs
and over $420 million of economic activity.
These jobs and economic benefits are in jeopardy with 46
percent of our New England stocks overfished and their habitat
compromised. This includes cod, as earlier mentioned, once the
staple of this region whose decline is evidenced by the 61
percent annual decrease in recreational catch from 1996 to
1998.
Managing fish populations is only half the equation. One of
the keys to achieving a healthy fish stock is to protect their
habitat. It makes little sense to try to rebuild the fish
stocks while continuing to diminish their habitat. The 1996
reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens included a new essential
fish habitat provision to address this aspect. I supported
these essential fish habitat provisions and continue to believe
they are crucial. Some have dramatized the dire consequences of
these positions, yet those fears have not been realized here in
New England. But the last four years have shown that NMFS does
not have the resources to delineate sensitive areas. Like all
conservation-minded recreational anglers, I urge the Committee
to continue to support EFH provisions.
Solid data is necessary for making accurate management
decisions such as those relating to EFH. As Magnuson-Stevens
requires, both biological and socioeconomic data must be used.
I take issue with the marine recreational fisheries statistics
survey that is the primary method used by NMFS to assess the
impact of salt water sport fishing. This data is used to set
catch targets and allocate fisheries. Many current allocations
of recreational quotas are little more than guesswork.
Funding for MRFSS has not increased significantly for more
than 20 years, yet gathering this data is necessary to fulfill
requirements of Magnuson-Stevens. I might ask that the Senate
look toward the lands bill that is currently being considered
in the House and the Senate. If the substantial OCS oil and gas
revenues are going to be diverted from the general budget and
dedicated to conservation efforts, I cannot help but think that
directing some of that money into collecting accurate data to
better manage our nation's fisheries is a worthwhile
investment.
The detrimental effect of some commercial fishing practices
is one area where we do have adequate scientific information.
Preventable human activities that cause damage to vast
stretches of fish habitat should be dealt with. One way to
protect habitat is to restrict harmful fishing practices and
gear types by creating marine protected areas, a concept born
of the system of terrestrial parks and refuges. On land or on
water, it can be a useful tool if used properly. Unfortunately,
for many MPAs have become the silver bullet. Rather target
management on the most harmful practices, it seems easiest to
exclude everyone. This mentality concerns me. In the rush to
close off areas in the name of habitat preservation and
fisheries management, it is often forgotten that we are
excluding public access to areas of traditional use.
Recreational fishing is still universally accepted on
terrestrial parks and refuges.
A recent National Research Council report found that the
annual recreational catch was only a fraction of that caught
commercially, yet each pound of recreationally caught fish
produced 40 times the economic benefit of a pound of
commercially caught fish. I have previously stated that right
here in Massachusetts salt water sport fishing contributes $420
million to the local economy, also over 2 million of Wallop-
Breaux excise tax funds were returned to Massachusetts to sport
fish restoration and aquatic resource education programs.
Recreational anglers are among the first conservationists. Why
penalize them with no-take zones that remove their public
access?
In conclusion, the price of sustainable resources will be
eternal vigilance. The Magnuson-Stevens Act goes a long way to
help with that goal, but it too needs eternal vigilance.
Thank you for allowing me to comment.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cunningham follows:]
Prepared Statement of C.M. ``Rip'' Cunningham, Publisher of Salt Water
Sportsman Magazine, and Chairman, American Sportfishing Association's
Saltwater Government Affairs Committee
Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the
Subcommittee about the Magnuson-Stevens Act on behalf of the
recreational fishing industry. I am the publisher of Salt Water
Sportsman magazine and chairman of the American Sportfishing
Association's saltwater government affairs committee. Salt Water
Sportsman has a national readership of 1.2 million, making it the
largest saltwater fishing magazine in the U.S. ASA is a non-profit
trade organization representing the environmental and business
interests of the sport fishing industry. We recognize that a sound
resource is the basis for a strong industry and, as such, are united in
our commitment to ensure the proper management of our nation's
fisheries.
I am pleased to provide the Committee with some thoughts on the
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As you know, there are
many saltwater fish species that are of extreme importance to
recreational anglers and the sport fishing industry here in New
England. In addition to being a popular leisure activity, saltwater
sport fishing is also big business. In 1996, approximately 10 million
Americans spent just over 100 million days fishing in saltwater; nearly
750,000 of those individuals spent time fishing in the waters off of
Massachusetts. The economic impact of this activity exceeded eight and
a half billion dollars nationally at the retail level, accounted for
the equivalent of 288,000 full-time jobs, and generated $25 billion in
overall economic output. In Massachusetts alone, approximately 5,000
jobs and over $420 million was infused into the local economy due to
saltwater recreational angling. Many of these jobs and economic
benefits are in jeopardy as stocks of saltwater game fish are
overfished and their habitat compromised. The promise of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act has not yet been realized.
Through strict catch levels and the continuous efforts of
conservation-minded members of the New England Fishery Management
Council, progress has been made on some New England species. Georges
Bank populations of yellowtail flounder, near a historical low in 1994,
are now rapidly approaching maximum sustainable yield. Considered
commercially extinct not long ago, Georges Bank haddock have reversed
their steep decline. Unfortunately, there are many other stocks not
doing quite so well after nearly 30 years of federal management. Forty-
six percent of NMFS-managed species in New England are known to be
overfished, including Gulf of Maine cod, once the staple fish of this
region. As evidence, the recreational catch of Gulf of Maine cod from
1994 to 1998 has declined an average of 61 percent per year. When
compared to the commercial sector T.A.C. overage for 1996, 97, and 98
of 9,612 metric tons, the recreational catch for that period was only
20.7 percent of the overage alone. Nationally, an additional 75 percent
of stocks under federal management maintain an ``unknown'' status.
Undoubtedly, some of these ``unknown'' species are overfished.
Despite the enormity of the problem facing NMFS, the New England
Fishery Management Council and above all, the local fishermen (both
recreational and commercial), I am optimistic that a viable, diverse
recreational fishery can again be established in New England. No
species is more important to this than the striped bass. Once decimated
by overfishing throughout its range, striped bass rebounded in the
1990's to regain its title as perhaps the most important recreational
fish along the northeast Atlantic coast. The recovery was neither quick
nor easy. However, it has been worth the hardship as recreational
anglers and local coastal communities are now reaping the rewards of a
strong recreational striped bass fishery. Since 1987, recreational
angler expenditures and number of trips directed at striped bass have
increased more than ten fold as evidenced in the figure below.
Given the striped bass' relative abundance, the success story seems
complete. It is easy to forget that striped bass remain vulnerable to
overfishing. Although we may not need to revert to the restrictions of
15 years ago, difficult management decisions are still required to
maintain a healthy recreational fishery. The effort to rebuild striped
bass populations was the result of unprecedented cooperation among the
states from North Carolina to Maine. The effort to maintain healthy
stocks must show this same commitment. Nevertheless, equity between the
states must be demonstrated. The recreational fishing interests that
worked hard for striped bass populations fifteen years ago must have
the opportunity to catch their fair share of the fish they helped to
rebuild. Being a recreational fisherman in Massachusetts, I want the
same chance to catch striped bass as those anglers do down in Maryland.
It must be recognized that there are structural changes in the
population with any given geographic location. As striped bass migrate
throughout the course of the year, removing too many large fish in one
area, may affect the conservation measures needed in an adjacent area.
While the central goal is healthy striped bass populations, regulations
that disproportionately reward one region over another must be avoided.
While the conservation measures to which I am referring will likely
not, for example, put a charter boat or local bait shop out of
business, the economic consequences to local communities and individual
anglers can be significant. I would ask the Committee to carefully
examine these and similar equity issues, paying particular attention to
the opportunity costs of regulation on recreational anglers and the
industry.
Managing fish populations is only half of the equation. One of the
keys to achieving healthy fish stocks is to protect their habitat. It
makes little sense to try to rebuild the fish stocks while continuing
to diminish their necessary habitat. There are several factors
contributing to habitat degradation, emanating from human activities
both on the land and on the water.
The 1996 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act included a new
Essential Fish Habitat provision that was supposed to address this
aspect. I supported these Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) provisions and
continue to believe protecting fish habitat is crucial. Recently, some
have made dramatic characterizations about the dire consequences on
development from implementing these provisions. Those fears have not
been realized here in New England. To my knowledge, no reasonable
development has ever been halted due to Magnuson's EFH protections.
Nevertheless, the last four years have made it evident that NMFS
has neither the resources nor the scientific data to delineate areas
that promote habitat preservation while taking into account the
socioeconomic effects on local communities. Like most recreational
fishermen, I have a strong conservation ethic. While I have and
continue to be outspoken about protecting fish habitat, from a
practical matter, I do believe it is not possible to delineate all
waters in the US EEZ as essential fish habitat. I urge the Committee to
help NMFS find the correct balance.
Solid data is necessary for making accurate management decisions
such as those relating to EFH. As Magnuson-Stevens requires, both
biological and socioeconomic data must be used in making such
decisions. I feel that on both of those fronts, NMFS does not often
have the information in their possession to make well-supported
decisions. Specifically, take for example the Marine Recreational
Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) that is the primary method used by
NMFS to assess the impact of saltwater sport fishing. Both catch data
and general demographic information is collected by the annual survey.
This data is used to set catch targets and allocate fishery resources
among various groups. I take issue with the accuracy of the biological
data collected and its use to make educated decisions about allocation
of recreationally important species. Many current allocations of
recreational quotas are little more than guesswork and give rise to
serious questions about equity of allocation decisions.
I have seen little effort by NMFS to seek to improve the data
collection deficiency. Funding for the MRFSS has not increased
significantly since it began more than twenty years ago. While simply
throwing money at a problem is not the solution, I see a definite cause
and effect relationship here. Furthermore, gathering this data is
necessary to fulfill the requirements set forth in Magnuson-Stevens. I
might ask that the Senate look toward the lands bill that is currently
being considered in the House and the Senate. If the substantial OCS
oil and gas revenues are going to be diverted from the general budget
and dedicated to conservation efforts, I cannot help but think that
directing some of that money into collecting accurate data to better
manage our nation's fisheries is a worthwhile investment.
The detrimental effect of some commercial fishing practices is one
area where we do have adequate scientific information. Preventable
human activities that cause damage to vast stretches of fish habitat
should be dealt with. One way to protect habitat is to restrict harmful
fishing practices and use of particular gears by creating marine
protected areas (MPA). This notion of marine zoning, through the
establishment of sanctuaries and reserves as a method to minimize
pressure on the resource, was born from the system of terrestrial parks
and refuges. Just as it is on the land, it can be a useful tool on the
sea if it is used properly.
Unfortunately, for many, MPA's have become the silver bullet
solution to the fishery management crisis. Rather than target
management on the most harmful practices, it just seems easier to
exclude everyone. This mentality concerns me greatly. In the rush to
close off areas in the name of habitat preservation and fisheries
management, it is often forgotten that we are excluding the public from
areas where they traditionally have recreated. Last I checked,
recreational fishing is still a universally accepted practice in nearly
all terrestrial parks and refuges. So it should be on the sea. While
limiting public access to certain very sensitive areas may be required
in certain cases, I am disturbed that other equally effective and less
draconian measures to control recreational fishing pressure may be
bypassed in favor of no-take fishing zones. In New England, the NEFMC
research has concluded that the impact of recreational fishing in
managed closed areas has no impact on the recovery of over-fished
groundfish stocks.
A recent National Research Council report found that the annual
recreational catch was only a fraction of that caught commercially, yet
each pound of recreationally caught fish produced 40 times the economic
benefit of a pound of commercially caught fish. I had previously stated
that right here in Massachusetts, saltwater sport fishing contributes
$420 million to the local economy. Further, significant monies are
collected on each purchase of sport fishing equipment through the
payment of the Wallop-Breaux excise tax. Over $2 million of those
collections were returned to Massachusetts to support fish restoration
and aquatic resource education programs. Recreational anglers are among
the first conservationists, why penalize them by establishing no-take
zones that remove their access to the water? If public access to the
resource is restricted, fishery participation may well decrease and
vital influxes of monies to local communities may evaporate.
It seems to me, that before public access to the resource is
limited, other fishery management tools need to be exhausted.
Recreational fisheries are effectively managed through closed seasons,
bag limits, or minimum sizes. Then, should the evidence show that
specific sites need extra protection, recreational anglers need to be
included in the designation process with preserving public access among
the top priorities.
One practical matter on the establishment of MPA's that is of
concern regards the sheer number of efforts underway to establish
MPA's. The National Park Service, Department of the Interior, and NMFS
are just a few government entities contemplating marine closures. It
makes it difficult to follow these different efforts and extremely
time-consuming to comment at all that would affect the recreational
fishing industry. I would ask the Committee to consider consolidating
these efforts to better facilitate public participation. The regional
fishery management councils seem one logical place to centralize these
efforts.
Let me close by stating that fishery management begins here at home
with a strong Magnuson-Stevens Act. However, the rebuilding of fish
stocks takes a dedicated commitment both nationally and
internationally. While it is difficult to look beyond our borders when
many of our fisheries resources are in decline, fish are global
resources with many species important to the United States migrating
freely between the waters of many different nations.
The U.S. has shown a positive commitment to participating with
international management bodies to improve management of these
international, migrating fish stocks. Through the leadership of the
United States, progress has been made. I hope to one day soon see
sustainable swordfish populations return to the coast of Massachusetts.
With strong U.S. participation at the International Conference on the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, this may be a reality by the end of the
decade.
As is the situation here with our fishery resources, much remains
to be accomplished on these international stocks. We must continue to
be a conservation leader both nationally and internationally.
I thank the Committee for listening to my thoughts on Magnuson-
Stevens reauthorization.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Mr. Cunningham.
Mr. Weiss.
STATEMENT OF PETER WEISS, PRESIDENT,
GENERAL CATEGORY TUNA ASSOCIATION
Mr. Weiss. Thank you, Madam chairwoman, Senator Kerry,
Senator Stevens. My name is Peter Weiss, I'm president of the
General Category Tuna Association. There are over 7500
permitted fishermen in the general category, 2820 from
Massachusetts, 1069 from Maine, 469 from New Hampshire.
Over a thousand individuals captured bluefin tuna last
year. General category permit holders are commercial fishermen
who sell their fish. When all these boats and fishermen are
lumped together, one must assume the Bluefin Tuna Fishery is
one of the largest commercial fisheries in the United States.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act was an important step in an effort
to conserve fish and also to conserve the fishermen. I have
several different issues I would like to comment on.
Section 301, paragraph 2 of the Act states: ``Conservation
and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific
information available.'' The disputes between scientists and
fishermen are as old as time. Today, many new assessment tools
are available to scientists. As an example, we now have
available pop-up tag technology which allows us to see the
distance, depth and migration routes bluefin tuna have traveled
for a period of time after they have been tagged. Results have
found that over 30 percent of the tagged fish have crossed the
imaginary 45-degree boundary line that separates the east and
the west management areas. These tags prove beyond a doubt that
there is more intermingling among eastern and western stocks
than had been previously thought. Yet the NMFS scientific
community is very slow to use these tagging results in any type
of bluefin tuna assessment.
I would urge this Committee to put language in the Magnuson
Act that would force the NMFS scientists to use these pop-up
tags and their information in further assessments as soon as
possible.
NMFS has over 100 lawsuits pending at this particular time.
It seems to me that this is rather an excessive amount of
lawsuits. I believe some of these suits are frivolous, others
are not. I believe when the Magnuson Act is reauthorized, many
areas in the Act have to be clarified so that the true intent
of various sections are not ambiguous and allows anyone who is
not happy with NMFS, with a NMFS rule, to hire a lawyer and
sue. As an example, the conservation community led by the
National Audubon Society, has sued National Marine Fisheries
over rebuilding of bluefin tuna stocks. They claim under the
Act there should be a 10-year rebuilding program. On the other
hand, NMFS claims that the current rebuilding program is
appropriate and interprets the Act correctly due to the quota
of the fishery which is regulated by ICCAT. I believe
clarification of the Act in various areas would be very
important. And there is an immediate need to make serious
progress in this area.
I'd like to make a short comment on law enforcement,
something which has been touched on in the previous testimony.
Fishery rules and regulations are useless unless they're
enforceable. And there is no question that the amount of new
rules on fisheries, including the Bluefin Tuna Fisher, have
multiplied in the last ten years, especially since the
implementation of the Sustainable Fisheries Act. Nevertheless,
to the best of my knowledge, NMFS still has approximately the
same amount of enforcement agents it had 10 years ago. If
you're going to create rules and you're going to spend time
reauthorizing this Act to make it more efficient, I urge you,
whether it be in the Act itself or your important positions as
Senators, to see to it that NMFS has available to it the moneys
to dramatically enlarge its enforcement staff. I just cannot
emphasize enough, rules without enforcement are no rules at
all.
That brings me to my last subject, and hopefully within my
five-minute timeframe, one that I'm personally deeply involved
in and have the support of 99 percent of permit holders in the
general harpoon categories. I'm talking about vessels using
spotter planes to capture bluefin tuna. Spotter planes are the
scourge of the fishery. There are not many planes, probably 25
at a maximum and in the harpoon category approximately 17
boats. These 17 boats using spotter planes in the harpoon
category captured 95 percent of the fish in that category,
which has over 100 permit holders.
How this situation can be tolerated when a Magnuson Act
national standard mandates that if it becomes necessary to
allocate or assign fishing privileges among various United
States fishermen, such an allocation shall be carried out in
such a manner that no particular individual, corporation or
other entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges.
The use of spotter planes in both of general and harpoon
categories is creating a situation nothing short of chaotic.
The wild west has reinvented itself off the waters of New
England. NMFS has stated part of the rationale for the general
and harpoon categories was to spread the greatest number of
fish among the greatest number of fishermen. Planes are
preventing this objective from ever being achieved. I could
spend hours talking about this issue, but within the context of
my timeframe I will just quickly make the following points.
Airplanes encourage cheating since they can see enforcement
from a long distance away. Planes have been known to dive bomb
boats when they feel that the boat is encroaching upon the fish
they're looking at. The ridiculous idea that pilots advocate
that they're able to minimize the capture of undersized
bluefish because their ability to tell size in the air is
nothing short of a joke.
Spotter planes and their boats accelerate the catch in both
harpoon and general categories. Two years ago NMFS adopted a
final rule banning airplanes in the general category from using
spotter planes. The Spotter Pilots Association sued the
secretary and won a ruling in Federal court which held that
NMFS was arbitrary and capricious in its ban. NMFS then stated
this issue should be addressed to a Highly Migratory Advisory
Panel of which I am a member. This panel was created by the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. I've sat on this panel for two years, and
we tried to reach consensus on issues, consensus being the
preferred avenue. In two years consensus was impossible to
reach in almost any issue except what time we adjourned. But we
did reach a strong consensus on the spotter plane issue. We did
reach a strong consensus.
With this advice in hand, last March NMFS proposed a new
rule banning spotter planes in both the general and harpoon
categories. To this very day, to the very moment after numerous
false promises by NMFS to Congress and the fishermen, this
proposed rule of last March is not final. I urge you to
consider and do the right thing and establish a law banning
fishing vessels from using aircraft to assist in the catch of
bluefin tuna. Thank you very much.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Mr. Weiss.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weiss follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter Weiss, President,
General Category Tuna Association
My name is Peter Weiss, President of the General Category Tuna
Association. I am also Chairman and Chief Executive of Bradford
Industries, Inc., a manufacturer of coated fabrics in Lowell,
Massachusetts, employing approximately 175 people.
There are over 7,500 permitted fishermen in the General Category;
2,820 from Massachusetts, 1,069 from Maine, and 469 from New Hampshire.
Although it is obvious not all of the permit holders are active
fishermen, many thousands are. Over 1,000 individuals captured bluefin
tuna last year. General Category permit holders are commercial
fishermen who sell their fish. When all these boats and fishermen are
lumped together, one must assume the Bluefin Tuna Fishery is one of the
largest commercial fisheries in the United States.
No state in the country benefits more from the Bluefin Fishery than
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It is not just the $25 to $32
million dollars in sales of bluefin tuna annually, but also the tens of
millions in economic activity stemming from all the unsuccessful
fishing effort; bait and tackle, marinas, fuel, insurance, hotels, boat
manufacturers, etc.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act was an important step in an effort to
conserve fish and also conserve the fisherman. I do not claim to be an
expert on fisheries, but I have been fishing for BFT for 30 years, and
I do feel I am somewhat knowledgeable on various fishing matters.
I have several different issues that I would like to comment on.
Section 301, Paragraph 2, of the Act states, ``Conservation and
management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information
available.''
The disputes between scientists and fishermen are as old as time.
Today, many new assessment tools are available to scientists. As an
example, we now have available pop-up tag technology which allows us to
see the distance, depth, and migration routes bluefin tuna have
traveled for a period of time after they have been tagged. The results
of these tags have been amazing. Results have found that over 30
percent of the tagged fish have crossed over the imaginary 45 degree
boundary line that separates the Eastern and Western management areas.
These tags prove beyond a doubt that there is more intermingling among
Eastern and Western stocks than had been previously thought, yet the
NMFS scientific community is very slow to use these tagging results in
any type of bluefin tuna assessment. I would urge this Committee to put
language in the Magnuson Act that would force the NMFS scientists to
use these pop-up tags in their further assessments as soon as possible.
If this is done in the U.S., the SCRS of ICCAT will then be forced to
use the results of these tagging studies. One must remember, it does
not behoove countries fishing in the Eastern Atlantic to find proof
that there is much intermingling of stocks. Right now, the two stock
theory and the arbitrary dividing line results in all of the
conservation being done in the West by U.S. fishermen. Here we have an
opportunity to use 21st Century science in assessments to fix the
flawed science and unfair management program. A total of 52,000mt were
reported caught in the East in 1996, while only 2500mt of Bluefin were
caught in all of the West. This is totally ridiculous!
NMFS has over 100 lawsuits pending at this particular time. It
seems to me that this is rather an excessive amount of lawsuits. I
believe some of these suits are frivolous, others are not. I believe
when the Magnuson Act is reauthorized, many areas in the Act have to be
clarified so that the true intent of various sections are not ambiguous
and allows anyone who is not happy with the NMFS rule to hire a lawyer
and sue.
As an example, the conservation community, led by the National
Audubon Society, has sued National Marine Fisheries over rebuilding of
bluefin tuna stocks. They claim, under the Act, there should be a ten
year rebuilding program. On the other hand, NMFS claims that the
current rebuilding program is appropriate and interprets the Act
correctly due to the quota of the fishery which is regulated by ICCAT.
Both these interpretations come from the Act. The fact that there are
so many lawsuits must be interpreted as a signal that there is
something wrong. I believe clarification of the Act in various areas
would be very important and there is an immediate need to make serious
progress in this area.
I would like to make a short comment on law enforcement. Fishery
rules and regulations are useless unless they are enforceable, and
there is no question that the amount of new rules in fisheries,
including the Bluefin Tuna Fisher, has multiplied in the last ten
years, especially since implementation of the Sustainable Fisheries
Act. Nevertheless, to the best of my knowledge, NMFS still has
approximately the same amount of enforcement agents it had ten years
ago. If you are going to create rules and you are going to spend time
reauthorizing this Act to make it more efficient, I urge you, whether
it be in the Act itself, or in your important positions as Senators, to
see to it that NMFS has available to it the monies to dramatically
enlarge its enforcement staff. I can tell you from my own experience in
the Bluefin Tuna Fishery, effective enforcement is difficult, at best,
and that is not because enforcement is not capable, it is because it
does not have the manpower nor the resources. I just cannot emphasize
enough, rules without enforcement are no rules at all.
This brings me to my last subject, one that I am personally deeply
involved in and have the support of 99 percent of the permitted holders
in the General and Harpoon Categories. As you know, for the last
several years, NMFS and all the organizations involved in the fishery
have worked together to try to bring a workable fishing plan for the
domestic Bluefin Tuna Fishery. We have settled many of our differences.
Today, a bluefin tuna fisherman knows when he is going to fish, what
his quota is, what days off he has, and all the other important issues
that he faces during the season. We only have one major, major domestic
problem left, and this problem, unless it is corrected, will continue
to create more havoc in this fishery than one can believe. I am talking
about vessels using spotter planes to capture bluefin tuna. Spotter
planes are the scourge of the fishery. We are not talking about many
planes, probably 25 at a maximum, and in the Harpoon Category,
approximately 17 boats. These 17 boats using spotter planes in the
Harpoon Category capture approximately 95 percent of the fish in that
Category. In the Harpoon Category, the top 17 boats all use spotter
planes and captured over 90 percent of the fish. How can this situation
be tolerated when a Magnuson Act National Standard mandates that: If it
becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing privileges among
various United States fishermen, such allocation shall be (A) fair and
equitable to all such fishermen; (B) reasonably calculated to promote
conservation; and (C) carried out in such manner that no particular
individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of
such privileges.
The use of spotter planes in both the General and Harpoon
Categories is creating a situation nothing short of chaotic. The wild
west has reinvented itself off the waters of New England. The Harpoon
Category was established because it represented a special and unique
method of capturing Bluefin. It was supposed to be weather dependent
and that's why multiple daily catches were allowed. Airplanes were
never a part of this tradition. The General Category method of taking
Bluefin also did not historically use aircraft. In fact, as NMFS has
stated, part of the rationale for the General and Harpoon Categories
was to spread the greatest number of fish among the greatest number of
fishermen. Airplanes are preventing this objective from ever being
achieved.
I could spend many hours talking about this issue, but within the
context of my timeframe, I will just quickly make the following points.
Airplanes encourage cheating, since they can see enforcement from a
long distance away, airplanes have been known to dive-bomb boats, my
boat, in particular, when they feel the boat is encroaching upon the
fish they are looking at. The ridiculous idea that pilots advocate that
they are able to minimize the capture of undersized Bluefin because of
their ability to tell the size in the air is nothing short of a joke.
Can you imagine being able to tell the difference between a 72 and a
73" fish from 500 feet in the air; 72 being legal and 73 being not.
Airplanes have driven many fishermen to the point where the only method
of fishing to them without competing with airplanes is chumming.
Spotter planes and their boats accelerate the catch in both the Harpoon
and General Categories. It is not unusual for the Harpoon Category to
be filled by the middle of July. Before the advent of airplanes, many
times the Harpoon Category was not even caught after a whole season of
fishing. Pilots are not regulated by NMFS, they are not licensed by
NMFS, and they are not fishermen. General Category boats using spotter
planes also cheat by capturing more than one fish, passing extra
catches to other boats or skiffs, interfere with other fishermen, and,
as I have stated before, create havoc.
Two years ago, NMFS adopted a final rule banning airplanes in the
General Category from using spotter planes. They left out the Harpoon
Category in this rule which was a gigantic mistake. The Spotter Pilot
Association sued the Secretary and won a ruling in Federal Court in
Boston which held NMFS to be arbitrary and capricious in its ban. NMFS
then stated that this issue should be addressed by the Highly Migratory
Advisory Panel of which I am a member. This Panel was created by the
Magnuson Act.
I have sat on this Panel for two years and we tried to reach
consensus on issues, consensus being the preferred avenue. In two
years, consensus was impossible to reach on almost any issue, but we
did reach a strong consensus on the spotter planes issue. The vote was
unanimous, with two abstentions, to ban the use of spotter planes by
fishing vessels. This Panel is made up of over 20 members from the
academic community, the environmental community, commercial, and
recreational fishermen. With this advice in hand, last March, NMFS
proposed a new rule banning spotter planes in both the General and
Harpoon Categories. To this very day and to this very moment, after
numerous false promises by NMFS to Congress and the fishermen, this
proposed rule of last March is not final. Why is it not final? The
explanation I get is the Justice Department is afraid Secretary Daley
will be held in contempt of court. Not only do we not believe this, but
the lawyers who we have hired to intervene in this matter if it ever
comes to court again agree not only will the secretary not be held in
contempt, but we had a very good chance of winning the case. The
Government is just plain afraid to lose in court. This is a completely
unacceptable reason not to again finalize a rule banning spotter
aircraft which gathered more supportive comments for NMFS than any
other rule in its history.
I urge you to consider and do the right thing and establish a law
banning fishing vessels from using aircraft to assist them in the
capture of bluefin tuna. As I have stated before, 99 percent of the
fishermen in the Bluefin Tuna Fisher do not want airplanes. Please use
any alternative necessary to get this done before another Giant Bluefin
season is ruined for the vast majority of permit holders.
Finally, for the record, Senator, GCTA supports the administrative
and technical changes suggested by East Coast Tuna last September in
Portland, Maine relative to National Standard No. 8 and the HMS
Advisory Panel and the ICCAT Commissioners.
Senator Snowe. Ms. Sanfilippo.
STATEMENT OF ANGELA SANFILIPPO, PRESIDENT, GLOUCESTER
FISHERMEN'S WIVES ASSOCIATION
Ms. Sanfilippo. Madam Chairperson and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify on the
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act. I'm Angela Sanfilippo, President of the
Gloucester Fishermen's Wives Association and a member of the
Board of Directors of Massachusetts Fishermen's Partnership.
And I am here to represent the partnership consensus. The
Massachusetts Fishermen's Partnership is an umbrella group
consisting of 18 commercial fishing organizations representing
all the various gear sectors of Massachusetts. The
Massachusetts Fishermen's Partnership and its member
organizations currently represent more than 3,000 fishermen and
their family members.
For the past four months the MFP has been engaged in the
formal consensus-building process to provide significant input
in the reauthorization of the Magnuson Act. The result is a
formal document which contains 26 points of consensus agreed to
by a large number of members of the MFP. It is that report
which forms the core of today's presentation.
To summarize, all participants in this process share a
common concern for the sustainable fishery. The fishermen
developed a consensus to be partners with the regulators and
management and with scientists and research. In addition, they
express the desire to be partners with the Coast Guard and
enforcement. There was also recognition of the need to redefine
the role and organization structure of the management Council
and other regulatory bodies. However, before we'll deal with
reorganization, it's necessary to clarify and redefine some of
the terms which have so often led to confusion and dissent
about the regulatory measure. First and foremost is the term
``overfishing.'' A strict adherence to the previous use of this
term leads inescapably to the conclusion that all declines in
fish stock are due to overfishing, even in cases where other
factors can be shown to be the primary cause.
Other terms battered loosely about in sometime
contradictory ways have been ``maximum sustainable yield,''
``healthy fishing community'' and ``best available science.''
Alternatively, we recommend the following new definitions.
``Overfishing'' means that amount of fishing mortality, not
including mortality or stock population declines from other
causes. ``Maximum sustainable yield'' should be dropped from
the legislation and replaced by ``sustainable yield'' to
reflect more realistic goals. Sustainable yield should be a
range of fishing activity sufficient to maintain a sustainable
fishery. ``Sustainable fishery'' means a fishery that maintains
a healthy fish stock and a healthy fishing community. ``Healthy
fish stock'' means a population of fish species that are
biologically stable or growing in abundance and may include
fish stock that have changed their range or migratory patterns.
``Fishing community'' means U.S. vessels, crew, people and
related business who earn income as a result of harvesting,
processing of wild fish stock. ``Healthy fishing community''
means a fishing community as defined above that maintains
sustainable participation in the U.S. fisheries and provides
for social, economic and cultural need of such community.
``Best available science,'' must be collected by both
government and fishermen working together utilizing the same
calibrated equipment and practices. ``Best available science''
must be used before a stock can be declared overfished. All
management plans in which fishing mortality is reduced must
define causes of declining fish populations from overfishing,
from pollution and habitat loss, from change in physical or
natural environmental conditions that affect fish stocks, from
predator, from unknown causes.
These recommendations when implemented would go a long way
toward restoring trust and confidence in management systems
which sometimes appears to be failing right before our eyes.
But now we would like to address more of the major
recommendations. We propose that the advisory committee chair
should have a vote on that species subcommittee and on the full
Council on issues specific to the advisory committee. This will
ensure the voice of the advisory committee is heard at
Councils.
Additionally, we believe that the voice of fishermen would
be heard even more strongly if fishermen on the Council are
active commercial fishermen. Therefore, fishermen members must
be elected by fishermen and people in the fishing industry.
Under the current system, the National Marine Fisheries
Service is charged with interpreting the provisions of the SFA,
issuing guidelines, gathering the data, preparing the stock
assessments under the science centers, approving the fishery
management plans and enforcing their provisions. What is needed
now is to put some distance between NMFS and science centers so
the two different functions of the agency are not forced into
sharing the same political agenda and budget.
We also propose the creation of a totally independent
national standard oversight panel which would monitor NMFS and
Council regulations from the Department of Justice. The panel
would report only to the appropriate secretary and with statute
power to reject any proposal regulation that does not meet all
of the standards. The panel would not evaluate the entire plan,
they would only rule on the ten national standard provisions.
We further believe that management plans should encourage
incentive, promote conservation instead of punitive measures.
Consequently, there must be a compensation program established
as a management tool and this compensation program must be in
place before the fisheries close.
We will continue to build consensus to impact fishery
management in the future. The cornerstone of this strategy will
be the extension of the Sustainable Fisheries Act moratorium on
ITQs. In our discussion we recognize the importance of the
issue of bycatch, and we will work continuously to focus our
efforts on this problem in order to develop a wider consensus.
In order to improve both safety and conservation,
management plans utilizing days at sea limitation and daily
trip quotas should allow fishing vessels to run the clock while
tied to the dock.
Finally, the best input from the industry is of little
value if adequate funding is not provided. In particular,
research and monitoring should be given high priority. The
fishermen agree that NMFS must execute observer coverage of
commercial fishing vessel for the sector on any fishery where
stock are declining.
Congress should specify adequate funding to establish best
available science. As so, there should be funding for research.
We hope the recommendation that we're making here today
will be part of this new reorganization of the Magnuson Act.
And this has been a terrible experience for many of us. And
fishermen feel like they've been treated unfairly and something
precious has been taken away. But they stand committed to work
with you as they have for the last 23 years.
Thank you for the opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sanfilippo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Angela Sanfilippo, President,
Gloucester Fishermen's Wives Association
Madame Chairperson and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). I am
Angela Sanfilippo, President of the Gloucester Fishermen's Wives
Association (GFWA) and a member of the Board of Massachusetts
Fishermen's Partnership (MFP). GFWA is a founding member of the MFP and
I am here representing the Partnership consensus.
The Massachusetts Fishermen's Partnership (MFP) is an umbrella
group consisting of 18 commercial fishing organizations representing
all of the various gear sectors in Massachusetts. Our organization
sponsors the Fishing Partnership Health Plan which provides health
insurance for about 1500 persons. The MFP and its member organizations
currently represent more than 3000 fishermen and their families.
For the past 4 months, the MFP has been engaged in a formal
consensus building process to provide significant input into the
Magnuson reauthorization legislation. The effort began when a group of
40 fishermen met at the New England Aquarium on January 10th, 2000 to
set priorities and establish a task force. The task force met twice in
February and produced a draft consensus report. The full group
reconvened in March to review the draft report and all of the members
have now had an opportunity to comment on the recommendations. The
result is a formal document which contains 26 points of consensus
agreed to by a large number of Massachusetts fishermen. It is that
report which forms the core of today's presentation.
To summarize, all participants in this process share a common
concern for a sustainable fishery. The fishermen developed a consensus
to be partners with regulators in management and with scientists in
research. In addition, they expressed a desire to be partners with the
Coast Guard in enforcement. There was also a recognition of the need to
redefine the role and organizational structure of the management
councils and other regulatory bodies.
However, before we deal with reorganization, it is necessary to
clarify and redefine some of the terms which have so often led to
confusion and dissent about regulatory measures. First and foremost is
the term overfishing. A strict adherence to the previous use of this
term leads inescapably to the conclusion that all declines in fish
stocks are due to overfishing; even in cases when other factors can be
shown to be the primary cause (for example, the lobster die-off in Long
Island Sound or pollution in the Hudson). This approach is equivalent
to saying that the single cause of airplane crashes is overflying and
that the passengers are always at fault. Not only is the
characterization misleading, it precludes the investigation of the true
cause of the crash, such as pilot error or mechanical failure. We are
not saying that overfishing or overflying (when a plane is overloaded)
cannot occasionally be the primary cause of a crash, merely that it
should not be assumed to be the cause without additional evidence.
Other terms battered loosely about in sometimes-contradictory ways
have been Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY), healthy fishing communities
and best available science. This terminology has led to widespread
disillusionment with the management process and more than a few
lawsuits.
Alternatively, we recommend the following new definitions.
1. Overfishing means that amount of fishing mortality, not
including mortality or stock population declines from other
causes (e.g. pollution or habitat loss, changes in physical or
natural environmental conditions, predators, and unknown
causes), which decrease spawning biomass to a stock level that
results in decreasing stock population over time. Sometimes
fishing mortality must be reduced in response to phenomena
other than ``overfishing,'' but management definitions should
always make it clear when fishing is NOT causing declining
stocks.
Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) should be dropped from the
legislation and replaced by ``Sustainable Yield'' (SY) to reflect more
realistic goals. It has been debated for years whether MSY is even
possible to achieve for multiple species simultaneously; especially
where there is a complex predator-prey relationship.
2. Sustainable Yield--shall be a range of fishing activity
sufficient to maintain a sustainable fishery.
3. Sustainable fishery--means a fishery that maintains healthy fish
stocks and a healthy fishing community.
4. Healthy fish stocks--mean populations of fish species that are
biologically stable or growing in abundance and may include
fish stocks that have changed their range or migratory
patterns.
5. Fishing community--means U.S. vessels, crew, people, and related
businesses who earn income as the result of the harvesting or
processing of wild fish stocks.
6. Healthy fishing community--means a fishing community as defined
above that maintains sustainable participation in U.S.
fisheries and provides for the social, economic, and cultural
needs of such community.
7. Best Available Science--means unbiased information based on data
that:
--integrates current data that is less than 2 years old
--must be collected by both government and fishermen working
together utilizing the same or calibrated equipment and
practices
--must meet generally accepted standards with no less than 80
percent accuracy, defined by the Probability Distribution
Function.
As a direct consequence of these new definitions, the following New
Requirements for Management Plans are recommended:
Best Available Science as defined above must be used before
a stock can be declared ``overfished.''
All management plans in which fishing mortality is reduced
must define causes of declining fish populations:
from overfishing
from pollution or habitat loss
from changes in physical or natural environmental
conditions that affect fish stocks
from predators
from unknown causes
Data being used in fisheries management must be mailed out
to interested parties no less than 30 working days prior to a
meeting where the data will be used to make management
decisions.
These recommendations, when implemented, would go a long way
towards restoring trust and confidence in a management system which
sometimes appears to be failing right before our eyes. But, now we
would like to address some of the major problems under the current
management organizational system.
The government of this country was founded on two basic principles:
meaningful representation of all citizens and the separation of powers.
Yet, the existing fisheries management system violates both of these
fundamental precepts.
While it is true that most of the committees under the regional
Councils have formed advisory panels, the recommendations of these
panels carry no formal weight whatsoever. Their recommendations are
more likely to be ignored than implemented and the outcome depends
entirely on the whim of the committees. We propose that the Advisory
Committee Chair shall have a vote on that species subcommittee and on
the full Council on issues specific to that Advisory Committee. This
will ensure that the voice of the Advisory Committee is heard at the
Council level and that any dissenting opinions or alternative
recommendations will be seriously considered during plan development
and implementation.
Additionally, we believe that the voice of the fishermen will be
heard even more strongly if fishermen on the Council are active
commercial fishermen. Therefore, fishermen Council members must be
elected by fishermen and people in the fishing industry.
This brings us back to the separation of powers issue. Under the
current system, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is charged
with interpreting the provisions of the SFA, issuing guidelines,
gathering the data, preparing the stock assessments (under the Science
Centers), approving the Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) and enforcing
their provisions. No single agency should be entrusted with being
prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner.
In practice, the guidelines have unfairly become mandates, and the
FMP's have become political footballs based on incomplete data and
erroneous assumptions. What is needed now is to put some distance
between NMFS and the Science Centers so that the two different
functions of the agency are not forced into sharing the same political
agenda and budget. We recommend that the Science Centers remain under
NOAA and continue to collect and analyze data just like the National
Weather Service. Then, all of the permitting and regulatory functions
of NMFS could be moved from the Department of Commerce to another
Department such as Agriculture. This would guarantee a completely
unbiased analysis and an uncon-
taminated database.
Furthermore, NMFS has previously stated that the 10 National
Standards cannot all be met by the regulatory measures. Hence, they
have taken it upon themselves to decide when the provisions are
sufficiently met to warrant approval of a plan. This is similar to
deciding which of the Ten Commandments one chooses to obey which can
frequently lead to trouble. We do not believe that selective compliance
is what Congress intended when it developed the National Standards. By
properly addressing the issue of bycatch, for example National Standard
9, the management Councils would have the ability to further decrease
discards. The present NMFS policy has proven to be the source of dozens
of lawsuits and has seriously undermined the credibility of the agency.
We also propose the creation of a totally independent National
Standards Oversight Panel which will monitor NMFS and Council
regulations from the Department of Justice. The Panel will report only
to the appropriate Secretary and will have statutory power to reject
any proposed regulations that do not meet all of the National
Standards. Unlike the Councils, no conflicts of interest will be
permitted on the panel from environmentalists, fisheries agencies, or
industry. Members of the panel will have term limits of no less than
two years but will not be political appointees. The panel will not
evaluate the entire plans. They will only rule on the 10 National
Standards provisions.
We further believe that management plans should encourage
incentives to promote conservation instead of punitive measures.
Consequently, there must be a compensation program established as a
management tool and this compensation program must be in place before a
fishery closure.
The compensation program should be focused on fishermen because
other sectors have other options available, while fishermen have none.
Compensation should be confined to fishermen in the fishery that is
closed as documented by logbooks. It might be linked to other research
commitments such as days at sea compensation for collaborative research
efforts.
We will continue to build consensus to impact fisheries management
in the future. The cornerstone of this strategy will be the extension
of the Sustainable Fisheries Act moratorium on ITQs. In our
discussions, we recognized the importance of the issue of bycatch and
we will continue to focus our efforts on this problem in order to
develop a wider consensus.
In order to promote both safety and conservation, management plans
utilizing days-at-sea limitations and daily/trip quotas should allow
fishing vessels to run the clock while tied to the dock. Furthermore,
management plans should promote quality instead of commodity as a
national fisheries strategy to protect market share and the competitive
advantage of family fishing fleets.
Finally, the best input from the industry is of little value if
adequate funding is not provided. In particular, research and
monitoring should be given a high priority. The fishermen are agreed
that NMFS must execute observer coverage of commercial fishing vessels
from that sector on any fishery where fish stocks are declining.
Without these observers, the Fisheries Service is flying blind and is
liable to take the wrong action at the wrong time resulting in a crash.
There must be cooperative research funding for these observers and
biologists. The research will be done by observers or biologists and
fishermen, and will be funded by the federal government. Consensus
included using collaborative research money available this year to
immediately implement this recommendation in New England.
Also, there should be funding for gear selectivity research and the
Saltonstall-Kennedy grant program should be re-designed to support
fishing industry generated research AND not fund NMFS enforcement and
administration.
Most importantly, Congress should specify adequate funding to
establish ``Best Available Science'' as defined above for fisheries
management. Without better scientific data there is little hope of
restoring the fish stocks within the ten-year time frame which Congress
has mandated.
In conclusion, please allow me to express my gratitude for your
kind attention. The painstaking process we have endured these many
months has unified commercial fishermen in Massachusetts in ways that
are rarely seen in this industry. The fishermen are committed to seeing
these recommendations put in place. They will continue to work
tirelessly to strengthen the system by engaging in every aspect of
fisheries management. They desire to be a full partner in this
undertaking.
The recommendations made by the MFP today which are not adopted in
the Magnuson Reauthorization Process will not fade away. They will
emerge again and again in different forms submitted by different
groups. They will prevail because fishermen throughout the country will
know that ultimately these proposals are good for the fish and the
fishermen. They provide a beacon in the fog that permits a safe and
soft landing and avoids a crash which leaves no survivors.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Ms. Sanfilippo.
Okay. I'd like to ask the panel--it seems that everybody
has stated they're opposed to lifting the moratorium on the
IFQs.
We're going to have a recess for a minute.
(Brief recess taken.)
Thank you very much. I'd like to explore the IFQs because I
do think, obviously, it's going to be an issue before the
reauthorization process, and I've heard various positions
around the country. I know the regional chairmen of the
management Councils unanimously support, lifting the
moratorium, I gather to use as a tool Council by Council rather
than having it federally mandated. But I'd like to have each of
you give me your perspectives as to why it isn't a viable
option for New England so I have a better understanding of the
issues from your perspectives.
Mr. Sherman, let me begin with you.
Mr. Sherman. Yes, ma'am. Our--we are opposed to ITQs
because of the fear that all of the wealth will be gathered in
the end. People are pushed up against the wall. And I'm sure
everyone knows this scenario. It's happened in Canada. It's
happened in other places. That people who through regulation,
whether excessive or not, have been pushed to a point
economically where they're unable to, with the quota given to
them, and there we go another problem is equity and allocation
of quota, and they're forced to sell to larger interests and
larger interests get larger and larger. And that's the problem
that we find with it.
We are not unopposed to fishing quotas as a management tool
if and only if they are distributed fairly and equitably, and
that each traditional fisherman, each one who has a stake is
given enough, allocated enough so that they can survive until
the fishing stocks come back. And these quotas should only be
year by year, and not carried on. The excess, if you do not
catch your quota, the excess should not be carried on further.
And then each quota will be assessed as the stock assessments
go year by year. It is something that should be looked at as a
tool, but only individual fishing quotas, not individual
transferable quotas.
Senator Snowe. Okay. Mr. Parker.
Mr. Parker. Yeah. I did touch on this as I was speaking.
And I think that the most important thing to remember is that
the commercial fishermen here in New England do not trust ITQ
or IFQ allocations. We're very fearful that ITQs or IFQs would
be allocated based on historic landings as they have been done
in many other places, which would reward those people who have
grabbed the most fish in the past.
In my case, where I represent a group of people from small
communities where traditional fisheries, a lot of people aren't
able to fish right now. The groundfish are quite simply too far
off-shore. There's people clamming, doing other things. And
those people would not be treated fairly in allocation.
I think that one of the most important things that we need
to do is address some of the inequities that are going on right
now with habitat and bycatch so that if we are going to look at
ITQs or IFQs, it's looking at them with a balanced playing
field for the future when everything is being considered and
landings are more in check with those types of consideration.
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Do you think that smaller operations would
be eliminated by the larger fishing companies?
Mr. Parker. The small in-shore fleet would be completely
eliminated if they were allocated right now. There's no way
that we can consider ITQs or IFQs right now. And I think----
Senator Snowe. And at this time, you don't want the
regional Councils to have that option. You want the federal
moratorium on new IFQs to continue?
Mr. Parker. We would like the moratorium to continue. We
don't trust the system as it stands now. And I think that one
of the problems here is that fishermen have been--we've been
very narrow in our scope. We've been concentrating on small
issues like bycatch, I mean, like dogfish or like groundfish,
framework adjustments. We haven't had the time to organize and
mobilize our thoughts, convey them to yourselves regarding IFQs
and ITQs. I think that some of the people that have had that
opportunity, people that are organized in their ways, have
created the perception that there are commercial fishermen that
are in favor of them. But if you look at this table, look at
how many people are represented by Russell and myself and
Angela. That's a vast number of the commercial fishermen in
this region. And I think it's very important that we begin to
convey this to you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you. That will be one of the issues in
this reauthorization process. So we appreciate it. And any more
information regarding your views would be very helpful.
Mr. Cunningham.
Mr. Cunningham. Yes. My thoughts on it are--perhaps come
from more the philosophic side which says when you establish
these IFQs you have in fact incurred property rights on a
common property resource. And from the philosophical standpoint
I have a great deal of concern about that and what it means in
the long-term and some of those concerns are as simple as that
the general public's ultimate access to these resources may
only be through the supermarket if it's carried to too great an
extent.
Senator Snowe. Mr. Weiss. Oh, yes, go right ahead.
Senator Kerry. But surely you don't accept the notion that
the general public has unlimited access to a finite resource?
Mr. Cunningham. I do agree with that.
Senator Kerry. Okay. Well, then where do you get the
balance? We're beginning to learn that we can't let as many
people into our national parks as we do, at least in
automobiles and off-terrain vehicles and things because we're
going to destroy the parks. I mean, isn't there a relationship
there?
Mr. Cunningham. Well, I think that there are certainly--and
when I'm saying this I'm thinking of the New England area--I
think that there are other options in terms of management
considerations that may not have been accepted by the industry,
per se. I think that if you look at the, currently the general
public's access to these resources are quite limited. Even the
Council did some research on it and found that the recreational
sport fishing impact on groundfish in New England was
practically negligible and would not have any detrimental
impact on rebuilding the resources.
Senator Kerry. We can pick up on that. Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Okay. Mr. Weiss.
Mr. Weiss. Senator Snowe, I really am not tremendously
well-versed in the ground fishery. I kind of concentrate on
tuna fishery. But I would say, what little I know about these
ITQ/IFQs, it seems if a lot of the issues that Mr. Parker and
Mr. Sherman have problems with, I think a lot of those issues
can probably be addressed, some of it which I know because I
know some of the fishermen that belong to this organization who
are not fishing right now, who are digging clams or whatever,
but who have fished for 20 years. If I think that if their
concerns about getting their fair share of whatever quota may
be out there can be addressed. It seems to me--again, as an
outsider really--that it probably wouldn't be the worst way to
go in the long run.
Senator Snowe. I agree with you on the spotter plane issue,
and we'll attempt to address that. That is a major concern of
mine and we hope that the agency will issue a rule. You're
absolutely right on the issue of lawsuits. I think the agency
is run by how best to defend against a lawsuit rather than good
policy. I would be interested in your ideas on how we can avoid
some of these lawsuits in the future. As I said, the agency has
not issued a rule on spotter planes, so we will have to
consider legislation.
Ms. Sanfilippo.
Ms. Sanfilippo. Madam Chairwoman, the Massachusetts fishing
community has been in existence for many years, in Gloucester,
375 years. Our community, a small community, and its existence
is through the fishery. For the last 23 years we have suffered
greatly. The fabric of our community has been ripped apart. And
we believe in what we're doing in the fishing community. ITQs
will just totally destroy that. And given what we've been going
through and see how sometimes the allocation has been so unjust
to fishermen, and when the days at sea were distributed there
were many, many wrong things done. The fear of thinking of ITQs
to the same people. We cannot accept that.
We believe that people in this country should enjoy
fisheries. They should have opportunity. We have many
regulations which will never open it up to everyone. We'll
always be restricted to some people. Our young people need to
know that if they ever dream to be fishermen, even if their
family never fished, they should have that right. And I come
from seven generations of fishermen, but I don't believe that I
just reserve that right. We're humans. We have dreams and we
should pursue them. To put the wealth in the hands of few, it's
wrong. And we have dealt with the shift of the wealth for the
last few years. I strongly believe that what we have seen in
the last few years, it's a shift of the wealth from one group
to another group. And we simply cannot allow that to happen.
New England is very special for its little fishing communities,
and we would like to keep it that way. And we hope that you
will support us. Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you. Senator Kerry.
Senator Kerry. I'm listening very carefully to these
thoughts about individual fishing quotas. I haven't made up my
mind on them yet, just to be honest with everybody. I want to
look at it very carefully. I want to think about it.
We seem to care more about taxi cabs than a finite resource
called ``fish'' because we grant medallions for taxi cabs, and
you have to buy a medallion to drive a taxi cab. You know,
there's something out of whack here.
Alaska has been pretty smart about thinking about
cooperatives and ways to manage their fisheries. Now, I share
your concern, and I think you have a very legitimate fear of
the consequences of transferability. We need to think these
fears through together. There are legitimate fears about how
these quotas might work. But in a sense, you're working today
with that kind of individual quota. I mean, you're all
operating with an individual fishing quota anyway, but you're
doing it in a fairly inefficient way because of the days, the
trips, you know, the way it's being measured. But you're
limited in your catch. You're limited in the time you can fish.
You're limited to fishing only in certain areas. These are all
some kind of limits. It may be that if we think about this
carefully together there's actually going to be more freedom as
to when, how, what you choose to do under a quota program. I
don't want to quit the discussion on quota programs yet. I
think we all need to keep a dialogue going.
The cooperative concept, which has some limits on
transferability is something that I think we ought to all look
at carefully.
Enough said on that. I don't think we need to belabor it.
But I was really interested, Mr. Sherman, in your testimony on
another subject. You used some very strong language, and
suggested that fishermen are being treated like criminals. I
wanted to ask you a bit more about that. Give me some meat
there. How so? And what can we do about it?
Mr. Sherman. Well, Senator, more or less I refer to the
fact that often times when we come to the wharf we are boarded
and surveilled. The Coast Guard and I--I'm not putting the
blame or the onus on the Coast Guard. Certainly, the Coast
Guard has saved my life on more than one occasion, and I'm very
grateful. But often times some of the younger fellows have come
aboard and more or less the atmosphere of it is that there's
something automatically wrong because----
Senator Kerry. Sort of a presumption that you've broken the
law and you feel----
Mr. Sherman. Yes, sir.
Senator Kerry. Yeah. So you feel besieged in that sort of
enforcement process?
Mr. Sherman. Yes, sir, and perhaps it's because I do take
out my fish at the Gloucester display auction, which is a very
wonderful thing. And it's helped us a lot with our price
structure, and it's enabled a lot of us smaller boats to stay
in business. But it also performs--it's a great platform for
surveillance and for things of that nature. And it seems that
every second time that I come in and unload my catch that I
have officers aboard, and even though I have no violation, sir,
and haven't been found in violation, it's a repetitive process,
and at times it's, frankly, quite intrusive.
Senator Kerry. I think that's a very fair comment. And I
can sense how as an entrepreneur and individual out there you
would feel that way. I think it's important for us to talk to
the enforcement folks and see if we can't elicit a more
cooperative atmosphere. I think your point is a good one.
Let me ask all of you a tough question. It's one that we
really wrestle with within this whole fishery management
structure. I've heard from some sectors here in New England as
well as elsewhere in the country that people don't feel
adequately represented on the Council. There's always this
tension. Who's on? Who's off? Who gets to impact it and who
doesn't? The New England Council currently has about eight
commercial fishermen, two recreational fishermen, one
environmentalist and then the Federal and State
representatives. Now, often we hear people talk about the
conflict of interest issue, that when it's so heavily weighted
toward one sector you don't get adequate balance in the other.
Each of you represents different sectors of commercial,
recreational and environmental interests. Do each of you feel
adequately represented on the Council? Is there anyone here who
feels that the structure somehow is--that we need to think
about the Council's structure at all?
Mr. Cunningham. Senator?
Senator Kerry. Yes.
Mr. Cunningham. I'd like to comment on that. I think
certainly from the recreational industry there is a feeling of
under-representation on the Council. And I don't have a
suggestion as to what should be considered as a gauge, whether
it is economic activity generated by the sectors, one of
participation. I think that there are a number of gauges that
you could measure that against. In any case you would find that
the recreation sector has been under-represented.
Senator Kerry. And a final question: Did the recusal
provisions that we put into the 1996 Act work in terms of
people with significant financial interest in harvesting,
processing, marketing, etc., recusing themselves from decisions
if they have a significant or predictable effect on any
personal interest? Has that arisen?
Mr. Sherman. I've never seen it happen, sir.
Senator Kerry. Never seen it happen?
Mr. Sherman. I've never seen it happen. And actually, there
are--I can say there's one member of the Council I believe that
is directly paid by an environmental group. That's his job.
That's his work. And is he going to vote any other way, sir? Is
he going to see any other perspective? Not only that, I think
if you look at the burden of regulation of small boat fishermen
that we have borne the excessive burden of regulation. We don't
have the means to access some of these off-shore stocks. And I
know that the current situation is that these codfish stocks
have aggregated along the shore and that it's necessary to
perhaps close us down more than the off-shore. But I beg to
differ. And I think that also what was mentioned, the biomass
of codfish has increased by 23 percent, I believe, is the
figure. That in the last framework process there were four
proposals, two of which were presented by industry and were
thrown out, and rightfully so because of lacking to meet the
biological objectives. And I agree with that. I'm a member of
the groundfish advisory panel, sir. But there were two others
that were identical in every respect except one, and that was
in the final additional conservation measures. One proposal,
proposal option No. 1, was that everyone, every groundfish boat
that prosecutes their fishery out of New England for every day
that they stayed out fishing they'd stay a day ashore. So a
large boat would be out for 10 days. And then he would stay
ashore for 10 days. My boat is smaller. Perhaps I go for two
days, sometimes only one. I would have to remain ashore for the
next day.
The other option, option two, the only additional
conservation measure there was that if the--half of the total
allowable catch of codfish in the total Gulf of Maine was
reached by July 28th, then a certain sector, which is
Stellwagon Bank, where I prosecute and many of my associates
and friends prosecute their business, would be closed down for
an additional month. This area is also closed for five months
already, Senator. Where I prosecute my business, out of the
next 16 months, we have 10 months of closure facing us. And we
are unable to access these other areas because of the age of
our vessels, the size of our vessels. And also the size of our
crew. And we see a disproportionate amount of problems here. We
feel that there is a large body of codfish that are off-shore
as well. Fellows are not reporting this. And I don't--and
frankly, I don't blame them because they see the type of
regulation that's been placed upon us onshore and they're
scared to death that this regulation will extend to them. And
so only through observer coverage and real-time data can this
situation be remedied. And also with observer coverage and
real-time data, sir----
Senator Kerry. You heard me ask for both. And I'm with you
on that. We need to try to do that.
Mr. Sherman. Indeed, sir.
Senator Kerry. We need to try to do that.
Mr. Sherman. And we do appreciate it.
Senator Kerry. We're going to follow-up on this, and we
don't have time now, obviously, to exhaust every part of it.
We'll be having conversations with you to work through this.
Let me join the chairwoman in saying, Peter, that we are on the
spot. As we said to you before, we will get it done. And I
think we will get it done.
Mr. Cunningham. Senator, if I could just make one quick
comment on your question on the recusal and conflict of
interest issue. I do believe that is an area that needs to be
addressed in some fashion. I think that the current standard is
not strict enough. I think on the other hand I'm familiar with
what goes on here in Massachusetts being a member of the, in
the past and recently reappointed to the Marine Fisheries
Commission, that perhaps some of the regulations that they
operate under would cause the New England Council system to
grind to a total halt. But I think somewhere in the middle
ground there is, in fact, a reasonable situation.
Senator Kerry. Thank you very much.
Senator Snowe. Thank you. Senator Stevens.
Senator Stevens. Well, this looks like a neighborhood
fight, and this isn't my neighborhood. I think my area--I'm not
going to ask you any questions because I really don't know
enough about your fisheries to get into it. But in my area we
have I think been more innovative about in-shore off-shore. We
had in-shore allocation and off-shore allocation. And we
limited the in-shore boats to delivering fish to the on-shore
processors and vice versa. We have worked up innovative ways to
try and deal with the conflicts that you mentioned, but we
still haven't found a way to get the good Lord to reproduce the
fish in a steady way. And sometimes the crab wander off. And
sometimes there are too many sea lions and sometimes there's
too many storms and we just have too much fluctuation. I think
that we're trying to use all sorts of methods. As I indicated,
I have been opposed to what Mr. Cunningham said that the
concept of adding a new level capital requirement for a fishery
because it's a barrier to the next generation. Now you have to
get a bigger boat. Now you have to get a permit. And then on
top of that you have to get--by your allocation you've got
three levels of capital requirements for a new generation to
get involved in a fishery. And that seems to me to be very
burdensome.
But where fisheries are failing and we have a couple close
to failing--thank God we don't have any of our fisheries that
are listed as endangered species. That's still right today,
isn't it, Betty? (Pause.) What? Salmon, an endangered species?
Oh, you mean down south? Don't mix us up with the Pacific now.
We're the North Pacific, where we have the concepts. Well, the
king crab is failing right now. And if we're not careful, it
will become an endangered species. And it's the crab industry
themselves that are coming forward with an IFQ plan or a co-op
plan, I don't know which. But I do think that it's incumbent
upon the people in the fishery, without regard to whether
you're historical or not, to protect the species. And I don't
see blocking out any mechanism to save the species, including
IFQs. But I think that they ought to be the last resort. But we
may be at the last resort as far as king crab are concerned.
I appreciate all your points of view. I just wish I'd hear
a little bit more about protecting the species rather than
protecting the heritage of the fisherman. Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Senator Stevens. And we want to
thank all of you very much for being here today and expressing
your points of view. Thank you.
We'll now proceed to the third panel. I'd like to welcome
Frank Mirarchi, a commercial fisherman and vessel owner; Dr.
Brian Rothschild, Director of the University of Massachusetts
for Marine Science and Technology; Dr. Patrick Sullivan, a
professor in the Department of Natural Resources at Cornell
University; and Ms. Marjorie Mooney-Seus, manager of the
conservation department for the New England Aquarium. We
welcome all of you here today. I would like to remind our
witnesses to please limit your testimony to five minutes.
Mr. Mirarchi, we will begin with you.
STATEMENT OF FRANK MIRARCHI,
COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN AND VESSEL OWNER
Mr. Mirarchi. Thank you, Senator. Good afternoon, Senators.
My name is Frank Mirarchi. I'm a commercial fisherman from
Scituate, Massachusetts. And the primary focus of my discussion
today will be cooperative research. I personally got into the
business during the early 1990's to supplement declining fish
income. My first job in cooperative research turned out to be
one that had fisheries relevance working with discard
mortality, calculations, working with researchers from the
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries and New England
Aquarium. That work grew into environmental monitoring.
Primarily looking at the Boston sewer outfall and looking at
the impacts of the potential discharge on fish habitat as well
as the oceanographic systems.
What I've learned from this type of work is something
that's extremely satisfying to me, that is that fishermen have
valuable skills beside killing fish. Fishermen are good at
rigging, and fishermen are good at making things work. We've
formed some wonderful partnerships in our work.
Speaking of making things work. Fishery management I don't
believe is working terribly well. And one of the reasons,
Senators, that I think that fishery management is failing to
produce the result that we would like to see is the lack of
high-resolution near-term data on stocks and fish and gear
interactions. Basically, I believe the following: That NMFS
stock assessments are good, but they do not give the regional
Fishery Management Councils enough detail. As an example,
presently we are forced to close 600 square nautical mile
blocks in the Gulf of Maine to protect cod, as you've heard
from the previous panels of witnesses. These closures are
basically stifling the life blood from fishing communities
while cod are only present in a small fraction of the areas
closed. One solution is to use fishing vessels, which are much
cheaper and give a higher resolution of data and local
knowledge to complement, but not to replace the NMFS stock
assessments.
Another example that I'd like to raise to you is that of
bycatch. We must under the present dictates of the law conserve
specific stocks. Basically what that means presently in New
England is we must fish to the level which protects the weakest
stock. It doesn't enable us to fulfill the mandate of maximum
sustainable yield. A way out of this is to develop gear that's
more selective. And a fine way to do this and one which is
presently an ongoing process here in New England but needs to
be strengthened is to use the fishermen's skills in conjunction
with gear technologists from academia and from agencies who
innovate new types of fishing gear which are more selective.
My third example, that of fish habitat. The definition of
gear impact on essential fish habitat is not adequate. There is
a pattern of fishing that is not obvious in the present
definition which just assumes that fishing takes place
uniformly across the available grounds. This isn't so. But how
do we determine that? And a wonderful way is to put
instrumentation on fishing boats which gives real-time
information on where the fishing is taking place and exactly
where these grounds are and focuses management's attention on
areas of high impact and also identifies areas that are
presently left fallow in a way to integrate it into a
comprehensive potentially protected area management system.
These are only the examples that I've chosen to list to you
today. There are many more, but I feel the biggest gain to be
held, to be achieved here is the reestablishment of trust
between scientists and fishermen. There are just a few items
that Congress needs to do to facilitate the development of
these processes. One you've heard about today is the
experimental fishing permit process which is long, cumbersome
and tedious. It needs to be expedited.
Another is to remove impediments to cooperative research.
Among those that have been identified are the difference in
insurance coverages that are presently available to crews on
fishing boats and workers on the shore side. Workers' comp
versus the Jones Act.
Another is the mandated safety equipment. Often times the
safety equipment on fishing boats is intended for fishermen.
It's not adequate to cover shore-side workers that are
transplanted temporarily onto fishing platforms. In order to do
this, there needs to be a funding source. You know, basically
trying to boot strap many of these operations. And some sort of
a loan program perhaps to provide safety equipment which is
mandated by Coast Guard safety regulations will be extremely
helpful.
One way to get at this is to look at a long-term funding
program. Emergency aid linkage is a fine start, but I don't
think it's the final solution. I look at that evolving
eventually into a subsidy. I don't really think subsidization
is an appropriate way to conduct sustainable fisheries. I look
at good conservation as a good business decision. I look to the
future after this initial stage is complete at a cooperative
research program that runs off incentives such as tax credit or
tax-deferred funds. I look at point-of-service fees to fund
programs like domestic observers.
And finally I would advocate the opportunity to allow--
fishermen are becoming more directed working partners in the
venture of developing and rebuilding sustainable fisheries. And
I look to this final link at the development of a rights-based
system which touches on your issue earlier of lifting of the
ITQ moratorium. Rights-based fishing is not necessarily totally
ITQs, but it does give fishermen property rights delivering
resources, which basically I see as an extricable component--an
inextricable component--excuse me--of a management system that
rewards conservation.
So for that reason, I would advocate that the Congress
consider lifting the restriction on ITQs and giving the option
of imposing programs to the local decision-making authorities
of the regional fishermen and fisheries management Councils.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mirarchi follows:]
Prepared Statement of Frank Mirarchi,
Commercial Fisherman and Vessel Owner
Good morning Madame Chairman, Senators, and Committee Staff. My
name is Frank Mirarchi. I am a commercial fisherman from Massachusetts.
My son Andrew and I operate a 62 ft. dragger out of Scituate.
I have fished for 37 years. Andrew has virtually grown to adulthood
aboard our boat. Today he is an invaluable partner in a family
business. His is the face of tomorrow's fisherman.
My town, as are most small New England ports, is dominated by such
family centered fishing businesses. Two generation boats are
commonplace.
It is now nearly 25 years since Congress declared an EEZ in our
coastal waters. I clearly recall the excitement and sense of
opportunity which prevailed in those days.
Unfortunately as I speak before you today I must report that the
opportunity remains largely unfulfilled. We built new boats, adopted
new technologies, and supplied new markets. Unfortunately, as a nation,
we're heedless of the finite and fragile nature of marine resources,
ecosystems, and habitats. We practiced the philosophical error
articulated by Thomas Huxley in the late 19th Century--the sea is so
vast our boats are so small therefore our fisheries have no discernible
impact.
In the intervening decades unprecedented change have reshaped our
fisheries. Open access is no longer an unchallenged right. Intricate
rules dictate almost every facet of our activities from catches to gear
characteristics to reporting standards. Despite this, success remains
elusive with Congress now being asked to provide emergency financial
aid to impacted fishermen on a regular basis.
Does this mean that ``sustainable fishing'' is an oxymoron? After
years of observation and reflection my answer is a resounding ``No.''
Since the earliest application of technology to artisinal fishing
the guiding philosophy has been ``more . . . quicker and cheaper.'' The
cost of this premise only became apparent when biological failure
finally resulted in economic dislocation.
Magnuson-Stevens is forcing us to consider external costs as an
integral part of management. This is a good thing but one which quickly
makes us realize we simply do not have answers to many of the most
pertinent questions. Here are some examples:
(1) The Northeast Fisheries Science Center in Woods Hole, MA
provides some of the best stock assessments available. Their trawl
survey produces an index of abundance which is a reliable barometer of
biomass.
However, simply knowing the abundance of a stock is no longer
sufficient information. Fishing takes place at a different spatial
scale than survey work. Due to lack of finer resolution data we are
compelled to close 600 square nautical mile blocks in the Gulf of Maine
to suppress the catch of cod which may occur in only a small fraction
of each area.
(2) The catch of non-targeted species, known as a bycatch, used to
be a nuisance to fishermen culling catches. Now we are recognizing that
bycatch mortality is a significant cost of fishing.
The development of more discrete fishing gear, known as
conservation engineering, is in its infancy. Devices such as the
Nordmore Grate and turtle excluders in shrimp trawls are only the first
wave of this technology. How can we continue to improve the efficiency
and selectivity of fishing gear?
(3) The impact of fishing operations on fish habitat has only
recently become an issue. How serious is the impact? If it is
significant, is it more appropriate to modify the offending practices
or to create protected areas where fish are unmolested? Perhaps it is
more efficient to open areas on a rotational basis, harvesting a
``crop'' and letting the area remain fallow until another grows.
These are complex and vexatious questions which elude easy answers.
Only through the combination of technology and analytical procedures
will we be able to unravel the enigmas which still prevent fulfillment
of the vision of the framers of Magnuson.
It is truly ironic that a provision in an emergency assistance
appropriation may become the catalyst which topples a quarter century
of inertia.
The use of fishermen and fishing boats as resources in research is
nothing new. Oil companies often turn to fishermen as sources of
skilled labor. Ten years ago, faced with declining catches, I began
chartering my boat to scientists from the New England Aquarium and the
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries to obtain supplementary
revenue.
Today companies such as CR Environmental, Inc. of Falmouth, MA are
regularly providing fishing boats for tasks as diverse as baseline
monitoring at the Boston sewer outfall and debris recovery at the TWA
Flight 800 crash site.
I believe that the skills and knowledge of America's commercial
fishermen represent a significant underexploited resource. I wish to be
on record as endorsing their inclusion as collaborators in applied
research aimed at obtaining answers to questions such as I have earlier
identified.
I furthermore assert that in addition to the technical skills and
detailed knowledge which fishermen can provide there is another
intangible but potentially valuable benefit. The schism which has
developed between fishermen and fishery regulators and scientists must
be healed. How tragic if fishery management degenerates into a lawyer's
game of convoluted rules and sophisticated evasions. The bonds of trust
can be restored in no better way than working together in the planning
and execution of collaborative research projects.
In closing I would like to offer some suggestions where legislative
action could facilitate the growth of this important and overlooked
component of sound fishery policy.
(1) Streamline NMFS' permitting process--experimental fishery
permits, required for nonconforming gear now require extensive reviews
which could well be modified without significant impact.
(2) Develop ways to overcome regulatory impediments--issues such as
workplace safety standards and availability of insurance coverage must
be considered. An example is a loan program to enable purchase of
additional safety and survival equipment.
(3) Develop a durable, long term funding mechanism. While using
emergency assistance funding as an initial source is appropriate, the
need for research will persist long after the current crisis passes. I
believe applied research to be an investment which generates positive
benefits to the nation. There needs to be debate concerning the source
of funding as well as the development of a distribution process.
Fish are a renewable resource. We would be rightfully indignant to
learn that agriculture was being conducted without attention to
practices which would compromise its sustainability. We can accept no
less of fishing.
Thank you for the opportunity to present my views today.
Senator Snowe. Thank you. Dr. Rothschild.
STATEMENT OF DR. BRIAN ROTHSCHILD, DEAN OF THE
GRADUATE SCHOOL AND DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR MARINE SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF
MASSACHUSETTS DARTMOUTH
Dr. Rothschild. Thank you very much for having me here,
Madam Chairwoman, Senator Kerry, Senator Stevens. I've been
working in fisheries, in most of the major fisheries in the
United States for about 47 years. I'm also working on a joint
program with the University of Alaska. And I do have my
master's degree from the University of Maine.
The central technical concept of the Act, overfishing, is
difficult to define. It is difficult to use as a practical
criterion. It should be replaced by a criterion that is simpler
and more practical. Levels of optimal fishing should be set by
optimization techniques that are used in many industries today.
Multiple species catch levels and bycatch should be involved in
the calculations. Reasonable thresholds on minimum stock
abundance should be maintained.
Having said that, the concept of rebuilding is also
difficult to define and open to arbitrary interpretation. More
easily defined targets should replace rebuilding targets.
Maintaining optimal levels of catch, that is fishing mortality,
would certainly replace the need for rebuilding stocks. Not all
declines in fish stocks are the result of overfishing or the
result of fishing. Declines in fish stocks are sometimes caused
by environmental change in the ocean. Significant societal
costs occur when declines in fish stocks that result from the
environment are attributed to fishing.
It is evident that innovations in fishery management can
only arise through considerably intensified data collection on
fish population abundance obtained directly from the fishing
fleets. It is only through a very detailed analysis of day-to-
day fishing records that stock abundances can be regularly
monitored and the power of the fishery to remove fish can be
determined. It is only through the simultaneous monitoring of
fish abundance and the environment that the effects of fishing
can be separated from the effect of the environment.
Not keeping track on a daily or weekly basis of stock
abundance and environment is analogous to a department store
owner who checks sales and inventory only once a year or once
every two years.
In order to implement research changes, it would be
necessary to rely to a much greater degree on observations made
directly by fishermen. In fact, such a program is required if
we are going to collect the data that are needed to develop a
monitoring system that has the confidence of all interested
parties in a fishery management program. In addition, involving
fishermen to a greater degree in the process increases the
legitimacy of the data and the entire process.
We can conceive of a new approach to management that
minimizes an emphasis on the simple question of whether or not
a stock is overfished or not, especially since the definitions
are difficult to define. We should maintain a stock at some
level that is reasonable for the industry and does not drop
below some flexible floor. We think that this is the most cost-
effective approach for management.
We also need to experiment with various combinations of
effort and mixes of species remembering that the overfishing
definitions relate to single species. We need to view
management in much more flexible context. We should, in fact,
choose an adaptive management approach where we try an approach
and watch whether the approach is working and then make
iterative corrections as necessary.
We're already working on these approaches with the
Massachusetts Fisheries Recovery Commission of which I am the
co-chairman. The commission instituted through the legislative
efforts of Senator Montigny and Senator Bruce Tarr has
developed a plan involving high-resolution surveys, comparisons
of fishing boat surveys with research boat surveys and stock
identification. Possible sentinel or experimental fisheries
will be implemented by the Massachusetts Division of Marine
Fisheries and the University of Massachusetts Graduate School
of Marine Sciences Technology, and we've begun to issue
prototype forecasts of the ocean environment through NASA
funding which we're working on jointly with the University of
Alaska. Funding for the fishermen to cooperate in this program
is facilitated to a great degree by Senator Kerry.
Another example of cooperative management that has produced
spectacular results is working together with the scallop
industry in New Bedford and the National Marine Fisheries
Service with some support from NASA to survey the scallop
areas. Very briefly, this will result in $100 million of new
product in two years pushing New Bedford into probably the
number one economic fishing city in the U.S.
To sum up, in my view it is time to retool the Magnuson-
Stevens Act to put in perspective the issue of overfishing. We
have to realize that the definition of ``overfishing'' is
really very soft. Rather we should develop alternative
management criteria of keeping the stock above some flexible
threshold level. Cooperative research would, in fact, be
necessary to maintain the appropriate data stream. At the end
of the day, this would be much more cost effective than the
present method, particularly with fuller use of computers and
the information superhighway. We need to put in place a task
force to work out the details of the innovations. The task
force should draw heavily on the expertise of the fisheries
service and academia and, of course, the fishermen. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Rothschild follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Brian Rothschild, Dean of the Graduate School
and Director, Center for Marine Science and Technology, University of
Massachusetts Dartmouth
My name is Brian J. Rothschild. I am the Dean of the Graduate
School of Marine Sciences and Technology, University of Massachusetts
System and the Director of the Center for Marine Science and
Technology, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. I have been working
in fisheries for 47 years. I have been involved in fishery research and
management of most of the major fisheries in the U.S.
I am pleased to provide you with recommendations to change the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, including cooperative research and science
issues.
Any recommendations for changing the Magnuson-Stevens Act depends
on a) whether or not the Nation is realizing the full potential of its
fishery resources, and b) the extent to which any shortfalls in
performance results from the language of the Act itself, its
interpretation via guidelines, or its implementation by DOC.
It seems fair to say that the Act is not perceived as its achieving
its intended goal.
Addressing the perceptions involves a wide range of issues, many of
which are complex. However, a key issue involves science and
cooperative research. My theme is that
The central technical concept in the Act, ``overfishing'' is
difficult to define in a non-arbitrary way. It is difficult to
use as a practical criterion. It should be replaced by a
criterion that is simpler and more practical. The levels of
optimal fishing should be set by optimization techniques widely
used by many industries. Multiple species catch levels and
bycatch should be optimized, and reasonable thresholds on
minimum stock abundance should be maintained.
The concept of rebuilding is logically difficult to define
and also open to arbitrary interpretation. More easily defined
and practical targets should replace it. Maintaining optimal
levels of catch (i.e., fishing mortality) suppresses the need
for rebuilding stocks.
Not all declines in fish stocks are the result of fishing.
Declines in fish stocks are sometimes caused by environmental
changes in the ocean. Significant societal costs occur when
declines in fish stocks that result from the environment are
attributed to fishing.
Innovations in management approaches are necessary to
develop non-arbitrary and participatory management measures. It
is not to the fishermen's advantage to keep stocks at minimal
levels.
It is evident that the necessary innovations in fishery
management can only arise through considerably intensified data
collection on fish-population-abundance obtained directly from
the fishing fleet. It is only through very detailed analysis of
day-to-day fishing records that stock abundances can be
regularly monitored and the power of the fishery to remove fish
is determined.
It is only through the simultaneous monitoring of fish
abundance and the environment that the effects of fishing can
be separated with the effects of the environment. Not keeping
track on a daily or weekly basis of stock abundance and the
environment is analogous to a department store owner who checks
sales and inventory only once a year or once every two years
and ignores consumer preferences.
In order to implement these research changes, it will be
necessary to rely to a much greater degree on observations made
directly by fishermen. In fact, such a program is required if
we are going to collect the data that are needed to develop a
monitoring system that has the confidence of all interested
parties in fishery management. In addition, involving to a
greater degree fishermen in the process increases the
legitimacy of the data and entire process.
To highlight these points, consider the definition of biological
overfishing in the technical literature. In this literature there are
three different definitions of overfishing: production overfishing,
stock overfishing, and recruitment overfishing. The definitions are
different. They are reasonable theoretical concepts, but they are
generally not supported by actual data--that is to say there is
considerable variability between the actual data and theoretical
predictions. Furthermore, the technical theories upon which definitions
of overfishing are built are really single-species theories. This means
that a non-overfishing definition for one species may necessitate
overfishing another species.
It is interesting to observe as well that only one of these
theories--within reasonable bounds--has a general conservation impact.
This is the recruitment overfishing theory. But this is the aspect of
overfishing that is least known and the most difficult to understand.
The theory of recruitment is by far the least understood aspect of
fisheries science and still the subject of intense research around the
world.
All of this leads, of course, to the fact that if we are unclear as
to the precise definition and application of overfishing then its use
creates the perception of faulty management. (In fact, in some cases
because it is not known whether or not a stock is overfished, proxies
are developed in the guidelines to determine whether a stock is
overfished.) An analysis by FAO of all fish stocks under its
jurisdiction as to whether they were overfished or not led to
considerable controversy because the definitions were not clear. All of
this leads, of course, to the fact that if we are unclear about our
definition of overfishing, then how can we be clear about rebuilding
stocks or even imputing that stocks may be overfished in the near
future.
So, it should be clear that whether or not a stock is declared to
be overfished is not a clearly honed concept. It is, in general, more
or less an art that is subject to a tremendous scope of interpretation.
Because there is such a wide scope of interpretation, the issues become
contentious and this leads to the perception that stocks are not
managed in the best possible way. It really places scientists in the
unfortunate and counterproductive position of declaring whether or not
a stock is overfished while it is really the councils and the managers
who need to and are better prepared to make these decisions.
Absent of guidelines developed by SOC on theoretical concepts that
are shaky when put into practice, how would we know whether or not a
stock is overfished--how would we know how to rebuild a stock--how
would we know whether or not to take draconian measures limiting catch
and how would we know how to fine-tune effort limitations regarding
plus or minus a small number of days that would have a big impact; how
would we know that in fact we were addressing the right problem? In
other words, a decline in stock abundance could as easily relate not to
fishing or overfishing but to degradation of the nursery habitat, or to
natural changes. In fact, a decline in a stock might very well be the
consequence of a management regulation that protects one species at the
expense of another. The relation of dogfish and groundfish in New
England and the mid-Atlantic are good examples. So is the relation
between herring/mackerel and groundfish.
All of this may sound like ``because we don't know, let's do
nothing.'' It may also sound like ``fishing has minimal or no effects
on the stock.'' Neither of these assertions is intended. Rather, we
hope to move away from over-simplified criteria and take into account,
much more intensively, data from actual fishing operations.
As suggested above, it is possible to conceive of a new approach to
management where we would minimize an emphasis on whether or not a
stock is overfished or not especially since the definitions are
difficult and attempt to maintain a stock at some level that is
reasonable for the industry and does not drop below some flexible
floor. We also need to experiment with various combinations of effort
and mixes of species. We need to view management in a much more
flexible context. We should, in fact, use an adaptive management
approach where we try an approach and watch whether the approach is
working and then make iterative corrections as necessary.
How would such an approach be implemented? It is necessary to begin
to think that we need a much more intensive virtually real-time
monitoring of the stocks and the catch and the ocean environment. We
have to rely to a much greater extent on the fishing fleet to provide
data on the status of the stocks and the condition of the ocean
environment.
This is where we need to revise our ideas on implementation. We
need to rely to a much greater degree on cooperative research and
sampling of the catch. This implies that for most fishing trips the
fishermen would be responsible for filling out detailed logs that
indicate the abundance of fish and the condition of the ocean
environment; that the catches would be sampled at dockside and the logs
collected; that the research establishment would place the highest
priority on the analysis and quick turn around of information; and that
the management team would warn if the stock exceeded bounds.
To some extent, these ideas may seem almost heretical, however,
they are bound to meet with success. Not only will they provide better
information, both the fishing and conservation groups will be more
agreeable with the information because they will have participated in
the process.
We are already working on involving fishermen in data collection.
The Massachusetts Fisheries Recovery Commission, instituted through the
legislative efforts of Senators Mark Montigny and Bruce Tarr, has
developed a plan involving high-resolution surveys, comparisons of
fishing boat efficiency with research boat efficiency, and stock
identification. Possible sentinel fisheries is being implemented by the
Massachusetts Division of Fish and Game and the University of
Massachusetts Graduate School of Marine Sciences and Technology
(CMAST), and we have begun to issue prototype forecasts of the ocean
environment through NASA funding. Funding for the fishermen to
cooperate on this program has been facilitated by Senator Kerry.
Another example of cooperative management that has produced
spectacular results is that we worked together with the scallop
industry in New Bedford, NMFS, and VIMS, with some support from NASA,
to survey the scallop areas in the closed portion of Georges Bank. Our
work and the help of Senator Kennedy and Congressman Frank resulted in
$35 million ex-vessel in scallops last year and probably $70 million
this year!
To sum up, in my view it is time to retool the Magnuson-Stevens Act
to put in perspective the issue of overfishing. We have to realize that
the definition of overfishing is really very soft. Rather, we should
develop alternative management criteria of keeping the stock above some
flexible threshold level. Cooperative research would, in fact, be
necessary to maintain the appropriate data stream. At the end of the
day, this would be much more cost effective than the present method,
particularly with fuller use of computers and the information super
highway. We need to put in place a task force to work out the details
of the innovations. This task force should draw upon the expertise of
NMFS and academia.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Dr. Rothschild.
Dr. Sullivan.
STATEMENT OF DR. PATRICK SULLIVAN, PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, CORNELL
UNIVERSITY
Dr. Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee members.
My name is Pat Sullivan, and I'm on the faculty, department of
natural resources at Cornell University. And I've been there
for about a year and a half. Prior to that, I spent 10 years as
a population dynamist with the International Pacific Halibut
Commission. At that time I was on the statistical and
scientific committee for the Pacific Fisheries Management
Council. And currently I'm serving on the same committee for
the New England Fishery Management Council.
You have my written statement. And I brought a supplemental
material. This handbook put out by the Heinz Center called
``Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act.'' And you probably are already aware of it,
but I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Again, I thought
it was very good.
Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries
Conservation Act----
Senator Stevens. And who put it out?
Dr. Sullivan. John Heinz Center. So I would like to
summarize my statement today by relating to you a story. It's a
story about my 12-year-old son who collects Pokemon cards. My
son and his friends were playing this game the other night
which is made up of these mythical monsters with special powers
that can combat one another. And I noticed they were doing
something different. They were rolling dice to see who would go
first to determine the power of the Pokemon card and who would
get to go first. You see, each boy has his own set of cards,
and so if they each play the game according to the conventional
rules, the same boy would win each time as determined by the
cards he owns. By adding this little bit of chance, it made it
less clear who would win and thus made the game more
interesting and challenging.
Obviously, the strategies in a game of chance are different
than a game where the outcome is determined. I guess the idea
in telling you this story is to convey to you a point that
fishing and fisheries management are games of chance. The
system is complex, and there's a lot at stake. My impression is
that we are playing this game under conventional rules, not
taking into account that the system has a random element to it,
and should affect the strategies for playing the game.
First, we must acknowledge that there are risks, even when
we have good information. And second, having more information
helps us reduce the risk, even if we cannot eliminate it. The
conventional maximum sustainable yield, MSY theory of several
decades ago I believe is too risky to employ by itself in this
complex and uncertain marine environment. We need to develop
more robust rules that take into account our uncertainty.
Furthermore, on a positive side, I believe, both fishery
scientists and fishermen are getting better at gathering and
analyzing information. Furthermore, the information they are
gathering is from different perspectives reflecting differences
in scale, experience and objectives. Unfortunately, these
differences have led to problems in communication between these
two groups. But one should recognize that these reflect
actually complementary data sources that if pooled could lead
to greater understanding of our fisheries and of the ecosystem.
I think the benefit to the Nation would be great if fishermen
and scientists could learn to better communicate and share this
information. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Sullivan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Patrick Sullivan, Professor,
Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University
Our marine ecosystems are complex and dynamic. They represent an
important source of food, commerce, recreation, scientific inspiration,
and culture. What we don't often realize when we attempt to manage
these systems is that they are quite variable and not readily subject
to hard and fast rules of oversight. The conventional maximum
sustainable yield (MSY) theory of several decades ago is too risky to
employ in this uncertain environment. It was developed with the concept
of optimal production in a controlled setting. The control we exercise
in the marine environment is by no means complete. There is an element
of chance present not only in how populations change from year to year,
but also in how we track and interact with those changes. We should try
to understand, first and foremost, that there will always be risk in
decision-making in fisheries, even when the best available information
is used. But we should also recognize that increasing the information
we have at hand for decision-making reduces our risk. We must develop
more robust management objectives that take into account this
uncertainty. And we need to adjust our expectations to recognize the
multiple uses that are being made of these resources. What is positive
for decision makers and stakeholders is that both fisheries scientists
and fishermen are getting better at gathering and analyzing information
about marine ecosystems. What is interesting, but often goes unnoticed,
is that the information fishermen and scientists each gather reflects
differences in perspective, in scale, in experience, and in value. And
while these differences have led to problems in communication between
scientists and fishermen, to the consternation of many managers, one
should recognize that complementary sources of information are
reflected in these perspectives and if combined could lead to a greater
understanding of our fisheries and of marine ecosystems in general. I
think the benefit to the nation would be great if fishermen and
scientists could learn to better communicate and share this valuable
information.
How might this be brought about? I think a dialogue needs to take
place between stakeholders, fishermen in particular, and fisheries and
marine scientists. The dialogue needs to take place in a neutral
setting and outside of the contentious arena surrounding quota setting.
In this regard the handbook ``Reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act'' produced by the H. John Heinz
III Center under a program managed by Dr. Susan Hanna from Oregon State
University provides a starting point and identifies the set of relevant
issues and questions needed for such a dialogue to take place. I've
included this document as part of my supplemental materials.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The information referred to has been retained in the Subcommittee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lot has been made out of the idea of fishermen collecting data in
collaboration with scientists. I have had some good experiences
collaborating with fishermen while working with the International
Pacific Halibut Commission on board longline fishing vessels chartered
for halibut survey work. Such collaborations facilitated data gathering
at reduced costs to the IPHC, which owns no survey vessels, and also
provided a venue for fishermen and scientists like myself to share
ideas and gain perspective from one another. I think such associations
should be promoted when possible, but it also should be recognized that
not all data can be collected in this fashion. Longline fishing effort
tends to be gear specific and so can be controlled from vessel to
vessel, whereas trawling effort used to assess many fisheries is a
function not only of gear, but of towing speed, engine capacity, and
vessel size, making vessel-to-vessel standardization difficult. This is
why it is appropriate for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
to use their own research vessels for standardized trawl surveys for
fish stock assessments in the Pacific and the Atlantic. Nevertheless,
there still remains many opportunities for collaborative research
including having fishermen on board NMFS survey vessels, having NMFS
and other marine scientists on board commercial and recreational
fishing vessels, and encouraging the development of special
collaborative projects designed to test assumptions upon which stock
assessment procedures are built. In particular, harvest data from
commercial and recreational fishermen may be highly informative
provided trust can be maintained between fishermen and the management
agency and provided a high level of quality control is established.
Technological innovations such as computerized logbooks, satellite
vessel monitoring systems, and acoustic data collection are all likely
to improve the precision and accuracy of data gathered by fishing
vessels, and it would be a shame not to anticipate and make use of
this.
In conclusion let me stress that there are a number of issues that
I have not been able to touch upon here that need to be addressed
during reauthorization including: problems associated with overfishing,
capacity reduction, and bycatch; the usefulness of individual vessel
quotas for some fisheries; and the need for social and economic data to
improve fisheries management. For a good overview of these issues
please refer to the recent marine fisheries reviews conducted by the
National Research Council (NRC 1998a, 1998b, 1999a, 1999b). The
greatest need, in my opinion, is for good information and the ability
to make wise use of it. Good communication among all parties is
essential to this goal.
National Research Council. 1998a. Improving Fish Stock Assessments.
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council. 1998b. Review of Northeast Fishery Stock
Assessments. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council. 1999a. Sustaining Marine Fisheries.
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council. 1999b. Sharing the Fish: Toward a National
Policy on Individual Fishing Quotas. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C.
Senator Snowe. Thank you very much, Dr. Sullivan.
Ms. Mooney-Seus.
STATEMENT OF MARJORIE MOONEY-SEUS, MANAGER, CONSERVATION
DEPARTMENT, NEW ENGLAND AQUARIUM
Ms. Mooney-Seus. Good afternoon, Madame Chairwoman, Senator
Kerry and Senator Stevens. My name is Marjorie Mooney-Seus. I
manage the conservation department at the New England Aquarium.
And I'm going to try to summarize my remarks to keep them
short.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act. I want to point out that with the passage
of the Sustainable Fisheries Act three and a half or almost
four years ago, I think it laid the groundwork toward ecosystem
management, particularly with two mandates, the essential fish
habitat mandate, and the efforts to reduce bycatch. And we
ought to recognize that the road to ecosystem management is a
long-term commitment and a long-term process. So we need to
view the Magnuson-Stevens Act as a work in progress. And I do
think over the last several years there has been some progress.
One example, in particular, is with respect to the essential
fish habitat designations. This represents a comprehensive
attempt to look at things other than just fishing, to look at
things like non-point and point-source pollution and to
consider those things with respect to the health of fish
stocks.
I know there's been criticism that the designations are
fairly broad and having served as a technical advisor to the
habitat committee for the New England Fishery Management
Council for the past two and a half years, I've looked at the
data. And we just don't have the level of information that we
need to determine what are really critical areas to maintain
healthy fish stocks at this stage of the game. As a result,
having broad designations makes sense initially, and then over
the long-term making efforts to refine those designations is
the prudent course of action.
Another strength of the essential fish habitat component of
Magnuson is the consultation process, specifically section
305(B)(2). This is a key component of EFH because it promotes
open exchange of information between Federal agencies about
activities that could affect fish habitat. There really isn't
any other mechanism in place to promote this open dialogue.
In moving forward with reauthorization, there are some
things that we certainly could do to improve the Act, although
I don't think it needs substantial overhauling. There needs to
be a clear mandate from Congress to the National Marine
Fisheries Service and to the Councils to continue to refine
essential fish habitat designations. In particular, to start to
define habitat areas of particular concern. And at least we
need to maintain the integrity, if not strengthen, section
305(B)(2), the consultation process.
In the area of bycatch reduction, renewed regulatory
language should be adopted to provide incentives for fishermen
to avoid bycatch.
And most importantly, we need to promote collaborative
research. That's going to allow us to do a lot of things:
gather important information that we need to begin mapping and
refining essential fish habitat; determine the amount, the type
and the disposition of the bycatch and the bycatch mortality in
various fisheries; address bycatch through gear modification
and changing fishing methodology; and conduct long-term
monitoring programs to assess the health of ecosystem.
Fishermen can clearly be able partners in this process.
They know how to fish. They know where to fish. They know a lot
about species co-occurrence, and they've been real innovators
in a number of fisheries at reducing bycatch.
Toward this end, I think in section 2(A)(8), language
should be added to recognize the value of partnering with
various stakeholders to conduct collaborative research. In
section 404(B) language should be modified to make it clear
that stakeholders should be involved in the strategic planning
process for research. If they're involved in the strategic
planning process, they're more likely to support monitoring
programs, and ultimately the management measures that are put
in place.
The New England Fishery Management Council's research
steering committee, has taken a really positive step toward
strategic planning in defining some priority areas for
research. In moving forward, we need guidance from Congress to
encourage the Council and others to look at ecosystem questions
and make that a high priority.
We need, again, Federal investment in collaborative
research and long-term monitoring and in institutions that
promote collaborative research. The Canadian Sentinel Fisheries
model is a great model that you've heard a little bit about
where fishermen are actually involved in fishery-dependent
surveys and they collect data. And, that data is actually used
in stock assessments.
We also must ensure that there's adequate funding for
enabling technologies like vessel monitoring systems for real-
time reporting and for upgrading vessel monitoring systems data
management capabilities.
Along with research, we need to make sure that there are
complimentary management directives, so I think we should add
language to section 305 calling for the establishment of
ecosystem management plans.
Two last points. We need to complement collaborative
research with a Federal observer program. And last, we must
work more closely with our neighbor countries, Mexico and
Canada, to share information, possibly conduct joint stock
assessments and start to look at how we can manage shared
resources more effectively.
The New England Fishery Management Council has done
something exciting. They've laid the groundwork for that in the
future. They are looking at developing a frame of reference for
three principle groundfish stocks. This type of effort should
be encouraged to better manage and conduct research on trans-
boundary and highly migratory fish species. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mooney-Seus follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marjorie Mooney-Seus, Manager,
Conservation Department, New England Aquarium
Good morning Madame Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my
name is Marjorie Mooney-Seus. I am the manager of the New England
Aquarium Conservation Department, a non-profit organization with over
1.3 million visitors each year. Our organization is dedicated to
promote, protect and restore the aquatic environment through education,
conservation and research.
The New England Aquarium like more than 80 other organizations
across the country is a member of the Marine Fish Conservation Network
because we support the basic premise of the Network, that it represents
a diverse group of stakeholders working to conserve and promote the
long-term sustainability of marine fish.
I personally have worked closely with the fishing industry,
government agencies, members of the academic research community and
environmental organizations over the past several years on regional and
international fisheries issues. I appreciate this opportunity to speak
before you on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
In my testimony, I will focus on what has been accomplished with
the passage of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) in 1996 and what
more needs to be done to strengthen future fisheries management in the
following areas: Essential Fish Habitat designations; bycatch
reduction; collaborative research and adoption of ecosystem-based
principles for research and management; expanded observer coverage; and
increased coordination among multiple jurisdictions (particularly
between the United States and Canada). The majority of my comments will
be made within the regional context.
Given the significant time constraints under the law for
implementation of SFA, limited resources, both human and financial and
an already taxed agenda, National Marine Fisheries Service and the
Fishery Management Councils were still able to achieve some measurable
progress.
The groundwork was laid for promoting a broader ecosystem-based
approach to produce a healthy abundance and diversity of marine species
for human and other uses. However, because this represents a
fundamental shift in fisheries management, the Act's full impact has
yet to be realized. It rather should be viewed as a work in progress.
Thereby, the emphasis should be on fine tuning the Act rather than
rewriting significant components of it.
In particular, SFA mandates for identifying and protecting
Essential Fish Habitat and addressing bycatch were positive steps
toward an ecosystem approach to fisheries management. And, these are
areas where some definitive actions were taken over the past several
years.
Essential Fish Habitat Designations
Approximately 75 percent of federally managed fish species spend
some portion of their lives in estuaries and rivers. Inshore waters
provide important areas for fish breeding, feeding and growth. However,
these areas are subject to all manner of degradation from urban,
residential and industrial runoff to the loss of wetlands and submerged
vegetation. The Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) mandate represents the
first truly comprehensive attempt to protect habitat from these and
other sources of degradation as well as from the impact of various
fishing gear.
There has been some criticism over the broad scope of EFH
designations. Having served as a technical advisor to the New England
Fishery Management Council's Habitat Committee for the past two and a
half years and seeing first hand the level of available scientific data
and information, I believe that such broad designations, at least
initially, are prudent. There remains much scientific uncertainty over
exactly how much habitat is necessary to support healthy fish
populations. Until such time as additional information and data can be
collected from existing and new sources such broad designations are
warranted. Again, it is important to view this mandate as a first step
in a multi-staged process. Through additional collaborative research
and a further consolidation of existing data and information from
various federal, state and other sources, these designations can be
refined and their value enhanced.
Another strength of the EFH mandate lies in its ``Consultation
Process.'' Having spent the better part of the past six years working
to bring together fishermen, scientists, fishery managers and
environmentalists to identify common ground on fisheries related
management and science issues, I recognize the value of ongoing and
open communication.
The requirement under Section 305(b)(2) is that a Federal agency
``shall consult with the Secretary with respect to any action
authorized, funded or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded
or undertaken by such agency that may adversely affect any essential
fish habitat identified under this Act.''
This provides a formal channel for more open agency dialogue and a
foundation to address cross-sectoral effects on water resources. In
order to manage fish species, which don't respect human societal
boundaries, it is imperative that we consider the broader picture
beyond just regulating fishing activities. There really isn't any other
mechanism in place to evaluate the impact of various projects on fish
habitat. Existing environmental review procedures available through the
Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
examine the impact of proposed projects on the environment generally
and on the human environment, respectively.
What is needed in order to move forward is a clear mandate for the
National Marine Fisheries Service and the Councils to continue to
refine habitat designations with a high priority placed on the
development of Areas of Particular Concern. Further refinement of EFH
designations and development of habitat protection measures also
require investment in collaborative research and mapping, shared
information and a common vision, and a long-term monitoring program.
In addition, it is imperative that the integrity of Section
305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act be maintained, if not
strengthened, to promote increased communication among federal agencies
over activities that may impact fish habitat.
Fisheries Bycatch and Discards
While results have not been as significant in the area of bycatch
reduction as they were in identifying EFH, there have been some modest
accomplishments since the passage of SFA.
Bycatch, particularly in multispecies fisheries as we have in the
northeast, for years was regarded as a normal course of doing business.
In some cases, fishermen following a natural desire to maximize the
value of their catch, discard less valuable fish. In other cases, the
discards are regulatory. Bycatch discards are simply an economic and
ecological externality. However, with dwindling commercial fish stocks
and concern over endangered species, the need to curtail bycatch and
discards has significantly increased. Bycatch and discards not only
affect vulnerable species such as seabirds and marine mammals, but also
other commercial fisheries for which the bycatch is their primary
target.
National Standard 9 states that ``Conservation and management
measures shall, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize bycatch and (B)
to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such
bycatch.''
In New England while there is clearly a need for more comprehensive
evaluation and minimization of the region's bycatch, some positive
steps have been taken to reduce bycatch and/or minimize bycatch
mortality. The region already mandates the use of a bycatch reduction
device in its northern shrimp fishery and has measures to keep
groundfish bycatch in other fisheries under five percent. Most
recently, with the reopening of a section of one of the groundfish
closed areas for scallop fishing, strict bycatch quotas were put in
place for yellowtail flounder and monitored with the help of a vessel
monitoring system (VMS). Once the yellowtail bycatch quota was reached,
the scallop fishery in this area was effectively shut down.
Further progress can be made in addressing bycatch by enlisting
more support from fishermen. The fishing industry has proven time and
time again that it can be innovative when it comes to finding
technological solutions or alternative fishing methods to deal with
bycatch. In the North Pacific longline fishermen took the initiative to
reduce seabird mortality prior to the implementation of bycatch
management measures. Similarly, fishermen led the charge to address
problems of dolphin mortality in Eastern Tropical Pacific tuna
fisheries and to reduce harbor porpoise entanglement in gillnets and
shrimp fishery bycatch in the North Atlantic.
Towards this end, there needs to be a stronger legislative mandate
to more actively engage fishermen in research and research project
design--drawing on the fisherman's expertise and daily knowledge of
aquatic resources and species co-occurrence in the marine ecosystem--to
find further efforts to minimize bycatch and associated discards.
While existing regulatory measures provide some incentive for
fishermen to address bycatch, they also serve to stymie ingenuity
within the fishing industry to more effectively curtail this needless
waste.
To help overcome this impediment, additional language needs to be
added to Section 303(a), Required Provisions for Fishery Management
Plans that encourages the adoption of conservation and management
measures which provide catch incentives for fishermen to engage in
fishing practices that avoid bycatch or result in lower levels of
mortality of bycatch that cannot be avoided.
Congress also needs to ensure that there are adequate
appropriations to support improved data collection and observer
coverage if we are to determine the amount, type and disposition of
bycatch and bycatch mortality in various fisheries, as well as support
innovations in gear technology.
Collaborative Research and Strategic Planning within the Ecosystem
Context
There are obvious advantages to increasing stakeholder involvement
in data collection efforts. Both available resources and the scope of
existing survey programs can be expanded. For example, while the fish
component of marine ecosystems is monitored routinely for many stocks
and in most regions--through programs like the standardized trawl
surveys that have been implemented off of the northeast coast of the
United States since 1963--some fish stocks are virtually unsampled by
the current survey program. The trawl survey is further limited in its
scope because it does not effectively capture inshore waters. In other
regions, fish stocks are only surveyed every third year.
Section 2(a)(8) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act which states, ``the
collection of reliable data is essential to the effective conservation,
management, and scientific understanding of the fishery resources of
the United States,'' should be modified to recognize the value of
partnering with various organizations such as the fishing industry,
academic community, state agencies and other organizations to collect
scientific data and information.
Another suggested change to the Act would address the need for
including stakeholders in the research strategic planning process. The
rationale for this being that this would increase stakeholder
commitment to more long-term monitoring programs. Long-term monitoring
programs are essential to the success of fisheries management,
particularly if we are to discern the effects of fishery policies from
those due to other factors.
Section 404(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that the
Secretary ``shall develop . . . a strategic plan for fisheries research
. . . indicate goals and timetables . . . provide a role for commercial
fishermen in such research . . . and provide for collection and
dissemination in a timely manner . . . and provide for coordination
with affected States and other research entities.''
Section 404(b) should be modified to specify that both industry and
other stakeholders be involved in the development of strategic plans
for collaborative research. If stakeholders are more fully vested in
the development of the research strategic plan and actively involved in
the execution of this plan, they are more likely to support its
results.
The New England Fishery Management Council through its Research
Steering Committee (RSC) has taken the first big step in helping to
satisfy this mandate at the regional level by developing a broad list
of priorities for cooperative research. What is needed now is for
Congress to provide guidance to fishery management councils so that
when they engage in designing collaborative research programs,
addressing ecosystem questions are given a high priority. There also
must be a long-term commitment to funding of collaborative research and
investment in new institutions for collaborative data gathering such as
the Canadian Sentinel Fisheries model, whereby fishermen are regularly
engaged in fishery dependent surveys and the data is then integrated
into annual stock assessments. There also must be long-term investment
to ensure universal application of enabling technologies such as VMS
and upgrading of the VMS data management capability regionally.
Ultimately, this would lead to a more comprehensive research program
with established ecological and governance underpinnings for ecosystem-
based management.
At the end of Section 305 language should be added calling for the
development of Fisheries Ecosystem Plans. Included in the plans should
be information on the structure and function of ecosystems, including
the geographic extent of the ecosystem and its biological, physical and
chemical dynamics; a description of the significant food web including
key predator-prey relationships and the habitat needs of different life
stages of species that make up the significant food web, indices of
ecosystem health and integrity; and an outline for a long-term
monitoring program to evaluate fishery-dependent and fishery
independent changes in the ecosystem.
Complimentary management directives also are needed within the Act.
Specifically, language should be added to Section 2(b) emphasizing the
importance of considering the precautionary approach in management
decisions when the effects of fishing are unknown in order to maintain
ecosystem health and sustainability. Also, in Section 2(c)(3) new
language should emphasize the need for incorporating and applying
ecosystem principles and considering how fishing affects predator-prey
relationships within marine ecosystems, trophic structure, age class
structure within stocks, and biological functions such as spawning.
As early as 1871, the value of understanding ecosystem dynamics was
recognized, when the first appointed Commissioner of the U.S.
Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Spencer Baird stated, ``our
understanding of fish . . . would not be complete without a thorough
knowledge of their associates in the sea, especially of such as prey
upon them or constitute their food.'' As we move into the new
millennium and we struggle with how better to manage overtaxed fish
stocks, it is time we took heed of these words.
Federal Observer Program
To complement collaborative research programs, a national observer
program also should be established to monitor and collect statistically
significant and reliable data about bycatch and discards, landings,
impacts on essential fish habitat, and other relevant ecosystem
information. Specifically, language should be added to Section 2(a)(6)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act calling for establishment of such a
program.
Multilateral Coordination
In considering the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act the
means for promoting greater coordination of legislative and
institutional responsibilities across jurisdictions should be
encouraged. We need an ``institutional'' and a ``legislative'' ecology
which more closely parallel the natural ecology to more effectively
manage fish resources.
Therefore, it is important that there be complementary approaches
in data collection, stock assessment and management of fish both at the
state and federal level and at the international level. In the
northeast, there should be increased coordination between the United
States and Canada. The NMFS and New England Fishery Management Council
have already taken some positive steps to informally develop a
management frame of reference between the United States and Canada for
three principal groundfish stocks, cod, yellowtail flounder and
haddock. Such action should be commended and further encouraged by
Congress for more effectively studying and managing transboundary and
highly migratory fish stocks.
At the New England Aquarium we have long recognized the value of
such cross-sectoral collaborations, having conducted a number of
workshops to promote information exchange among various jurisdictions.
Currently, we are undertaking a collaborative research project with the
lobster fishing industry and various government agencies in three
states to apply a model developed by the Canadians for gathering stock
assessment information. The hope is that this will enable us to take
some serious steps towards better understanding the North American
lobster's distribution in the Gulf of Maine.
In closing, I believe that the reauthorization of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act provides real
opportunity for greater stakeholder involvement in strategic planning
and collaborative research. This will contribute to a fuller
understanding of the marine ecosystem, providing a foundation for
ecosystem-based management and the long-term sustainability and health
of marine resources.
Senator Snowe. Thank you. Thank you all very much.
Dr. Rothschild, you were mentioning that the Act has not
really achieved its intended goal. I'd like to ask each of you
as we focus on this reauthorization exactly, what you think
that we should focus on in terms of improving flexibility in
the Act. That's something we hear consistently throughout all
the hearings that I've held across the country. Second, please
comment on involving the fishermen in the decision-making
process, through the cooperative research as well as in the
ultimate decision, so that there is a better relationship and
harmony between the decisions, the agency, and the Councils who
make those decisions.
Dr. Rothschild. I remember when the Act was first put in
place, and Senator Magnuson said that at last we have a ``new
form of government,'' a new way of managing the fisheries.
However, all one has to do is read any of the fishery press and
you can see that the perceptions of performance are really not
good. It seems to me what we need to do is buildup trust in the
fishing community, but not at the sacrifice of the conservation
of the fish. And the way to do that is through a flexibility
that matches what we actually know about the level of the
resources. As I pointed out in my testimony, the concept of
overfishing, and therefore the concept of rebuilding is fuzzy,
and so basically what we need to do is take more account of the
needs of the fishing community and be more flexible in the use
of overfishing definitions while certainly maintaining a
minimum level for the stock.
The second issue involves fishermen in the decision-making
process. There is, in my opinion, a tremendous cost saving that
could be obtained by working with fishermen to get observations
directly from fishing boats. Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you. Mr. Mirarchi.
Mr. Mirarchi. Yeah, thanks, Senator. With regards to how
Magnuson-Stevens is working, I think basically you can look at
it as two phases. For the first 15 years or so, from 1977
through the early 1990's, and clearly the bridge was crossed
with the Sustainable Fisheries Act, but even in New England
before that, the earlier model was basing to exploit the fish
stocks at whatever costs. The opportunity was for development.
We then shifted gears and went to a protectionist mode where we
began to rebuild fish stocks that were depleted during that
early period, but at a great cost to the shore-side component
of a fishery, the people, the communities. And we're still in
that component. We haven't yet learned how to balance those two
phases.
My personal take is that we need to allow market forces to
right-size the capacity to whatever resource that best
available science tells us is out there to catch. Which bring
me to the second part of your question: How do you achieve that
proper assessment? And I think that one of the best tools that
we have is utilizing the fishing platforms that are available.
For one reason, there's a surplus of them today because of the
stringency of the fishing rules that are now in place here in
New England to rebuild stocks. So there's plenty of fishermen
with only 88 opportunity days to fish for groundfish or with
four or five months of closures in the Gulf of Maine who would
love to have something else to do with their boats.
Number two, it would build confidence among the fishermen
in the process itself. There's still a lot of skepticism as to
whether NMFS knows how to count fish or not. And clearly,
whatever the result of this cooperative research will be, it
will at least be a broader basis of authority through those
figures. And I think that will go along way to developing a
fishery which is robust and sustainable. Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Dr. Sullivan.
Dr. Sullivan. With regard to flexibility, I guess the first
thing I think of is the way that we used to manage fisheries,
and that was by providing a single quota, and nobody was
allowed to go above it, and nobody was allowed to go below it.
And for many years that worked, basically I think because the
fisheries were never at the capacity to actually take those
quotas.
We're now at a point where we're overcapitalized, and we
have too much capacity. And so we need to have some options to
explore. And I think one of the ways to do that is to actually
explore the uncertainty associated with the assessments, the
estimates that come out of the stock assessments. And I think
National Marine Fisheries Services is doing a good job in
providing some of that uncertainty, and I think they can
continue moving forward in that direction. In particular, I
think rather than again providing a single quota as a
recommendation for what one should do, I think it would be
useful to have some kind of distribution of quotas that are
possible, and the consequences either to ultimate sustainable
catch or to the stock in hand as an outcome. So effectively a
decision table associated with different choices.
In such an instance, that would put the responsibility back
into the Council's hands who should have the responsibility for
managing the systems and allow the scientists to defend their
work on the basis of science rather than from management
standpoint.
With regard to involving fishermen, my experience with the
halibut commission was very positive in the sense that I had
plenty of opportunity to explain my stock assessments to the
fishermen, to the managers, to the commissioners and to other
scientists. And during the whole process of decision-making,
the weeks and months prior to that when the halibut
commissioners were making their decisions, I would explain the
assessment over and over and over again to lots of different
groups from lots of different perspectives. And I felt that,
although this was time consuming and took a lot of my energy,
it was a good way to convey the thoughts and concerns I had
about the stock to the people who it was important to get to.
But furthermore, it allowed me to hear the concerns that
people, other people had with regard to my assessment so that I
could take the opportunity at subsequent times to address those
questions and so forth.
So I guess what I'm saying is I feel that communication is
really important, and it's difficult to underestimate the
impact that will have.
Senator Snowe. Thank you. Ms. Mooney-Seus.
Ms. Mooney-Seus. It's a combination of things. I think
collaborative research has certainly involved the fishermen
more in the process. It will enable us to tap into their
collective knowledge and bring their resources to bear. It will
help us broaden the scope of our surveys to better capture
inshore areas and expand the duration of our surveys throughout
the year. We do need to shorten the permitting process in terms
of granting experimental fishery permits. One of the things
that is promising in terms of the Council process right now is
the fact that with the establishment of the research steering
committee all the members on that committee represent diverse
stakeholders, and everybody has a vote, and that's a positive
thing in going forward. We should encourage the establishment
of more committees like this.
There are opportunities or there should be increased
opportunities for things like co-management. We've seen some
positive results in Maine, mixed results, but some good results
in Maine with the lobster zone management system. There are
certainly opportunities for getting greater community
involvement in fisheries management.
Senator Snowe. Thank you. Senator Kerry.
Senator Kerry. I'm going to hold back on most of my
questions because we've got a lot of people I think who are
waiting to speak at our open mike session.
Let me just ask a quick question to Dr. Sullivan. Do I hear
you say--are you suggesting NMFS is not basing their decisions
on the best science that we have available?
Dr. Sullivan. Oh, no. I believe they are. I think could
probably expand upon their communication of uncertainty
associated with that. I think it's a change that's happening.
In the past, fishery scientists were using deterministic
models, and they were giving single-point estimates as to
what's happening. With the advent of computers is also data
base management systems, there's lots of data now that is being
used. And it can be explored in a much wider sense. And as a
consequence, one can convey not just the point but the
consequences of lots of different actions.
Senator Kerry. Fair enough. And Dr. Rothschild, you
advocate for this flexibility and I think you suggested
ensuring fish stocks don't drop below a certain ``flexible
floor.'' And levels of catch ought to be ``reasonable for the
industry.'' I don't have a clue as to how that provides us with
the margin of safety that you also mentioned we're looking for.
Isn't that effectively what fishery managers are doing now?
Aren't they trying to do that? Don't they try to incorporate
these ideas in the numbers they come up with now?
Dr. Rothschild. Well, it seems to me that the rebuilding
targets are fairly rigid. And they're over a multi-year period.
Senator Kerry. They're rigid because we saw that
flexibility was destructive, and that flexibility was taking us
on a downward track.
Dr. Rothschild. I don't intend to mean that flexibility
means that you continued to catch the same quantity of fish as
the stock continues to decline. What I'm saying is that we need
to take more consideration of National Standard Eight, for
example, to balance the needs of the fishing community with the
conservation of the stock. And some flexibility in the current
year or the next year or in the third year really isn't going
to cause the fish stock to become extinct. I only know of two
or three instances where fish stocks have really become
extinct. I know in New Bedford that there are perhaps 150 less
fishing boats now than there were five years ago. That in a way
is good because we're controlling capacity. On the other hand,
we have to look at the economy of New Bedford that now consists
of 150 less small businesses.
Senator Kerry. You're suggesting that the economy of New
Bedford and those 150 vessels should have been balanced against
stock rebuilding?
Dr. Rothschild. Well, what I'm suggesting is that when you
buy back a fishing vessel, for example, you affect many
businesses on the shore side.
Senator Kerry. What's the alternative that you're
proposing? If you're trying to----
Dr. Rothschild. Well, the alternative----
Senator Kerry. --reduce fishing effort--I don't understand
the balance there at all.
Dr. Rothschild. What I'm saying is that the balance is in
the slowing down the draconian actions, and that in the long
run this is not a tremendous conservation problem where it is a
problem in the short run for the communities.
Senator Kerry. How do you know what you're proposing is not
a tremendous conservation problem? Science tell us otherwise.
Dr. Rothschild. Well, actually, there are many cases where
stocks declined independent of changes in fishing mortality.
And there are many cases where stocks increase independent of
fishing mortality. The real scientific issue again applying the
best available science is that this relates to the recruitment
issue which we really as a scientific community don't
understand very well.
So the direct answer to your question is one, this isn't
well-known, that's why Dr. Sullivan's approach is really a good
one. And the second is that the risk of the stocks being,
disappearing, is relatively small. We don't know of any stocks
except a few that have actually disappeared.
Senator Kerry. That's because we stopped before we killed
them. Are you telling me the striped bass experience wasn't
somehow instructive?
Dr. Rothschild. I think the striped bass experience was
instructive----
Senator Kerry. We stopped before it was extinct.
Dr. Rothschild. Well, actually, there were programs in the
1940's that were put in place to prevent or understand the
decline of the striped bass. And then the striped bass came
back independent of any regulations on fishing. And then it
declined again. And that's when new regulations were started.
So if you look at the long-term history of the striped bass
over the years, the interaction of the effects of the
environment and fishing are arguable. I'm not saying that we
don't have to account for fishing, that we don't have to be
prudent, so on and so forth. I don't want to be misunderstood.
I'm just saying that the interpretation is perhaps more
flexible than the one given.
Senator Kerry. Well, it all argues powerfully for the two
things we talked about at the beginning the hearing which are
the resources and the information.
Dr. Rothschild. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Kerry. Thank you.
Dr. Rothschild. Absolutely.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Senator Kerry. Senator Stevens.
Senator Stevens. I'm constrained to ask whether any of you
have ever costed-out your suggestions. How much would it cost
the taxpayers to follow your suggestions?
Dr. Rothschild. Well, I find it really very difficult to
cost out suggestions because--I would like to comment on it.
The reason that I find it difficult is, for example, when you
ask the Coast Guard, Well, how much is this? Or how much is
that? The answer is, Well, we're doing other things. And so I
guess that--the way I would look at it is that a simpler
fishery management scheme that was--would be more flexible,
would reduce a lot of social costs and social programs that
relate to the adverse economic conditions of the fishermen. And
I would think that what would be needed to tremendously
increase this data collection and so on and so forth is, in
fact, quite expensive. But that always has to be taken into
account the total program of the agency.
Senator Stevens. Dr. Sullivan.
Dr. Sullivan. I believe that communicating information in
terms of risk could be done with the technology that we have
now at no--maybe a marginal additional expense in terms of the
time and effort involved for the National Marine Fisheries
Service.
In terms of communication, I feel that it will be an added
cost in terms of time and money. But I feel that it would be
worthwhile in terms of--overall. Because currently there's a
stalemate I think, as evidenced by the discussion earlier with
Mr. Hill and the Council in terms of understanding what the
consequences are taking actions that keep fish mortality at a
high level.
Senator Stevens. Ms. Mooney.
Ms. Mooney-Seus. We have to look at a combination of
funding sources. It's a lot of money to underake all this. And
I couldn't put a precise figure on a lot of the things I
suggested--with the exception of the vessel monitoring systems.
We've heard ranges of 3,000 up to 6,000 dollars per boat. And
I'm sure as more and more boats were equipped with VMS we could
get the cost per boat down.
You have to look at not only Federal moneys but also
support from the fishing industry to help offset some of the
cost. As the fish stocks recover, you have to look at also
private moneys to come into the picture. And I think we have to
recognize this is a public resource, so it isn't unreasonable
to ask for more appropriations to do things like collaborative
research.
Senator Stevens. It's not unreasonable to ask, but . . .
Thank you very much.
Did you have a comment, Mr. Mirarchi?
Mr. Mirarchi. Yes, I do, thank you, Senator. My comment is
this: I can only offer you an opinion. I'm a fisherman. There's
going to be a short-term net cost to the taxpayers to get such
a program of collaborative research up and running. And
eventually there will be a pay-back through an enhanced
resource. We've heard today of people opining that the resource
productivity at maximum sustainable yield could be perhaps
three times what it is presently. That the cost burden should
be at least in part borne by that enhanced resource. Basically,
the resource, once up and running, should be able to sustain
itself. But we need to boot strap it to get it to that point.
Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Well, I can only tell you, the people of
Cordova found that their resource salmon was disappearing, and
they taxed themselves. I believe it was two cents a fish. Do
you recall that, Dr. Rothschild? And after two years, started
building some hatcheries and today have an overabundant supply
of salmon. There was no Federal money involved at all, no state
money involved at all. It was all the industry themselves
getting together. Although at the very lowest ebb of their
existence, they taxed themselves and provided their own
stability and they're still the most stable supply in the
state. Have you done that here at all?
Mr. Mirarchi. To my knowledge, no. At this point, there is
no possibility of assessing a fee to commercial--to Federal
commercial fishing permits. I personally am not adverse to
that----
Senator Stevens. Well, this wasn't a Federal--this was
industry action. It's just a collection. They got together and
formed a collection.
Mr. Mirarchi. I'd like to raise an associated point, if I
could. And that is this is why I feel that a rights-based
management system is so important that if people feel they have
a vested economic interest in a living resource versus having
to kill a fish in order to realize a personal economic gain
from it, they'd look much more favorably on programs such as
that which occurred in Cordova.
Senator Snowe. Final word?
Senator Stevens. I'm constrained to add that they provided
the hatcheries that supply sports fishermen, the public at
large and the ocean mammals and everything else. They did it
themselves. And it's the most successful program I know in the
country. Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you. Thank you all very much. We thank
you very much for sharing your views here today.
This is the final part of the program, and I know that many
people have signed up. We've got about a half an hour for open
microphone, so we're going to ask you to limit your comments to
no more than one minute. We're going to have a red light here,
and please, we ask you to honor it. Rich Levitt of Senator
Kerry's staff will read the names for the open mic session. So
please come forward very quickly so we can move the process
along.
Who's number one?
STATEMENT OF MAYOR TOBEY, GLOUCESTER, MA
Mayor Tobey. Thank you, Madam Chair, Senators. I will be
brief; no one will miss a flight on my account.
I want to speak simply to one criteria on behalf of the
city of Gloucester supplementing all that others before me have
said, and that would be on National Standard Eight. We ask that
there be, as this review goes forward, an effort to strengthen
the requirement for meaningful socioeconomic impact
consideration. Moving past what we now see as minimum criteria,
cursory studies, justification rather than complementary action
when it relates to decisions already made is what we fear we
see.
Since I became mayor in 1991, we've seen real social change
in our community on its waterfront, real economic change. We've
seen stresses in family where the fisherman father can no
longer go fishing. We're seeing financial stresses and strains
like never before. We're seeing fewer folks working in the
related industries both directly and indirectly to the fishing
industry. We're seeing a waterfront that is a matter of both
sentiment, heritage and law must be marine in its utilization
no longer able to move ahead with new investment because we are
not getting a balanced approached we see as a result of
National Standard Eight being too low down rather than equal in
its placement in the prioritization scheme.
I'm not looking for the days to return a hundred years ago
when my grandfathers fished, a harbor full of masts and fishing
boats. But we're looking to hold onto the infrastructure we
have so that when the species do rebound the small family
businesses that now have been looking to hang in there can move
ahead with the progress they have helped realize by being
partners in conservation and research today.
Thank you for your indulgence.
Senator Snowe. Thank you very much.
Senator Kerry. Mayor, you've done a great job out there
too.
Mayor Tobey. Thank you, Senator. We like what you're doing.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW THOMAS, ON BEHALF OF
FREDERICK KALISZ, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF
NEW BEDFORD, MA
Mr. Thomas. Good afternoon. My name is Matthew Thomas. I'm
one of the assistant city solicitors for the city of New
Bedford. Unfortunately, Mayor Kalisz could not be with us
today. He's on his way to Washington. Maybe you passed in the
air. He has asked that I read the statement with your
permission.
Madam Chair and Senators, thank you for the opportunity to
address you this afternoon regarding the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Unfortunately, I'm
scheduled to be in Washington today and so cannot address you
in person. I have asked Attorney Matthew Thomas to deliver
these comments for me. And I thank you for your understanding
of my absence from today's hearing on that important matter,
sustainable fisheries.
As you are aware, mariners from New Bedford have been
fishing the waters along the east coast of the United States
for over 150 years. Our fishermen harvest one of the most
diverse catches in the United States, and in fact, over 45
percent of the seafood landed in Massachusetts is landed in the
port of New Bedford. The seafood industry in New Bedford allows
over 30,000 individuals to provide a living for their families
and contributes over $800 million to the economy of New
Bedford. Our port is ranked number one in the United States
based on dollar value of landings.
This concept of a sustainable fishery is one that has been
understood by our fishermen for over 150 years. Initially, it
was the fishermen themselves who regulated the days at sea.
Eventually that regulation has been assumed by the government
through the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
This afternoon I would like to direct my comments to one
aspect of the regulation. The need to employ the best available
technology to determine the levels of resource and the impacts
of certain levels of harvesting. Whether one is a proponent of
the derby theory or the quota theory of resource management, it
is essential that the data upon which these regulatory
decisions are made is as accurate as possible.
I understand that there are significant challenges in the
effort to accurately compile data and there are differences of
opinion in the interpretation of that data, however, I also
understand that unless we utilize the most innovative
technology available and unless all the management Councils
agree to a protocol regarding the interpretation of that data,
our fishermen in our communities will be subject to rules and
regulations that shift with the tide.
The old methods of reporting catches are not sufficient. We
must apply the same efforts to accurately determining catch
levels as we have to determining the levels of the resource.
In New Bedford, we are fortunate to have a world-class
center for marine science and technology. That center is CMAST,
the Center for Marine Science and Technology at the University
of Massachusetts. Dr. Rothschild and his competent staff have
been instrumental in helping us understand the scallop resource
and the effect of different levels of harvesting on that
resource. In large part, thanks to their efforts, our scallop
industry has regained access to the closed areas leading to an
additional $30 million to $40 million of product.
Through CMAST's efforts, we were able to learn that it is
necessary to harvest to certain levels to maintain a healthy
scallop resource. This success involved a cooperation between
CMAST and National Marine Fisheries and the New England
Management Council and the harvesters themselves. This effort
should become a model for analysis of the other fishery
resources.
A broader scope of industry groups should be brought into
the process of fisheries management in order to protect the
interest of all participants. As you know, the fisheries
Councils were the body created as the partnership between the
government, the scientific community and the direct
stockholders in fisheries. With all due respect to the other
partners in the fisheries Councils, it is the scientific
community that will play the greatest role in achieving a truly
sustainable fishery. The date collected and the analysis of the
scientific community is to some degree outcome-determinative.
We must encourage the scientific community to develop the new
innovative methods to assist in the true assessment of the
resource and the true impact of various levels of landing. We
must remove the guess work from this process.
I understand this is a difficult task, however, who among
us would make a decision that affects their family without
attempting to collect the best information and analyze that
information as thoroughly as possible? We must also continue to
engage the harvesters in the data collection and analysis.
These individuals spend a good portion of their lives on the
sea and have developed an understanding of the ocean that
should not be minimized.
In general, a much larger range of information is needed
from the harvesting sector, data collectors, universities and
the National Marine Fisheries Service. In closing, I would
again like to thank you for the opportunity to offer these
comments. We in New Bedford are dedicated to attaining a
sustainable fishery, and we have been committed to this goal
for over 150 years, however, a sustainable fishery is one that
must not only sustain the resource but the industry as well.
That is our goal, and we will only succeed in reaching that
goal if we embrace the best available means to collect data,
analyze that data and avoid solutions that are overly
simplistic. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mayor Kalisz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Frederick Kalisz,
Mayor of the City of New Bedford, MA
Thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning regarding
the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act.
Unfortunately, I am scheduled to be in Washington today and so cannot
address you in person. I have asked Attorney Matthew Thomas to deliver
these comments for me and I thank you for your understanding of my
absence from today's hearing on the important matter of sustainable
fisheries.
As you are aware, mariners from New Bedford have been fishing the
waters along the East Coast of the United States for over 150 years.
Our fishermen harvest one of the most diverse catches in the United
States and in fact over 45 percent of the seafood landed in
Massachusetts is landed in the Port of New Bedford. The seafood
industry in New Bedford allows over 3000 individuals to provide a
living for their families and contributes over $800 million dollars to
the economy of New Bedford. Our port is ranked number one in the United
States based on dollar value of landings. This concept of a sustainable
fishery is one that has been understood by our fishermen for over 150
years. Initially it was the fishermen themselves who regulated the days
at sea, and eventually that regulation has been assumed by the
government through the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
This morning I would like to direct my comments to one aspect of
the regulation--the need to employ the best available technology to
determine the levels of the resource and the impacts of certain levels
of harvesting. Whether one is a proponent of the ``derby theory'' or
the ``quota theory'' of resource management, it is essential that the
data upon which these regulatory decisions are made is as accurate as
possible. I understand that there are significant challenges in the
effort to accurately compile data and that there are differences of
opinion in the interpretation of that data. However, I also understand
that unless we utilize the most innovative technology available and
unless all of the management councils agree to a protocol regarding the
interpretation of that data our fishermen and our communities will be
subject to rules and regulations that shift with the tides. The old
methods of reporting catches is not sufficient. We must apply the same
efforts to accurately determining catch levels as we have to
determining the levels of the resource.
In New Bedford we are fortunate to have a world class center for
Marine Science and Technology. That center is CMAST--the Center for
Marine and Applied Sciences at the University of Massachusetts--
Dartmouth. Dr. Rothschild and his competent staff have been
instrumental in helping us understand the scallop resource and the
effect of different levels of harvesting on that resource. In large
part thanks to their efforts, our scallop industry has regained access
to the closed areas leading to an additional $30 to $40 million of
product. Through CMAST's efforts we were able to learn that it is
necessary to harvest to certain levels to maintain a healthy scallop
resource. This success involved a cooperation between CMAST, National
Marine Fisheries, the New England Management Council and the harvesters
themselves. This effort should become the model for analysis of the
other fishery resources.
A broader scope of industry groups should be brought into the
process of fisheries management in order to protect the interests of
all participants. As you know the Fisheries Councils were the body
created as the partnership between the government, the scientific
community and the direct stockholders in the fisheries. With all due
respect to the other partners in the Fisheries Councils it is the
scientific community that will play the greatest role in achieving a
truly sustainable fishery. The data collected and analysis of the
scientific community is to some degree outcome determinative. We must
encourage the scientific community to develop the new innovative
methods to assist in the true assessment of the resource and the true
impact of various levels of landings. We must remove the guesswork from
this process. I understand that this is a difficult task. However, who
among us would make a decision that affects their family without
attempting to collect the best available information and analyze that
information as thoroughly as possible. We must also continue to engage
the harvesters in the data collection and analysis. These individuals
spend a good portion of their lives on the sea and have developed an
understanding of the ocean that should not be minimized. In general a
much larger range of information is needed from the harvesting sector,
data collectors, universities and the National Marine Fisheries
Service.
In closing I would again like to thank you for the opportunity to
offer these comments. We in New Bedford are dedicated to attaining a
sustainable fishery and we have been committed to this goal for over
150 years. However, a sustainable fishery is one that must not only
sustain the resource, but the industry as well. That is our goal and we
will only succeed in reaching that goal if we embrace the best
available means to collect data, analyze that data and avoid solutions
that are overly simplistic.
Senator Snowe. Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE TARR,
MASSACHUSETTS STATE SENATOR
Senator Tarr. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and through you
to the members of the Committee. I'm State Senator Bruce Tarr,
the assistant minority whip of the Massachusetts State Senate,
and also the co-chairman of the Coastal Caucus, which is a
caucus of Massachusetts legislatures concerned with the very
issues that you're taking up today.
I want to thank all of you for coming to engage us in the
kind of dialogue that it's going to take to make Magnuson the
truly effective tool that we all want it to be. And along those
lines, I want to get into a couple of things that have already
been mentioned by the panel.
And first, to Senator Kerry's question about what ought be
the time? What ought be the safeguard? It seems to me that what
we ought to be looking for is not the quickest time of
rebuilding, but the best sustainable time. And to the extent
that we can match the needs of the communities with the ability
over the long term for the stocks to rebuild, then we found
that optimum goal that folks would be able to believe in and
carry forward in complying with the Magnuson requirements.
In addition to that, we ought to be looking at I think an
additional national standard, one that allows the maximum
number of industry participants that have historically
participated in the industry to be able to continue to
participate in the industry. And Madam Chair, that means
directly addressing the issue of latent effort, whether it be
for accounting differently or whether it be for buying it back,
but dealing with it squarely on its face so that people today
who are making the sacrifice to continue the fishery aren't
doing it for the benefit of others who are not making those
same sacrifices.
Madam Chair, we've talked a lot today and you all had great
testimony on how do we get more participation? How do we get
the people that are affected to be more effectively involved?
And I think some procedures could be adopted that would very
effectively do that.
First, the goals are to be up front. They ought to be voted
on. And they ought to be cleared by the New England Fishery
Management Council before plans are solicited. And when plans
are solicited they ought to be described in terms of the steps
they'll need to pass in order to be accepted, and when they're
rejected by the Council they ought to be rejected in writing
with the reasons that the industry has come up short so that
it's not a catch or a hit or miss, that it's a process of
dialogue and cooperation unlike some of what we see today.
And toward that, we ought not to continue to have, in my
opinion, Madam Chair, the analysis of the socioeconomic impact
of these plans by the folks that are writing and approving the
plans. I would suggest to you that divorcing the issue of
trying to regulate from the issue of trying to sustain would in
this instance be a good idea. With those kinds of things and
those kinds of analyses being completed by the Small Business
Administration or other agencies whose specific role it is to
maintain sustainable communities. I think that would go a long
way.
And along that way, the issue and the one I'll close on
because it's very hard for me, Madam Chair, to constrain
myself, and I'll try to do the best I can, but I think
collaborative research is a common goal. It's something that is
going to provide us with the bridge between the confrontational
system of management that we've seen and the cooperative system
of management that we will see.
And toward Senator Stevens' point, in fact, in
Massachusetts, the work of the Massachusetts Fisheries Recovery
Commission, the scallop industry was compelled through the
Fishery Survival Fund to produce industry funds to continue
that collaborative research, not on its own, but in partnership
with state and Federal funding. And I think it's a model that
we ought to continue to follow.
And last but not least, I would suggest to you that if we
look at Magnuson and we look at it as a tool for that kind of
dialogue and that kind of interaction, then we ought to be
willing to stand up and say that the only best science
available is the science which includes direct and verifiable
input from the people whose lives are so desperately affected
by these regulations. That would be a change, Madam Chair, that
would go a long, long way.
Let me conclude just by thanking you, and particularly by
thanking Senator Kerry for his great work in working with the
Fisheries Recovery Commission and with all of you for
understanding the investment that we need to continue to call
fishery as one of our most important industries.
Senator Snowe. Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD MUSIOL, SPOKESPERSON FOR
THE HON. THERESE MURRAY, PLYMOUTH AND BARNSTABLE STATE SENATE
DISTRICT
Mr. Musiol. Senator Kerry, Senator Snowe, Senator Stevens,
good afternoon. My name is Richard Musiol, and I am the
spokesperson for Senator Therese Murray. Senator Murray
represents the Plymouth and Barnstable State Senate District
which covers southern Plymouth County and upper Cape Cod.
The Senator's home town, and in fact, America's Home Town,
the Town of Plymouth, Massachusetts, is a vibrant fishing
community. Senator Murray is not a scientist, nor is she a
fisherman. As a leader in our community, however, she does have
some concerns in the creation of various species management
plans pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Sustainable
Fisheries Act.
Specifically, Senator Murray has two concerns. First, there
is a lack of science in developing the species management
plans. We have seen constant disagreement between our local
fisheries officials and our fishermen and our Federal fishery
regulators.
Second, the negative effect of these management plans never
seems to play a role in the development of these plans. As
Senator Snowe mentioned earlier, the recently published GAO
report indicates that Federal officials do realize the
potential negative economic and social impact, but they fail to
minimize that impact.
Nowhere is this more true than the Plymouth fishing
community that recently has to bear the enactment of the Spiny
Dogfish Management Plan. Our Plymouth port alone caught more
spiny dogfish than will be allowed for all New England and Mid-
Atlantic states under the plan enacted by Secretary Bill Daley.
It is no exaggeration to say that this management plan will
crush the port of Plymouth.
As the GAO report also indicates, there are much more
resources needed in this area. However, Federal fishing
regulators must work more cooperatively with our state
officials and our local fishermen to get a more accurate
assessment of the fishing stocks.
Science must prevail when it comes to the development of
these management plans. Accurate science, however, cannot be
attained unless we all work together.
On behalf of Senator Murray, we want to thank Senator Kerry
for his diligence in his efforts in keeping us informed on
these important Federal issues. Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF MR. PRYBOT, COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN, CAPE ANN, MA
Mr. Prybot. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm
here as a Cape Ann, Mass commercial fisherman, a commercial
lobsterman and also a small boat longliner who holds a Federal
day-at-sea hook permit. And I'm somebody who has attended a lot
of Council meetings and continue to do so and has a lot of
contact with fishermen, especially Gloucester fishermen, all
fishermen along the coast.
Plain and simple, what I'm seeing and also hearing is that
many people, especially commercial fishermen, have lost faith
in the lower levels of the fishery management process. And
that's why they are circumventing it and going to you people,
the people that control the pursestrings and have the power
over the lower agencies.
They share the same skepticism in the fishery management
process that I sense coming from you three people earlier.
That's where they are.
I just hope when the Magnuson Act does get reauthorized
that two points will be stressed. One is fairness to everybody
involved. And also that some plain old simple common sense will
be added at times. When I speak of fairness, one of the most
annoying areas to commercial fishermen is what they view and
what view is unfairness with the Gulf of Maine closed areas.
They feel as though these are closed areas and they should be
closed to all commercial fishing ventures including party
charter vessels. Right now what's happening, the party charter
vessels are allowed to fish in these closed areas and yet
commercial fishermen who make, who earn their living on the
same finfish, codfish that the party charter vessels can. That
to me is blatant discrimination, especially in the Democratic
process. You've probably heard the argument, Well, the party
charter vessel people say, We didn't cause the Gulf of Maine
cod collapse. There are a lot of commercial fishermen like
myself who didn't cause the Gulf of Maine cod collapse either.
Yet, we can't go into these areas. That's unfair. That should
change.
And another thing----
Senator Snowe. You have a one-minute time limit, we have
many people here.
Mr. Prybot. Yes. The National Marine Fishery Science people
say, because I keep track of this, the Gulf of Maine cod stock
is still dangerously low, yet the Council allows cod fishing in
these critical areas during the critical time when the cod
bunch up and spawn. It makes no sense at all.
And the other issue in terms of common sense is please
change the overage policy, bring back the running clock
provision. Now if boats catch their quota for a trip, they have
to stay out and they can't come in. Let the vessels come in and
take out their catch and legally sell it and then deduct the
days-at-sea from that. Otherwise, everybody loses. The
fishermen because they have to stay out and they have to bring
in a lower-quality product, and more trip costs are associated.
And obviously the dealer and the consumer loses. You're dealing
with a lower-quality product. And also the stock itself loses
because otherwise if those boats have to stay out, they're
going to continue fishing, and the only thing that's going to
happen, more and more discards.
And let's cut down on the discards in the future and also
increase the fairness and add a little common sense. Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you very much.
I would like to remind the audience that the legislative
record will be open for statements, and we will certainly
include any additional comments beyond what you make here.
STATEMENT OF JOE ORLANDO, FISHERMAN,
GLOUCESTER, MA
Mr. Orlando. Hi. My name is Joe Orlando. I'm a Gloucester
fisherman. And I'd like to thank you very much. This is
probably one of my biggest days of my life to be in front of
people like you.
Like I said, I'm a Gloucester fisherman. I'm the owner and
captain of the fisher vessel Padre Peer in Gloucester. I belong
to an organization, the Gloucester Fishermen's Association,
which we belong to the Massachusetts Fishermen's Partnership.
And we'd like to support Angela's testimony earlier with the
Partnership.
I would like to add support for the Massachusetts
Fishermen's Partnership Plan. I feel it will bring us up to
speed on the future fisheries. Senator Kerry, you asked a
question earlier to Russell Sherman's panel. Did you feel
fairness on the panel? I have 88 days at sea while other boats
have 100 to 150 days. I don't see where the fairness to that
is.
Senator Kerry. Why is that? Can you tell me?
Mr. Orlando. Well, at the time when National Fisheries and
NMFS were issuing out days and splitting them up, they picked
two categories: Days at sea and fleet days. And at that time it
was voluntary on which of the two systems you wanted to go
into. But the fleet days thing was that you have to have the
black box, which is the monitoring system you talked about that
will come into play that will cost $8,000 to $10,000. So a lot
of us felt that we couldn't afford to spend that kind of money,
so we went with fleet days. Well, the black box never came to
be, so we lost the opportunity to apply for more days.
And I brought that up to the Council and it was at one
Council meeting in Plymouth, and it was voted six to six, I
believe, and it came down through the chairman which he denied
us the reopening of the . . .
Safety would be greatly increased with the return of the
running clock. Last year we had, just before the closure, we
had a captain named Kevin Scola with a small boat, and I guess
he had overages and stuff. He couldn't come in until a certain
time. And what happened was there was storm and put gale
warnings up and started to blow about 30 knots out of the
northeast. And one of his winches came right off the deck and
went right up against his gallowses. And we had to go to his
rescue practically. So I'd like to make that point.
Under discards, one of the biggest reasons of discards is
that the landing limit is just set too low. I believe in the
trip limit. If the trip limit was great enough, we wouldn't
have these tens of thousands of pounds of discards that we have
now. And if the codfish situation is so bad--I'd like to really
add this--you know, everything is closed to us off the coast of
Massachusetts, and we still go fishing and we catch a hell of a
lot of codfish. So somebody is making a mistake someplace.
Like I said, so I really appreciate your giving me this
opportunity. Thank you very much.
Senator Snowe. Thank you for being here. Thank you.
Senator Kerry. Thank you very much. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF ANTONIO RANDAZZO, COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN,
GLOUCESTER, MA
Mr. Randazzo. I'm Antonio Randazzo, commercial fisherman
out of Gloucester. This is the first time I meet somebody--I'm
a little bit nervous about this.
Senator Snowe. No, don't be. It's just us.
Mr. Randazzo. Okay. I support Angela's testimony, and this
is all about, it's all about my life. My family depends on me,
it's because, you know, what I do the best is fishing. I'm with
the conservation, and I'd like to join--in other words, I'd
like to have this thing last me forever. So everything we got
to do is let's do it right because, like I say, whatever Angela
put there is right, for my concern, for my family. I'm just
there to try to put food on the table. So please, have a good
thought about what concerns me and my friends. Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Well, we hear you. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Senator Kerry. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD BARRETT, COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN, MARSHFIELD,
MA
Mr. Barrett. Hi. My name is Edward Barrett. I'm a
commercial fisherman from Marshfield, Massachusetts. I am also
a member of the Massachusetts Fishing Partnership working group
for the reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens.
I would like to talk today on the topic of rebuilding
schedules. As I understand it, once a fishing stock is declared
overfished, a 10-year rebuilding schedule is mandated. Meeting
these schedules, management plans have extracted a heavy cost
to fishermen and their communities.
My question is: Would this rigid schedule work in other
problematic areas in the United States? Would the citizens of
the United States be willing to pay the price, and would
Congress and the president have the political fortitude to
carry forth solutions on Social Security, race issues or crime
in a 10-year period? I have my doubts. But this is exactly what
the communities have been asked to do in the fishing industry.
On the schedule of the SFA I would like to ask if there
would be some flexibility to recognize this and to provide some
relief? Ten years is just too short a time to rectify
management plans that have existed for decades. Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF VITO J. CALOMO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GLOUCESTER
FISHERIES COMMISSION
Mr. Calomo. Thank you very much. When I was a young man my
father taught me there can only be one captain on a ship, and I
see three captains up there on the Good Ship United States.
You're going to have problems.
My name is Captain Vito J. Calomo. I'm a third-generation
fishing captain. I started fishing in 1958 washing dishes for
the crew and cleaning the bilges. I fished in the 60's, the
70's and in the 80's I built a new vessel and I became a
captain.
I am presently the executive director of Gloucester
Fisheries Commission and the latest member of the New England
Fisheries Management Council.
People, how did we get this far? We the people got us here.
Not just one segment. We the people have overfished. We the
people have mismanaged. And we the people have overpolluted.
These are the reasons that we are here today. We are discussing
the Fisheries Management Act, Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries
Conservation Act, and act to provide for the conservation and
management of fisheries and for the purpose. We are certainly
working for conservation, and we are definitely having
management. But we are missing the third ingredient, fishing
industry input.
We have a disconnect. Cooperative management has been
missing. Fishermen see what is happening with our stocks long
before the scientists and the managers. Years before any action
ever took place, the fishermen asked for the 200-mile limit.
They knew overfishing was occurring. No one listened. We
overfished.
In this man's opinion, if we would have acted much sooner,
we would not be here today. For at least 100 years we have
polluted. We have filled in estuaries, marshes and other
habitats. We have dumped millions of gallons of toxins directly
or indirectly into our oceans.
Last year Senator Tarr and myself spent approximately seven
hours talking a fishing captain back into the home port of
Gloucester during a hurricane. The captain thought he was over
the haddock trip limit for his days allotted at sea. This is a
safety issue. And this is a big one.
I ask you, Senator Snowe and Senator Kerry, to move forward
with the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act by
incorporating active fishermen to participate in the problem-
solving. Cooperative research will help us all.
Just a thought off my head--I seen your red light go on,
but I was here--I left my house at seven o'clock--bear with me.
As a fisherman, I do see a great difference in our people, in
their mindset. They're highly educated today. They have
conservation minds which they didn't years ago. We have changed
them. We have educated them. They understand catching the last
sacred codfish would be their last sacred fishing trip. So
please incorporate the fishermen, and we will have better
fishery.
Thank you, Senators.
Senator Snowe. Thank you very much.
Senator Kerry. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF DOUG HOPKINS ON BEHALF OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
DEFENSE FUND
Mr. Hopkins. Thank you very much, Senator Snowe and Senator
Kerry, for the opportunity to speak today. And thank you, Vito,
you're always a tough act to follow.
I appear on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund, which
is a non-profit environmental organization. I also serve on the
New England Fishery Management Council. I am the obligatory
member from the State of Connecticut and have been on the
Council for three years. I'm also on the executive committee of
the Marine Fish Conservation Network, which earlier witnesses
today referred to. So I wear several hats, but I'm speaking
today for Environmental Defense.
Here in New England we have experienced severe
mismanagement of the fishery resources off our coast. There are
hundreds of millions of dollars being lost every year because
many of our commercially valuable fish stocks remain overfished
and depleted, and therefore cannot sustain robust fisheries.
Recreational fishing, especially for groundfish, such as cod,
is a shadow of what it once was and what it could be again.
So who's to blame? The answer is complicated, but at this
point that's really not the most important question. The real
question is: What do we need to do to dig out of the hole we
find ourselves in? And this is a hole we can dig ourselves out
of. This is--there's truly a pot of gold at the end of the
rainbow and this is a solvable problem. But we need your
leadership. And we think that there are a number of things that
you can help us with.
The Sustainable Fisheries Act is good. It needs to be--it
needs to stay the course. There are some aspects of it that
need to be strengthened. For example, the bycatch provisions.
The moratorium on individual fishing quotas also needs to be
lifted.
The biggest underlying problem with fishery management in
New England stems from two facts: No. 1, in this region, we
have sought to use input controls to restrict fishing. And
input controls have failed. No. 2, we have excess fishing
capacity. Too many boats chasing too few fish. And this
situation sets up the impossible dilemma of managers trying to
keep too large a fishing fleet and the communities that depend
on satisfied without enough fish. The consequence has been that
the managers have allowed too many fish to be caught, and the
result has been overfishing and stock collapses and lack of
flexibility for fishermen.
To end this vicious cycle, the New England Council needs to
be granted the full range of management tools to craft
solutions. This means that we need Congress to lift the
moratorium on individual fishing quotas and to provide guidance
to how IFQs, both transferrable and non-transferrable, can be
used fairly and in a way that assures that their potential
conservation benefits will be achieved. Thank you very much.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF MR. BOURQUET
Mr. Bourquet. Good afternoon, Senators Snowe and Kerry.
Thank you for this opportunity to address you.
Science, the issue of science is very, very prevalent, as
we all have witnessed this afternoon. This is what I pulled off
of the Internet. ``Coalition urges changes supporting fishery
science.'' There's nine issues; seven of them are concerned
with the science.
One of the problems with science as we perceive the
situation is that the data base has been based on landings. And
you can have a increase in resource with decreasing landings
and you can have a decrease in resource with increasing
landings. But the landings are controlled over time and scaled
downward, and then you use the resultant landings as indicator
of abundance and you'll show a decrease in the biomass.
Conversely, like with the herring catches in the Gulf of Maine
where the catches kept going up, it gives the appearance of a
healthy stock, but we find that through observation those
stocks aren't as healthy as we would like to have them.
The ITQ and the IFQ--we're already in a limited access
situation, and controlled access, and people have seen,
fishermen have seen oligarchies form with this type of
approach. So I think the fisheries people, the fishermen have
changed their views over time.
I know we're limited on time. I had my two minutes in
Portland. I just want to say on the safety issue, with regard
to the airplanes. The FAA received numerous complaints. And
their folders are full of letters from people from last year
that were very concerned with their safety. And I know Alaska,
one of the prevalent reasons that they eliminated planes from
their fishery, they had 14 deaths up there, including a
president and his son. So I appreciate the concern that the
Senators have emphasized on this issue. And I thank you for
everything you have done.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF JAMES D. O'MALLEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, EAST COAST
FISHERIES FEDERATION, INC.
Mr. O'Malley. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman,
Senator Kerry. East Coast Fisheries Federation, off-shore boats
Rhode Island to New Jersey, 80-footers, crews of four or five,
squid, groundfish, the mix.
You've heard a lot about science and mathematics and single
species management. And what I'd like to point out to you is
that the way the interpretation of the Sustainable Fisheries
Act is being carried out, a good law is being destroyed by its
interpretation. That is the mathematically dominated single
species management. What commercial fishermen have done for
hundreds of years is to flow with the ocean. Abundant fish, you
caught a lot of it cheap. Good for the consumer. And you made
big money on fish that was scarce.
The way the law is being interpreted now, if fish is
abundant, we are going to husband it over a long period of
time, regardless of whether or not environmental circumstances
permit that. If fish is scarce, you have to leave it alone
completely. What the Sustainable Fisheries Act needs to have
done is an interpretation that goes back to the rhythm of the
ocean and allowing the industry, which is part of the
ecosystem, to flow with it once again.
And given the fact that I'm already 20 seconds over, I'll
just submit the rest of my remarks in writing. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Malley follows:]
Prepared Statement of James D. O'Malley, Executive Director,
East Coast Fisheries Federation, Inc.
A Perspective on the Sustainable Fisheries Act
Although this statement may shock some people, the fact is that the
promises of the Sustainable Fisheries Act will never be kept. It is an
illusion fostered by political interests to avoid taking responsibility
for the new fisheries crisis. This new crisis is one that can be seen
on shore, and has to do with the people in the fisheries, not the
resource itself.
How could this be? The Act was passed with great hopes and
expectations, conjuring up a vision of bounty for all.
But that is not the way the ocean works. Fishermen have, for
hundreds of years, flowed with the rhythms of the sea. That sustained
them, economically and biologically. They caught large volumes of
abundant fish for low prices, and at the same time, caught scarce fish
for very high prices.
No more.
The Sustainable Fisheries Act, in effect, says that scarce fish
must be left completely alone so that the stock will rebuild in the
shortest possible time. Simultaneously, abundant species must be
husbanded over time by maintaining biomass at ``sustainable'' levels.
The cruel hoax lies in a combination of politics and mathematics.
The Act mandates that the fisheries be maintained at a level which
can continually produce maximum sustainable yield. But because
ecosystems and interrelationships are poorly understood, each
individual species has been analyzed, and regulations passed which
attempt to accomplish this maximum for each species. But appealing to
the mathematicians among you, I have to ask if it is possible to
maximize any equation for multiple variables simultaneously. Can you
have an ocean full of every kind of fish at the same time? Of course
not.
What all this means is that the laws of supply and demand will no
longer work for fishermen or for the fishing industry. High abundance
will not mean high productivity. And the economic rewards of scarcity--
high prices--will go unrealized and rapidly become meaningless.
That, I believe, puts the task of ``finding the balance'' between
conservation and production squarely back in the hands of society and
its elected officials. Society has put abundance ahead of productivity.
That is a decision that society, of course, is free to make. But we are
seeing the results of that decision in the newspapers, and especially
in the faces of those we are asking to shoulder the entire burden for a
societal decision.
The fact is that there has been far more energy and money spent
arguing about the problem than it would take to fix it. I refer, of
course, to a one-time expenditure of about $400 million dollars to buy
out half the fleet both in New England and in the Mid-Atlantic. We must
not allow ourselves to be duped into thinking that the ocean's soon-to-
be abundance will result in productivity which will sustain a thriving
fleet at its present size. And despite the frequent references to some
future paradise ``when the stocks are restored,'' the Sustainable
Fisheries Act will still forever change the old formula of supply and
demand for the fisheries. That is the political hoax and the
mathematical swindle. The rhythms of the ocean will not be legislated
into perpetual, perfect stability.
And here, we must come back to words and their power. It is time to
put aside the convenient, demonizing labels. Fishermen plundering the
resource. Trawlers destroying everything in their path, leaving a
barren moonscape. Monster vessels scooping up the bounty of the sea.
That rhetoric may be useful for getting media attention, or for fund-
raising, but it does not accomplish much, and its inaccuracy saps
energy in rebuttal, and distracts us from the real issues.
If we want an abundant ocean, and are willing to forego some of its
productivity to achieve that, if we want marine protected areas, more
fish for recreation, or for aesthetic enjoyment, we need to solve the
problem. Fishing, frankly, isn't much fun anymore, and is making a
painful transition from a lifestyle to a business. Lifestyle is no
longer an issue. It's just business. And being just a business, it can
be addressed by money. And incidentally, whether that business will be
controlled by corporate giants is another issue for another hearing.
But in the meantime, realize that the problem is really rather
simple. A fleet was bloated by the tax policies of the 1980's, critical
fishing grounds were lost to Canada in the World Court decision in
1984, and now the laws of supply and demand have been revoked. The
industry has been forced to shoulder its share of the burden for these
things. Considerable revenue has been foregone, and many have left and
more will go. Now it is time for society in general, the taxpayer, to
stop demonizing and labeling and shirking its responsibility, and pay
for the remaining share--the balance, if you will--of the cost of
getting what it wants. $400 million dollars is the cheapest way out of
this mess.
A Perspective on Fisheries Science
The overuse of mathematics has long been a detriment to good
fishery management, but in recent management decisions under the
Sustainable Fisheries Act, the problem has become far more acute.
This issue is more fully explored in the attached talk given in
Halifax in December, 1998, and need not be repeated verbatim.
Nevertheless, it is apparent to many of us that the National Marine
Fisheries Service must become a secondary player in the job of
providing science for fishery management. The mindset of the Agency is
simply too academic, and NMFS is patently unwilling to adapt to the
needs of fishery managers. All too often, rules go into place based on
information that is well over two years old, and this is simply not
acceptable. Please see the attached article, ``Ecology, Bureaucracy and
Differential Equations,'' by Professor Jacquie McGlade, from
Mathematics Review.
Fishery managers need information which is timely and accurate. The
precision of that information is less important than its general
accuracy. We have had one instance after another when the situation on
the fishing grounds is entirely different from that which has been
described by the stock assessment community. We simply can no longer
work on their schedule, and they show no willingness to change. For
that reason, NMFS' scientific personnel should pursue fishery science
on a larger scale, more academic in nature, and the Councils should be
the ones to determine what information is needed for management now.
And the Councils must be given sufficient budget to work with the
industry and their university partners to get the information they need
when they need it.
A Few Suggestions
The definition of ``Fishery''
In the Sustainable Fisheries Act's definitions, a ``fishery'' is
defined as ``one or more stocks of fish which can be treated as a unit
for purposes of conservation and management and which are identified on
the basis of geographical, scientific, technical, recreational, and
economic characteristics.''
One of the most serious difficulties facing the fishing industry is
the interpretation, by the National Marine Fisheries Service, of the
word `stock' to mean only one species of fish, and `stock,' in that
interpretation, to mean only different bodies of that one species. For
example, a Georges Bank stock of cod and a Southern New England stock
of cod. The current interpretation does not permit an understanding of
``fishery'' to include several species which occupy the same ecosystem.
This interpretation is in place despite the fact that some Fishery
Management Plans cover several species.
We cannot believe that Congress intended this as NMFS interprets
it.
This interpretation has led to fundamental absurdities, the most
egregious being a standard for fishery management which holds that all
species must be simultaneously at a level which can produce maximum
sustainable yield. This, of course, is impossible. The cycles and
fluctuations of the ocean environment, as well as pure anomalies,
render this situation not just impossible, but ridiculous. Politically,
it also makes every species a potential ``snail darter,'' if that
species happens to be on a low part of its cycle. When areas are closed
to protect one species, all other fisheries in that area are closed as
well, usually, simply because fish are generally caught together.
A good example is dogfish, a small coastal shark. For fifteen years
or more, fishery managers have been castigated (sometimes by Congress
itself) for allowing an ecosystem to develop which is dominated by this
species, which competes for food with other fish such as cod and
flounder. Now, however, we are being told that the Sustainable
Fisheries Act requires us to maintain the dogfish resource at a level
which is nearly five times what it was when the ecosystem was in far
better condition. In 1965, the `good old days' of groundfish abundance,
the biomass of dogfish was about 100,000 metric tons. We are now being
told by the National Marine Fisheries Service that the law requires us
to maintain the dogfish biomass at approximately 500,000 metric tons.
We cannot believe that Congress intended this, or that this level of
biomass will not be without its price for the other species we are
trying to restore. Please see the appended NMFS graphic on the dogfish
resource.
The same counter-productive interpretation has been given to
National Standard 3, which says that ``interrelated stocks of fish
shall be managed as a unit or in close coordination.'' But at the same
time, Congress has told us to take into account ``the interaction of
the overfished stock of fish within the marine ecosystem'' (section 304
on Rebuilding Fisheries).
Fishery managers must be given the flexibility to make decisions
which are guided by good judgment and experience, and not simply a
mathematical formula which states, and an Agency which demands, a
hypothetical mathematical maximum for every species simultaneously,
without regard for any relevant circumstances.
To provide that flexibility, it would be very useful if the
``Definitions'' section of the Magnuson-Stevens Act were clarified, by
whatever device, to include ``. . . or interrelated species'' in the
definition of ``fishery,'' so that it would read, ``one or more stocks
of fish, or interrelated species, which can be treated as a unit . .
.'' This clarification of Congressional intent would be a significant
help to fishery managers.
In this way, fishery managers will be able to bring to bear their
experience, judgment and wisdom, as they were intended to do. This will
make the job of achieving the ``greatest national benefit'' from our
ocean resources, as the law intends.
National Standard 4 and State-by-State Quotas
National Standard 4 prohibits fishery management plans from
discriminating between residents of different States. Congress' intent,
in addition to fairness, was to keep the fishery management process
from simply becoming a parochial grab for fish.
In a remarkable bit of sophistry, some plans allocate quotas to
states. The worst example of this is the plan for summer flounder
(fluke), in which nearly 50 percent of the quota is allocated to the
states of Virginia and North Carolina. Fishermen from different states
fish beside each other in federal waters, but one fisherman may only
keep 100 pounds, while another may be able to keep 10,000 pounds. The
states, in turn, refuse to issue landing permits to residents of other
states, although the structure of the permitting process is carefully
tailored to avoid the appearance of discrimination. It simply works out
that way. Both Massachusetts and Connecticut have sued the Secretary
over such plans. And whether or not anyone wants to admit it, a
`payback' mentality has developed in the different regions--``you do
this to us on fluke or groundfish, we'll do that to you on squid or
whiting.'' This is never on the record, of course, but it is there,
like it or not. In the near future, we may see a similar exchange on
mackerel and herring, unfortunately. And the fisherman is always the
one who suffers in this atmosphere.
The only cure for this insidious practice is to prohibit the
allocation of quota on a state-by-state basis. Congress must do it now,
and require FMP's which follow this practice to be changed within one
year.
Council Appointments
At one time, it mattered little which Council--New England or the
Mid-Atlantic, had jurisdiction over a fishery. Since the rules applied
to all (fish size, net size, etc.), a measure of comfort was obtained
from the idea that the `other fellow' would also have to live with
whatever rules he put on me.
That has changed as the fishery management process has become more
and more allocative. (This issue is related to the problem of state-by-
state quotas.)
One partial cure is to reserve seats on the New England Council for
New York and New Jersey, and on the Mid-Atlantic Council for
Connecticut and Rhode Island. An alternative is to have each Council
designate two members to the adjoining Council who will have full
voting powers.
Joint Fishery Management Plans
Once again, allocation issues have changed fishery management
dramatically in recent years. And although joint management plans are
cumbersome, as we have seen in the FMP for Dogfish, joint management is
essential for fairness. An easy cure for the problem of conflict is to
change the SFA so that a majority of the two Councils combined would
suffice to submit a plan to the Secretary. At present, each Council, by
a majority, must approve a joint plan.
The Precautionary Principle and National Standards 2 and 8
The Precautionary Approach may be appropriate for management, but
it is never appropriate for science. The application of `precaution' to
scientific calculation is nothing more than the politicization of
science. And yet the National Marine Fisheries Service requires this in
the notorious 602 guidelines. Furthermore, in the treaties to which the
United States is party, the application of the Precautionary Principle
is not required when dealing with purely domestic fisheries.
In addition, those treaties do not confine the application of the
Precautionary Principle to simply biological issues. Socio-economic
considerations are also appropriate, but no ``Control Rules'' analogous
to those for biological concerns have been developed which would assist
fishery managers in dealing with National Standard 8. Please see the
appended letters to Penny Dalton and Patricia Kurkul.
Attachment 1
from science to illusion: mathematics in fishery management
James O'Malley
(Originally printed in Pacem in Maribus XXVI, International Ocean
Institute)
Crisis of Knowledge--Halifax, November 29-December 3, 1998
Just so that there is no possibility of misunderstanding, I should
tell you first that I am a representative of commercial fishermen, and
their advocate. The East Coast Fisheries Federation membership is
centered in the New England and Mid-Atlantic area of the U.S., and we
fish everywhere from the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank to Cape
Hatteras and the Gulf of Mexico. The vessels in the organization are
both ``wetfish'' boats, bringing in fresh fish every few days, and
freezer trawlers. Most are in the range of 20-40 meters, owner-
operated, with crews of five or six. That information may help you
understand some of my remarks, as well as my attitudes.
It was said of Defense Secretary Robert MacNamara that his devotion
to mathematics clouded his vision. And whenever I hear a fishery
scientist proclaim that his analysis is ``rigorous,'' I am reminded of
what John Galbraith is reputed to have said once to a group of
economists: that the prestige of mathematics has given economics rigor,
but alas, also mortis.
And the proposition that I put to you today is that the same
condition that Galbraith diagnosed in economics has infected the
science with which we attempt to comprehend the fisheries and the ocean
environment itself.
I am not suggesting to you that mathematics is not a useful tool.
But it has become the heart of the system, an intellectual bureaucracy,
an end in itself, and an excuse to defer investigation into far
broader, more important questions. Once other things are understood,
mathematics can help us refine that understanding, expand it, and
perhaps even make projections with it. And occasionally--rarely, but
occasionally--mathematics helps us understand something that we did not
understand at all before.
But what has happened in our attempt to comprehend the oceans is
that mathematics has been elevated to a status which suppresses
knowledge and actually detracts from our efforts to acquire knowledge.
The best example I can give you of that is fishery management in
the United States today. Our recently-amended fishery law, the
Sustainable Fisheries Act mandates that the fisheries be maintained at
a level which can continually produce maximum sustainable yield. But
because ecosystems and interrelationships are poorly understood, each
individual species has been thoroughly--perhaps I should say
rigorously--analyzed, and regulations passed which attempt to
accomplish this maximum for each species. But appealing to the
mathematicians among you, I have to ask if it is possible to maximize
any equation for multiple variables simultaneously. Can you have an
ocean full of every kind of fish at the same time? Of course not. And
yet that does not deter anyone in fishery science or fishery
management. In the words of Jake Dykstra, we are all too busy
calculating our mismanagement to manage properly.
The absurdities and contradictions become Kafkaesque. For over a
decade, commercial fishermen have been told that the overfishing of
groundfish has resulted in an ecosystem on Georges Bank which became
dominated by elasmobranchs--dogfish and skates. Dogfish, especially, is
an omnivorous predator whose numbers have severely retarded the
rebuilding of groundfish. Now, under the new law, we are faced with the
prospect that these elasmobranchs must be maintained at that same,
grotesquely unbalanced level--because it is the maximum and therefore
desirable.
There are many, many similar examples. A few years ago, an
organization in the environmental industry successfully sued the U.S.
government over groundfish--haddock, cod and flounder--on Georges Bank.
When the fishermen and the managers then proposed the things they knew
would work--large closed areas, gear restrictions and the like--the
reply seemed always to be that the proposals were not ``quantifiable,''
and therefore unacceptable. And while the managers struggled to find
conservation rules for which measured estimates could be made, a
dislocated industry seriously depleted several other species which were
not regulated or protected at all. This occurred despite pleas from
fishermen for basic conservation measures to protect those other
species. We were not permitted to put in rules as basic as minimum
sizes until the mathematicians had completed their estimates and
calculations. I stress that the problem was not mathematics per se, but
the place of idolatry we have given it.
And it is idolatry. Like any priesthood, it has developed its own
language, rituals and mystical signs to maintain its status, and to
keep a befuddled congregation subservient, convinced that criticism is
blasphemy. Late at night, of course, many members of the scientific
community will confess their doubts. But in the morning, they reappear
to preach the catechism once again.
The examples go on. We now try, in fishery management, to protect
what is called ``essential fish habitat,'' and this attempt is the
clearest proof I know that we have replaced understanding with
mathematics. The fact is, we know very little about the habits of fish.
And so ``essential fish habitat'' was designated by reviewing research
data to see where the fish have been found, and automatically assuming
that, if fish are there, it is ``essential habitat'' and if the fish
are not there, it is not essential.
That approach is roughly the equivalent of proclaiming that
Essential Human Habitat is a football stadium on Sunday afternoon, or
perhaps a traffic jam during commuter hours. After all, that's where we
find the most people. Bedrooms and kitchens are not essential, because
we don't see the aggregations of humans there. Farmland becomes
irrelevant. This is a clear misuse of what is supposed to be a
scientific tool.
Most frightening of all, our complacent acceptance of this approach
shows that mathematics has become a substitute for science. It has
become a defense against an appropriate humility, and a barrier to the
acquisition of knowledge and understanding of our ocean environments.
My rancor is for the misuse of mathematics, not a Luddite reaction
based on my own ignorance of the discipline. I have a great respect for
mathematicians. And of course, you did hear about the fishery biologist
who didn't know his phone number, but he'd be happy to estimate it for
you?
When used improperly, mathematics becomes a reason to accept
absurdity. We have been given a theoretical level of abundance in the
scallop fishery, based on time-honored models of fishery science. That
theoretical abundance that we are supposed to achieve is twice what has
ever been observed either by the fishermen or the scientists. That
maximum was based on what we did know about the growth rate of the
animal. But there was no possible way to calculate something called
``density dependence,'' scallops so thick that they are literally
suffocating themselves, so the phenomenon was simply ignored in the
analyses. But those who have spent their lives on the ocean knew about
it, and they were right, as we are now discovering. Scallops smother
themselves long before they ever reach those theoretical levels of
abundance.
Science, in my opinion, seeks the truth, is humble, and delights in
the search for answers. I become very suspicious when the questions
themselves are dismissed out of hand because they do not fit into the
present analytical techniques, and might prove those techniques to be
inadequate. That is intellectual cowardice of the first order. It is a
refusal to say ``I don't know.'' It is a demurral from the challenge of
saying, ``we don't know, but let's find out.'' It is rigging the game,
so that no question can ever be posed which would elicit those answers.
Examples abound, in fact. One of the most frustrating things that
fishermen encounter is a drastic change in ``scientific''
pronouncements based on some minor change in the assumptions that go
into the models (and I use that word with some distaste). We have had
several instances when the estimate of resource abundance has tripled
or quadrupled when that has happened. More recently, some estimates
have been replaced by actual measurements, and the assessment again
triples, scallops being the most notable of these. This is by no means
the reflexive howl of some elements of the industry, ``leave me alone,
there's plenty of fish.'' One of the most interesting battles in my
area now has to do with the mackerel resource. The industry is
convinced that the scientific estimates of abundance are horrifically
inflated, and that the allowable catch should be only a quarter of what
it is on the books.
I have seen quotas determined to the pound--when thousands of tons
are missing or appear without explanation. No one seems to care about
the reasons for these obviously-missing fish, or for their mysterious
appearance. We are too busy attempting to work the new numbers into the
models, no matter that the new numbers may clearly demonstrate the
wrongness of the existing models or the management strategies which are
based on them.
This problem, of course, permeates society, academia, and
government. Things like crime statistics, assessments of our
educational systems, the quality of medical care, are all issues in
society that we have come to regard as things we understand through
mathematics. They are all symptomatic of this malaise, this deference
to numerical oligarchy. But haven't you ever wondered, as I have, and
the researchers evidently have not, whether we can really rely on these
things? When I see some statistic about ``promiscuity among today's
youth,'' it is clear that only a mathematician would accept without
question, and dutifully report, what a teen-age boy says about his
activities in that particular arena. The pseudo-sciences thrive and
their practitioners aggregate power, salaries and grant money behind a
cloak of mathematics. Nor is the private sector immune. How often have
we heard the demise of a perfectly good company summed up this way:
``The bean-counters took over.''
Worst of all, the malaise is codified. We are told in law and
treaty that we must base our decisions on the best scientific
information available, but I have begun to think of it, and refer to
it, as ``the best and the brightest'' scientific information, with all
that that expression implies. I am, naturally, delighted when a fishery
biologist bristles at that phrase.
Criticism is never enough, of course. And there are significant
improvements that can be made. There are even signs that it may be
happening, just a little. We need to explore and develop alternatives
to both the way we acquire knowledge in the fisheries, and more
important, what we consider knowledge to be. And I maintain that
mathematics is not knowledge, and may not even be ``scientific.'' It is
only mathematics.
We must discover the factors behind the rhythms of the sea. We need
to learn the broader truths, about predator-prey interactions, about
environmental shifts, meteorological phenomena, food competition in the
ecosystem. We pay great lip service to these ambitions, but any
progress toward their accomplishment is constantly hampered by the
criticism that they are not quantifiable. They do not lend themselves
to mathematical exercises.
There is, among the people who are on the ocean every day, an
enormous body of knowledge which is largely untapped. We have seen
these things, these events and cycles and fluctuations and anomalies.
And for the purposes of managing the fisheries wisely and productively,
it is quite possible that the best tools may be a working set of post
hoc fallacies, combined with judgment, experience and wisdom. The
people who are on the ocean every day know that when one thing happens,
another is sure to follow. Or maybe not--they know that too. They know
it in their experience, their logbooks, their memories. They know it
from their fathers and from themselves. They know what a cold winter
means next year, or an active hurricane season. They know that the
abundance of one species is good reason to expect the abundance or
scarcity of another. And they sense cause and effect.
All too often, that knowledge is dismissed as ``anecdotal,'' and
not of use in management. And the irony hidden in language here is
remarkable. ``Anecdotal'' is derived from anekdolos, meaning ``not
given out,'' or ``not published.'' It does not mean unreliable; it
certainly does not mean unscientific, if you realize that the word
``science'' itself comes not from any allusion to calculation, but
simply, ``knowledge.'' But mathematics has hijacked the definition and
position of real science. Talk to anyone in the academic world, and ask
what would happen if a graduate student submitted something like ``The
Voyage of the Beagle'' or Bigelow and Schroeder's ``Fishes of the Gulf
of Maine'' as a master's thesis. It would be rejected, and with
disdain. Why? Because, no matter how bountiful and useful the
knowledge--the science--it might contain, it has no calculations, no
graphs, no analyses, and most especially, no models. Just a wealth of
wonderful information. Totally unacceptable.
We are, fortunately, seeing at least a little bit of movement in
the direction of assimilating that wealth of ``empirical data'' into
fishery management, but not without considerable resistance. There are
a few research fisheries being conducted now, aboard commercial
vessels, financed by set-aside quotas dedicated specifically to
underwriting that research. And that research is dedicated to finding
the answers to questions which have been posed by those people on the
ocean, not just gathering more statistically--valid data.
What is happening out there on the ocean, and why is it happening?
What will we do about it?
And that is perhaps the most important question of all. For
management purposes, for productivity and conservation, we need broader
answers to bigger questions. My most earnest proposal would be to
prohibit the use of decimal points in fishery management. That level of
refinement is neither useful nor legitimate. It is merely a game, an
exercise, and ultimately, an illusion.
We can do better than that. And we owe it to ourselves, to the
ocean, and especially to science itself, to assemble that great body of
knowledge, those millions of observations, and to use every tool,
including mathematics, to further our understanding of that knowledge.
Knowledge and understanding are not the same. They may, in fact, be
separated by a wide chasm. Mathematics is neither knowledge nor
understanding. It may be a useful tool to help us bridge that gap. That
is where it belongs, that is how we should use it, and we need to start
now--before the bean-counters destroy us all.
Thank you.
Attachment 2
East Coast Fisheries Federation, Inc.,
Narragansett, RI, December 15, 1999.
Ms. Penelope D. Dalton,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA,
National Marine Fisheries Service,
Silver Spring, MD.
Dear Penny:
As you know, the United States is adopting the Precautionary
Principle (cautiously) in fishery management. We have, for example,
agreed to employ the precautionary approach, when appropriate, through
the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. When that treaty comes
into effect, of course, it will be voluntary, since all nations have
reserved the right to apply the precautionary approach, or not, in
their own domestic fisheries, as circumstances dictate.
We have also committed to its use in the case of multinational
stocks through the Treaty on Straddling Fish Stock and Highly Migratory
Fish Stocks. That is entirely appropriate, because the resources of
other nations are involved. And although it is not (and should not be)
incorporated into United States domestic law, it is a rational policy
when used properly and not subject to political manipulation.
We have, however, not gone nearly far enough in considering its
application to fishery management, because we are only looking at it as
a biological imperative.
Both the Responsible Fishing treaty and the Fish Stocks agreement
require signatories to consider social and economic factors in fishery
policy. In fact, in neither document is the use of the precautionary
approach confined to biology.
The United States should take the lead in the development of
measures to apply the Precautionary Principle to social and economic
considerations.
This would not be a daunting task, but it would be an important
one. Control Rules analogous to such measurements as biomass goals and
thresholds, in economic terms, would be easy to identify.
For example, a certain level of productivity and profitability is
necessary for fishermen to pay their bills, put groceries on the table,
and the like. But a critical threshold in such analysis would be
whether or not vessel maintenance is being performed, whether or not
the vessel itself is technically ``profitable,'' whether or not the
vessel's amortization is accounted for, and eventual replacement is
possible. All of these economic points are analogous to the various
measures in the biological control rules. Similarly, analyses should be
undertaken to determine if management measures are preserving the
character of coastal communities, or changing them irrevocably.
I fully understand that the Precautionary Principle is not usually
thought of in these terms, but it is time they should be. The essence
of the Precautionary Principle is to take action before damage is done
from which we will not recover.
The loss of a fleet, an industry, the people in it, the
infrastructure, the markets, the social character of our coastal
communities--all demand equal treatment with purely biological
concerns. Once we lose any one of them, we will not recover.
Furthermore, I firmly believe that Congress had exactly these
concerns in mind when they incorporated National Standard 8
(communities) and even National Standard 10 (vessel safety) into the
Sustainable Fisheries Act. I also believe that we, and all signatory
nations, are obligated by treaty to expand the Precautionary Principle
to economic and social concerns, and the United States should take a
leadership role in that endeavor.
I hope to hear from you that you agree that this is an appropriate
undertaking for the National Marine Fisheries Service and its
researchers and analysts. I would be very pleased to participate and
assist in any way that I can, and I am certain that many, many other
fishermen will be very willing to help.
I look forward to your reply.
With regards,
James D. O'Malley,
Executive Director.
Attachment 3
East Coast Fisheries Federation, Inc.,
Narragansett, RI, December 15, 1999.
Ms. Patricia A. Kurkul,
Regional Administrator,
National Marine Fisheries Service,
Gloucester, MA.
Dear Pat:
I recently made the remark that fisheries science, as presented to
the Councils, was ``politically massaged,'' a comment that you found
offensive. I regret that the circumstances did not allow a fuller
discussion, and this letter follows as a result. (Parenthetically, I
think it's a serious sign of overwork when I have to remind you of
which of my remarks you find offensive.)
Fisheries science is, of course, politically massaged. The
astonishing thing is that those who practice that manipulation are
proud of it, believe it to be their duty, and say so on the record.
This applies not only to NEFSC personnel, but members of the Council
staffs, the Overfishing Definition Panel, and the Science and
Statistical Committees. I refer, as you may have anticipated, to the
practice of applying the Precautionary Principle to fishery science.
First of all, the precautionary approach is not part of any United
States domestic law, and only applies internationally on a voluntary
basis (the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries), or when
straddling stocks are involved (the Fish Stocks Agreement). In fact, no
country that I know of has committed itself to the compulsory
application of the precautionary approach in their own fisheries,
without reserving the right to suspend the use of the precautionary
approach for good reason.
I do understand, though, that Andy Rosenberg recently told Congress
that we ought to incorporate the precautionary approach into the
Magnuson Act. NMFS guidelines and Agency attitudes, however, treat this
principle as though it were already law; but that is just another
example of a bureaucracy assuming the power of lawmakers, and
substituting its judgment and ambitions for that of the Congress. If
the Congress or the citizenry tolerates that, shame on them.
The reason that the precautionary approach constitutes `political
massaging' is that the Councils are always presented with single-point
calculations, into which the various assessment scientists have already
incorporated the precautionary approach. They have said so on the
record, proudly, on any number of occasions. This has been true of
every model from 200,000 metric tons of adult female dogfish, to 8
kilograms per tow of scallops, to discard mortality estimates for
fluke. The effect is especially pernicious when proxies are used for
the various biological targets, as we have seen when ``scientific''
models are replaced with real measurements.
Every variable and every assumption going into the models is guided
by the precautionary approach, and the most conservative and
pessimistic projections result. The net effect is ``science''
determined by political ideology. Ironically, I have been just as
critical of ``scientists,'' in years gone by, who painted too rosy a
picture for political purposes. Either one is simply bad science. The
net result is absurdity, and bad management.
More insidious is that this practice makes the entire process of
fishery management a technocracy, accountable to no one, and renders
the Congress and the Councils irrelevant. Some see that as a desirable
goal, of course.
But the fact remains that the use of the precautionary approach
only has credibility as a management tool, not as a `scientific' one.
And the only way that fishery scientists will regain their credibility
is when they present a range of conclusions to the Councils--at which
point, they will be more than welcome to describe one or another
measure as ``precautionary'' or not.
But to incorporate a politically-based conservatism into the
``science'' of fishery management discredits all science by turning it
into mere ideological advocacy.
I am sure you will have a rebuttal, and I look forward to receiving
it.
With regards,
James D. O'Malley,
Executive Director.
Attachment 4
Differential equations + bureaucratic delay = chaos
ecology, bureaucracy and differential equations
Jacquie McGlade
Mathematics Review, April 1994
And now here is the shipping forecast for 0600 hours . . . Cromarty: 6,
1027 and rising . . . Dover: gale force winds rising 1000 and 50 . . .,
John Stochasky looked out to sea once more and then got his gear ready
to go. A few phone calls later the crew was alerted and as darkness
began to fall they were ready to cast off for another trip. This
activity had not gone unnoticed. Brendon McCart and his crew were soon
on the dockside on the Rose-Marie and steaming out of port hard on the
heels of the Lady Dawn. Charts were brought up, courses set and the
chase was on.
But who was chasing what? John Stochasky had made his decision to go
south towards the Dogger Banks and hunt for flatfish; Brendon knew that
John Stochasky, as one of the local highliners, was onto something and
it was always worthwhile chasing him. `Where're diddling John?' `Is
that you Brendan? Oh I thought I'd go north about.'
Two hours later, as the two skippers moved offshore into the North
Sea, large orange blocks began to appear at the bottom of the echo-
sounder screen on the Lady Dawn. There was a massive surge of activity
on deck, and in the freezing rain nets were set, ropes cleared and the
massive winches and hauling gear put into action. Trawling the nets
behind the vessel John Stochasky kept a close eye on other vessels in
the area and laughed to himself when he soon got a call. `What you
getting now John?' came the voice over the radio. `Oh only a few
baskets Brendan, I'll be moving on soon.'
With no signs of large schools of fish on their sounder, Brendan
and his first mate decided that the Lady Dawn was only checking gear
and set their own course for a well known groundfish area 30 miles
north. They knew others were fishing there, though with limited
success. As they steamed over the horizon, the Lady Dawn completed a
large haul, turned south and headed off towards Dogger Bank. Over the
next two days, John Stochasky saw only three other vessels; he had
short radio transmissions with other vessels but the information was
coded so that only those within the group could decipher the
information.
Sailing back into port three days later, the Lady Dawn jostled
heavily in the water alongside the Rose-Marie. With their catches
landed it was simply a matter of talking to the processors and
auctioneers and watching the bidding. The difference in profits between
the Lady Dawn and the Rose-Marie was threefold; enough for John
Stochasky to buy a new side-scan sonar and satellite positioning gear,
plus new freezing equipment, thus enabling him to hunt for new sources
of fish in deeper areas further afield.
Managing fish stocks
John Stochasky was obviously acting in a different way from Brendan
McCart, taking more risks by going to an area for which he had little
information about catch rates. Brendan McCart adopted a low-risk
strategy by going to sea at the same time as a known highliner, but
then going to a fishing ground where there were already many boats
fishing and for which he had some information about catch rates, even
though they were very low.
Imagine this picture repeated again and again, and you can begin to
see how complicated it is to manage fish stocks from year to year. So
where does mathematics come into the picture?
To manage stocks of fish we must try to interpret the natural
fluctuations in fish populations and the possible effect of fishermen's
activities on these changes. And to do this we need to build up some
simple mathematical models. In particular we must examine the changes
in fish populations, the changes in the numbers of fishermen and boats
from different fleets, the amount of time spent fishing at sea, the
quantity of fish caught from different areas, the price fishermen get
at the dockside and the price paid by the consumer. We also need to
take into account the fact that prices depend on supply and demand, and
also vary with the cultural identity of the consumer population and
their response to price changes. For example, when the Vatican
announced that Catholics were no longer obliged to eat fish on Fridays,
there was a dramatic effect on fish consumption in places like Boston,
where there is a very large Catholic community.
Building a model
So let's start with the fish populations themselves and look at the
data from a typical fish population as it changes through time. In
Figure 1 we see that the number of fish caught from a population is not
constant, but changes from year to year. This is because fish die
variably from disease, predation by other fishes, and of course old
age. If we were to look at how a group of fish all of the same age
alters through its lifetime, we would see that in the first year of
life nearly all the fish die off; this is because, when young, they are
very vulnerable to changes in conditions in the ocean and are also
tempting meals for larger fishes. As the fish grow, the death rate or
mortality decreases and eventually becomes almost constant. But at a
certain age they are able to reproduce, and begin the cycle again. So
if we think about changes in the whole population, we will need to
consider births, growth and deaths. We can do this by using a
differential equation, the so-called `logistic growth equation':
where x is the number of fish in the population, and so dx/dt describes
how fish numbers change through time. The b is the birth rate of
fishes, N is the maximum number of fish the environment can sustain,
and m is the death rate. Notice that this equation is almost the same
as the differential equation
which was discussed in Mathematics Review Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 6-8 (where
it appeared as equation (3)). The only difference is that in equation
(1) we have incorporated the factor (1-x/N), it reflects the fact that
if the population increases so much that it drawns near to N, the birth
rate drops off to zero. Correspondingly, if the population is very low,
so individuals do not have to compete for scarce resources, the birth
rate is relatively high.
Long-term trends
But there are also some very large, underlying trends in the fish
population data which need to be explained. To describe these
mathematically we need a mathematical model that will predict similar
long-term behaviour. One of the most straightforward models focuses on
the interaction between the fishermen and fish. Here we have a predator
(fishermen) and prey (fish). The equations for predator-prey
interaction have been studied for a long time. They are called Lotka-
Volterra equations after the two men who first developed them
(independently). In fact Volterra's original work was performed in
connection with the periodicities he had noticed in the populations of
fish species in the Adriatic Sea, where he liked to go fishing. Lotka
was a chemist, and he obtained the same equations in a study of
chemical reaction rates. Their idea was that there are not one but two
populations we should be looking at. Let y be the number of fishing
boats putting out to sea; it's reasonable to assume that the catch of
each boat is proportional to the abundance x of the fish; say it is sx
(where s is the constant of proportionality). Then the net effect of
the fishing is to diminish the fish population x by sxy per unit time.
Thus equation (1) becomes
But now notice that not only do the fishing boats affect the fish
population: the abundance of the fish, x, affects the likelihood of
each boat putting out to sea. If x is high, then y will increase, while
if x is low, y will decrease. So we have another equation
where r and n are two new constants of proportionality. The term -ny on
the right hand side of (2b) is there because the more fishing boats are
out at sea, the greater is the competition among fishermen and the
smaller their catch. If the number of boats out at sea is too great,
fishing ceases to be profitable and boats will start to return to port.
I have called the two equations (2a) and (2b) because they are really
part of a pair of simultaneous differential equations. Neither can be
dealt with separately from the other, because there are now two
unknowns, x and y, as well as time t, and as is clear from the
equations, x affects y and y affects x.
Rapid reassurance. The solution of equations like (2) is not part
of the A-level syllabus! In fact you don't need to solve them to learn
a lot from them. Indeed, nowadays nobody looks for explicit formulae
for the solution of differential equations like (2a) and (2b). For one
thing, computers can produce what are called numerical solutions.
Because of its huge number-crunching capacity a computer can come up
with a set of figures that describe the solutions of the equations. It
can even plot them on a graph. It doesn't have to solve the equations,
in the sense of finding a formula, in order to do this. If this seems
impossible, just look back at the article on differential equations in
Mathematics Review, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 6-8: there you were encouraged
to draw the graphs of solutions of a differential equation, guided just
by the alignment of the tangent lines. Clearly, you didn't need to know
a formula for the solution to be able to draw the graph. A computer
produces a numerical solution to a differential equation in rather the
same way.
Moreover, a whole variety of mathematical techniques has now been
developed for obtaining qualitative information about solutions without
actually having to obtain formulae for them. The kind of qualitative
information sought is, for example, what the long-term behaviour of the
solutions will be, whether they will settle down to constant values or
continue to fluctuate periodically, how sensitive they are to changes
in the initial conditions, and so on. Using such qualitative
information, together with numerical solutions produced by computer
simulation, mathematical ecologists can check to see if the equations
they come up with, like (2), really do model successfully the phenomena
they are investigating, such as the predator-prey interaction in the
case of (2).
Solutions to equations like (2) can be represented in the plane,
with x and y standing for the populations of prey and predator
respectively. Both x and y are functions of time t, so for the moment
let us write them as x(t) and y(t). As t varies, the point (x(t),y(t))
traces out a path, which we can draw. In Figure 1 we show several such
paths. Figure 2 shows a sequence of real measurements of the numbers of
fish and fishing boats out at sea over the years 1969-1980. Although it
is a lot spikier than the curves in Figure 1, the cyclic behaviour is
clear.
Some qualitative information is easy to come by. For example,
looking at equations (2a) and (2b) we can easily find some constant
solutions. If rxy = ny then dy/dt = 0, and y is constant; assuming y is
not zero, then x = n/r. Now substitute x = n/r into equation (2a). We
get
So in order that dx/dt be equal to 0, we must have
Thus,
is one constant solution. It corresponds to the point marked S in
Figure 1. There are others: I leave you to work out what the
possibilities for x are if y = 0. But the constant solution with
neither x nor y equal to zero is the most interesting. Now what happens
if (x,y) is near, but not equal, to the constant solution S? In Figure
1, nearby solutions are seen to be closed curves which circle around S.
In terms of the situation we are modelling, this means that the
populations of both predator and prey undergo periodic fluctuations,
somewhat out of phase from one another. This is shown in Figure 3
produced by computer simulation. And this is exactly what Volterra
found (to his surprise): the equations predicted cyclical fluctuations
in the populations of predator and prey. At that time (in the 1930s)
people had noticed the existence of periodic fluctuations in fish
populations. But they had put them down to recurrent epidemics, or
simply unexplained `good' and `bad' years. The fact that Volterra's
equations actually predicted such fluctuations came as a surprise,
since most people believed that `all other things being equal,'
populations would tend to some kind of stable equilibrium. The
equations helped people to understand that the stable situation
involved a kind of `simple harmonic motion' in which each population
fluctuated up and down.
The interaction between predator and prey can be understood in the
following way: imagine that you are pushing a swing. When the swing is
at its lowest point and you push it hard, it will go higher than if you
push it when it is half-way down. So the fishing boats tend to
reinforce the fish population cycles, increasing when the fish numbers
increase and declining when the fish population falls. The result can
be quite dramatic. In Figure 3 we see how the system amplifies or
enlarges the natural fluctuations in the fish population and sets
itself into relatively violent oscillations. The fishermen then have to
respond to these boom and bust cycles. This makes for a cycle that
looks just like the one in Figure 4, for the haddock fishery off Nova
Scotia in Canada.
Management of fishing
Now we add a new character to our mathematical drama: the civil
servant.
From the point of view of both the fishermen and the consumer,
drastic fluctuations of fish populations are highly undesirable, so
there are government agencies charged with regulating the amount of
fishing done.
But unfortunately, what has happened in many fisheries is that the
managers themselves have actually made the situation worse by
intervening in these cycles. When the fisheries scientists collect
information about the size of the fish populations, it takes time to
process the data and produce an analysis. Then there is an additional
delay between agreeing on a level of catch or quota that the fishermen
are allowed to take and putting it into action. In some areas fishermen
are being regulated by information that is sometimes as much as two
years out of date. And when this happens the fishermen might find
themselves fishing in a way corresponding to increasing population
sizes when in fact the fish populations are in a declining part of the
cycle. Or vice-versa.
Understanding the mathematical behaviour of the model enables us to
show that when the population of the predator is increasing faster than
that of the prey, the subsequent crashes can be far worse than if they
were moving together in phase. Seen from the perspective of the fishing
industry, left to jump from one crisis to another, using the wrong
mathematical model can often mean that no management would be better
than management based on out-of-date information.
Two types of fisherman
A fisherman's job is to hunt and search for fish, catch it and
return it to dock as a product that can be sold at a good price. But as
our excerpt from a fishing log showed, some fishermen are stochasts
(high-risk takers) while others are cartesians (low-risk takers). These
types respond differently to the same information; a stochast will move
quickly to a new area even if there is only sparse information about
good catch rates. A cartesian, on the other hand, will need lots of
convincing to go somewhere else. The tendency to move relies on an
individual fisherman's natural inclination, plus the information he
gets from other members of his fishing fleet. Add a touch of
superstition and incorporate all of this into the mathematics we were
discussing above, and you have the mix that makes up a very interesting
model!
Further reading
The Lotka-Volterra equations are discussed in Chapter 7 of Burghes
D.N. and Barrie, M.S. (1981) Modelling with Differential Equations,
Ellis Horwood, and also in Maynard Smith, J. (1991) Evolution and the
Theory of Games, Cambridge University Press.
Attachment 5
Senator Snowe. Thank you. Excuse me. I have to ask the
audience: I know there are a number of people who want to
continue to speak, and we're going to have to limit the time of
each speaker. We only have ten or 15 minutes left. So I would
appreciate it if everybody will be conscious of the clock. I
know there are a number of other people who would like to
speak, and I would like to accommodate everybody. The record
will remain open for ten days. So thank you.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. PALOMBO,
PALOMBO FISHING CORP., NEWPORT, RI
Mr. Palombo. Chairman Snowe, I'm Bill Palombo, Palombo
Fishing Corp. I have been involved in the off-shore lobster
fisheries since 1971 and now own five off-shore lobster boats
operating out of Newport, Rhode Island and Gloucester, Mass. I
also own and operate a 17,000 square foot wholesale lobster
distribution plant called Boston Wholesale Lobster Corp.
And frankly, I have been very disturbed by the total lack
of responsibility that both NMFS and the Council have assumed
in management of the lobster fishery, one of the most important
fishery resources on the coast.
Since 1991 I have been asked by the bodies that are
responsible to manage these resources to participate on two
separate LCMT teams. We were asked to come up with a consensus
among lobstermen to responsibly manage this lobster resource.
Both times I along with fellow lobstermen after spending many
hours of our time at our own expense came up on two separate
occasions over many years with plans to manage the lobster
resource. These plans caused the least disruption to the actual
practice of how the catch was being harvested, while at the
same time meeting conservation goals. Unfortunately, these
plans weren't implemented and a plan now is implemented.
I'm going to skip the rest of my remarks only to say that
what we think at this point is that we think that the ITQs and
IFQs are a very important part of the management plan. And we
think that they need to be incorporated in the reauthorization
because at this point every tool is needed to be available.
And that's all I have to say. I'll submit my written
remarks.
Senator Snowe. Thank you. I appreciate it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Palombo follows:]
Prepared Statement of William R. Palombo, Palombo Fishing Corp.,
Newport, RI
I have been involved in the offshore lobster fishery since 1971 and
now own five large offshore lobster boats operating out of Newport, RI
and Gloucester, MA. I also own and operate a 17,000 square foot
Wholesale Lobster Distribution Plant, Boston Wholesale Lobster Corp.,
in Lynn, MA. Frankly, I have been very disturbed by the total lack of
responsibility that both NMFS and the Council have assumed in the
management of the lobster fishery, one of the most important fishery
resources on this coast.
Since 1991, I have been asked by the bodies that are responsible to
manage these resources to participate on two separate LCMT's. We were
asked to come up with a consensus among lobstermen to responsibly
manage this lobster resource. Both times, I, along with fellow
lobstermen after spending many hours of our time and at our own
expense, came up, on two separate occasions over many years, with plans
to manage the lobster resource. These plans caused the least disruption
to the actual practice of how the catch was being harvested while at
the same time meeting conservation goals laid out by law.
Today we find ourselves about to operate under a plan that does not
reflect the concerns and recommendations of either, the LCMT's, the
fishermen or the conservationists. A plan that has the potential of
adding fishing effort rather than decreasing fishing effort because it
does not reflect and require historic participation levels. A plan that
can not pass the Government's own guidelines for decreasing mortality.
And now we may be continuing to ban a tool (ITQs) that may be necessary
to manage our resource correctly in the future.
To a fishing businessman who has been intimately involved in the
process and who makes his living from this resource, our Government's
actions do not make sense. They further convince me that our Government
is not serious about protecting and enhancing our resources. We should
have every fishery management tool available to our industry. ITQ's
will not be part of any management plan unless there is a widespread
consensus in any fishery involved. If they are banned they will not be
available to any fishery where they are appropriate for conservation
and management.
We have gone through a long consensus building process within our
own group Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen's Association of which I was
President for 15 years and am now just a member. AOLA is not promoting
ITQs in the management plan today but many of us feel that we would
like them available to our industry in the future should the vessels
involved see the benefits for using ITQs somewhere down the line. A
continued ban of even considering them as a management tool flies in
the face of logic.
The Lobster Management Teams consisting of industry representatives
and scientific technical advisors are charged with the task to develop
regulations which, when implemented, reduce mortality and increase egg
production of the stock. The offshore lobster industry through AOLA has
pulled together to recommend strong and meaningful conservation
measures necessary to preserve the resource for future generations. It
is my strong belief that no management tool should be taken out of the
hands of industry representatives or fishery managers.
STATEMENT OF PAUL E. BENNETT, COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN, RED DEVIL
FISH AND LOBSTER CO., INC., MIDDLETOWN, RI
Mr. Bennett. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman, Senator and
Committee members. My name is Paul Bennett and I'm a commercial
fisherman from New England. I've been an active participant in
several different fisheries over the last 28 years, but
primarily off-shore lobster. I'm a graduate of the University
of Rhode Island's commercial fishing marine technology program.
I've been a member of the Atlantic Off-Shore Fishermen's
Association, Atlantic Off-Shore Lobster Association and an
active participant in the Lobster EMTs process and a member of
different advisory groups and a close follower of the recent
LCMT process.
I am here today to support the use of individual fishing
quotas with transferability and fisheries management. The use
of individual fishing quotas is the most direct approach to
sound fisheries management. Days at sea and trap reductions are
a very indirect approach to managing the various fisheries. I
feel that individual fishing quotas with transferability is
another important conservation tool which can be used to
address each stock's assessment.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bennett follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul E. Bennett, Commercial Fisherman, Red Devil
Fish & Lobster Co., Inc., Middletown, RI
Madame Chairman and Committee Members:
My name is Paul Bennett and I am a commercial fisherman from New
England. I have been an active participant in several different
fisheries over the last twenty-eight years, but primarily offshore
lobster. I am a graduate of the University of Rhode Island's Commercial
Fishing and Marine Technology Program. I have been a member of the
Atlantic Offshore Fisherman's Association, Atlantic Offshore
Lobsterman's Association, an active participant in the lobster EMT
(Effort Management Team) process, a member of the Gear Conflict
Advisory Group, and most recently a close follower of the recent LCMT
(Lobster Conservation Management Team) process.
I am here today to support the use of Individual Fishing Quotas
with transferability in fisheries management. The use of Individual
Fishing Quotas is the most direct approach to sound fisheries
management. Days at sea and trap reductions are a very indirect
approach to managing the various fisheries. I feel that Individual
Fishing Quotas with transferability is another important conservation
tool, which can be used to address each stock's assessment. Thank you
for your time and consideration.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF DAVID SPENCER,
SPENCER FISH AND LOBSTER, JAMESTOWN, RI
Mr. Spencer. My name is David Spencer. I've been an off-
shore lobsterman since 1973. And in the interest of time, I
don't believe I can read my letter in one minute, so I would
like echo the sentiments of the two gentlemen before me. I
think it's very important that ITQs and IFQs be a management
tool available to fishery managers. I think at this day in age
with the way all our species are, it is ludicrous not to have
that as a management tool.
I'll submit the rest of my comments in writing. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Spencer follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Spencer, Spencer Fish and Lobster,
Jamestown, RI
Madame Chairman and Committee members:
I would like to offer my comments on ITQ's and ask that their
moratorium in the Magnuson-Stevens Act be lifted.
My name is David Spencer. I am an offshore lobsterman fishing out
of Newport, RI. I have fished for lobsters offshore since 1973. I own
one boat and lobstering is my sole source of income.
I believe that ITQ's offer fishery managers, scientists and
fishermen the simplest and most effective means of managing a resource.
In most over fished fisheries today, scientists are tasked with
determining how many pounds can safely be removed from a resource each
year. They are currently using measures such as days at sea, mesh size,
closed areas, trip limits, gauge sizes, trap numbers and a host of
others. The problem is that none of these measures are directly related
to the current dilemma: How many pounds can safely be removed from the
targeted resource. Because there is no clear connection of these
management measures to the conservation of the resource, it is very
difficult for the managers and scientists to predict the success or
failure of these measures in the years ahead. They are constantly
playing a catch up game of imposing more and more indirect measures
when it has become clear that the goals of conservation are not being
met. Consequently, fisherman are burdened with the increased
restrictions. This format has created confusion among the fishermen, as
well as law enforcement. It has also resulted in fishermen becoming
very inefficient and unable to make with certainty any future business
plans. This also has made resource recovery a very long ordeal.
Doesn't it make much more sense to tell a fisherman how much
product he will be allowed to catch, based on the scientist's
projections? This method is simple, give fishermen more flexibility to
run his business and be able to plan for the future while still
conserving the resource. It also would allow the scientists some surety
as to the removal rate of the resource on a yearly basis and make
possible to even predict into the future rather than scurrying to make
up for past deficiencies. ITQ's are the most direct and expeditious
road to resource recovery.
Although I am strongly in favor for ITQ's, I realize that they be
more appropriate for some fisheries rather than others. However I do
think that they should at least be available to the fishermen,
managers, and scientists who feel that they would be appropriate for a
particular fishery. At this very critical time for all fisheries it is
important that every option be available.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Senator Snowe. Thank you. Everyone can submit their
statements for the record.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN MAYHEW, FISHERMAN,
MARTHA'S VINEYARD, MA
Mr. Mayhew. Good afternoon. Thank you very much for having
me. My name is Jonathan Mayhew, third-generation fisherman from
Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts. I got up at five o'clock this
morning.
I'm a full-time year-round commercial fisherman. I own two
boats; a 32-foot bluefin tuna boat and a 72-foot dragger,
multispecies.
My life has been affected in so many ways by National
Marine Fisheries that if we could bottle it and put it in a
bomb and drop it in the Middle East we'd have everything solved
over there. Just with paperwork.
The thing I'd like to address, unfortunately, is what--I
came to speak on a lot of issues, but I have to speak on the
fish spotting issue because it's been brought up, and actually,
Madam Chair, I'd really like to have chance to speak to you
personally because I feel that you have made a decision
already.
On whether or not fish spotters should be used. For the
past 26 summers I have flown a small single-engine plane over
George's and Gulf of Mexico for tuna and swordfish for my boats
as well as others, over 11,000 hours. I wear the hat of
president of Atlantic Fish Spotters Association, approximately
20 active pilots with an average of 15 seasons' experience.
I worked from the inception of the New England Aquarium
aerial survey started in 1993. Atlantic Fish Spotters fly
43,000 miles annually virtually for free for this survey. The
survey has been jeopardized due to lack of funding by National
Marine Fisheries for the scientific side. Atlantic Fish
Spotters have worked with senate coastal studies, whale
disentanglement teams and have assisted in saving numerous
marine mammals. Atlantic Fish Spotters also work of search and
rescue of sailors and downed pilots.
The first time I personally spoke on stock analysis was in
1982 regarding my alarm over the decline in swordfish stocks. I
was a witness to the chief National Marine Fisheries Sciences
at that time stated stocks were in excellent shape and would
continue to be so into the future. The future is now, and we
know the pain in that industry. Aerial surveys have an
incredible value in the large species.
As some of you are aware, fish spotters were banned by NMFS
during 1997, bluefin tuna season, the general category. We were
forced to tie our planes down, organize, raise money and sue
National Marine Fisheries, something we did not want to do. We
persevered, the regulations were found arbitrary and capricious
en todo in June 1998.
And also stated that despite what National Marine Fisheries
states, aircraft do assist in size selectivity. I bring this up
because my trust in the system has been shaken. It does not
seem that National Marine Fisheries--it does seem that National
Marine Fisheries is susceptible to lobbying pressures rather
than looking at the facts. Spotter pilots and Atlantic bluefin
tuna have been used since the 70's. Pilots can and do judge the
size of fish. We get by production of keepers. We can't afford
to chase shorts, economics or rules. All the boats in the fleet
have the ability to realize when pilots leave an area where
fish are, there are few if any keepers in that area, thereby
assisting the whole fleet for the proper harvest of these fish.
Please listen to both sides before making a decision that I
feel is contrary to the Magnuson-Stevens Act and lose this
valuable asset. Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you. How many more people want to
speak? Do you have prepared statements that you could submit?
Otherwise, I'm not going to be able to accommodate everybody at
this rate.
Senator Kerry. How many people are there? Could you all
raise your hands? How many of you have prepared statements that
you could----
Senator Snowe. Would you be willing to submit prepared
statements, if everybody could keep their statements to 30
seconds?
Senator Kerry. We have to. We have no choice.
Senator Snowe. We have no choice here.
STATEMENT OF BILL CHAPRALES, COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN
Mr. Chaprales. Bill Chaprales, commercial fisherman.
Senator Kerry, when you talk about building credibility, that
really struck home for me today. And I've been a fisherman for
30 years, bluefin, involved in the harpoon tagging program in
the middle 70's. (Auditorium public address system fails during
this presentation.)
Senator Snowe. Thank you. How many more are going to
testify? I'm sorry that so many people took longer than their
one-minute allotment; that is what created this problem. I'm
not going to be able to accommodate everyone, so we'll have to
make a decision here. Do people have prepared statements? I
have to leave in 10 minutes at the latest, so you can take 30
seconds each. You go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF BONNIE SPINAZZOLA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ATLANTIC
OFF-SHORE LOBSTERMEN'S ASSOCIATION
Ms. Spinazzola. Madam Chairwoman, I am the executive
director of the Atlantic Off-Shore Lobstermen's Association and
represent approximately 40 off-shore vessels of the
approximately 60 vessels fishing in the off-shore lobster
industry from New Hampshire and New Jersey.
On behalf of AOLA I urge you to support the recision of the
moratorium on IFQs and support the inclusion of transferability
in the upcoming reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
We feel very strongly that at this point in the fishery
process no tool should be taken away from fishery manager to be
able to attain the goals of sustainable fisheries.
And the rest I will submit as written comments.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Spinazzola follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bonnie Spinazzola, Executive Director,
Atlantic Off-Shore Lobstermen's Association
Madame Chairwoman, Senator Kerry and Senator Stevens:
On behalf of the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen's Association (AOLA),
I urge you to support the rescission of the moratorium on individual
fishing quotas, and support the inclusion of transferability in the
upcoming reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
AOLA represents 40 vessels from New Hampshire to New Jersey, within
a total of approximately 65 vessels participating in the offshore
lobster fishery, and has been significantly involved in developing
conservation measures for management of the offshore lobster resource.
As you may be aware, the American Lobster fishery was divided into
seven management areas, each having a designated Lobster Management
Team consisting of industry representatives and scientific technical
advisors. These teams are tasked to develop regulations which, when
implemented, should reduce mortality and increase egg production of the
stock. Our fervent hope is to attain preservation and sustainability of
the American Lobster Resource. While I have just made this sound
relatively simple, I can personally assure you that this has been, and
will continue to be, a grueling and complicated process. It is no
secret that agreement among fishermen is not a common occurrence, and
balancing the needs of the resource with those of the industry has been
complex. The offshore industry, however, has pulled together to
recommend strong and meaningful conservation measures necessary to
preserve the resource for future generations.
It is the strong belief of AOLA that every management tool should
be made available to industry representatives and fishery managers, as
the arduous and long-term process of fishery management necessitates
the need for flexibility and creativity in order to attain the delicate
balance of meaningful management measures coupled with financial
security for fishermen. Transferability, when prudently and sensibly
incorporated into the management process, is an important option that
should be made available to those endeavoring to sustain our nation's
oceans and their resources.
Finally, I would like to comment on two other important fishery
issues:
It is clear that collaborative research efforts, utilizing industry
and scientists have finally been recognized. With clear understanding
that the groundfish resource is in a precarious position and in need of
such funding, I would request that sources of funding also be made
available for collaborative research in other stocks, as well. For
instance, four-year-old lobster data was recently used to produce an
extensive stock assessment, and in some areas, stopped short of
producing significant results, due to poor or old existing data. Real-
time data can and must be realized through collaborative efforts of
fishermen and scientists.
The other important issue relates to the National Marine Fisheries
Service consuming inordinate amounts of time to implement fishery
management plans. In the case of the offshore lobster plan, fishermen
are frustrated with the fact that the Service tasked industry with
identifying measures to preserve the resource. That plan, which has
been technically evaluated to meet the Sustainable Fisheries Act's
goal, has been available to NMFS for over two years (actually many
more, however I will only focus on recent management action). Due to
agency, legal or congressional constraints, however, NMFS will likely
not implement a full lobster FMP that meets the SFA requirements for an
estimated 3-5 years! Although this Committee may have serious concerns
with regard to holding fishermen's lives, their families, and their
communities in the balance while waiting for management rules, just
imagine how frustrating it is for those fishermen who continue to wait
for conservation measures to be implemented yet are forced to sit idly
by and watch their resource spiral downward toward depletion, due to
the extended process of the very agency tasked to protect and sustain
that resource! I hope that through the reauthorization process, this
Committee will do everything in it's power to remove any barriers which
prohibit NMFS from moving forward expeditiously toward the
implementation of meaningful fishery management plans.
In conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to represent my
membership and make you aware of their sentiment with regard to your
support of transferability and lobster management in the
reauthorization process of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Please feel free
to contact me should you have any questions relative to these comments,
or to discuss the issue of lobster management, at any time.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF WILL BLAND, GENERAL MANAGER,
LITTLE BAY LOBSTER CO.
Mr. Bland. I am going to submit a written comment, but I
would like to urge you to lift the moratorium on IFQs. And I
have a comment here that I had sent to Senator Kerry and I'll
submit it to you too.
Senator Kerry. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Senator Snowe. I appreciate it. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bland follows:]
Prepared Statement of Will Bland, General Manager,
Little Bay Lobster Co.
I am writing to encourage you to support lifting the moratorium on
individual Fishing Quotas (IFQ). I firmly believe that in order for our
industry to manage the fisheries efficiently and responsibly, a variety
of management tools needs to be available to us. An IFQ program is
merely one method of many that we may need to employ in order to
achieve a sustainable resource.
While it is important to recognize that an IFQ program may not be
suitable for every fishery, lifting the moratorium does, however, give
fisheries managers a more complete range of options to use while
creating a Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The employment of various
types of conservation methods, even within the same stock biomass,
allows for efficient stock management and harvesting. Additionally, the
use of varied management measures across the range of a resource
permits fisheries managers to consider not only the biologic, but also
the many social and economic concerns that are generally associated
with any FMP.
In their report to Congress, the National Research Council (NRC)
cited many of these same reasons for lifting the moratorium on IFQ's.
Further, the broad-based response the Council received during the
public hearings on the issue demonstrated the industry's recognition
that the use of IFQ's as a management tool is a valuable and needed
option. Respondents to the Council repeatedly cautioned against
treating all fisheries the same and that a ``broad-brush'' approach to
fisheries management was detrimental to promoting localized stewardship
within a fishery. The FMP's for American Lobster and Atlantic Herring
are good examples of this in that their formulation begins with an area
management concept. However, in order to be successful, an area
management program must have the flexibility to adapt to the local
biological and social conditions, therefore, it is critically important
that the managers of these fishing areas have a toolbox full of
management measures available to them.
As an individual who has been involved with the fishing industry
for over thirty years, I have seen the tragic decline of the fish
stocks of the Northwest Atlantic and the resultant demise of New
England's fishing industry. In light of that, I am extremely frustrated
at how ineffective our attempts at stopping that decline turned out to
be. I am convinced that the time has come for a major change in fishery
management theory. Our reliance on the reactive input measures of the
past such as types of gear and methods of fishing needs to diminish.
Instead, we must work toward a clear understanding of our sustainable
harvest levels and the further development of enforceable output
measures, such as IFQ's. Building the concept of ownership within a
fishery is the first step toward developing a sense of resource
stewardship within the fisherman. In doing that, we, as fishermen, will
become more like the harvesters we should be than the hunters we are.
STATEMENT OF MS. FERRANTE
Ms. Ferrante. Madam Chair, I'll be brief. I want to thank
you and Senator Kerry and Senator Stevens for the work you've
done with cooperative research. My father's a fisherman. It's
great to see that his input is finally being acknowledged in a
meaningful way.
Second, you talked about the need for five management plans
and asked why that may be. One way we could get around that is
if we had more fishermen's input and cooperative management.
Fishermen know where fish spawn, when they spawn, how they
spawn, and how to avoid those areas. But unfortunately, that
information doesn't get tapped into, and we need to do a better
job of doing that.
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF ANNE HAYDEN, RESOURCE SERVICES,
GULF OF MAINE FISHERIES RESEARCH COLLABORATIVE
Ms. Hayden. Thank you very much, Senator Snowe and Senator
Kerry. I am here on behalf of a newly formed group called the
Gulf of Maine Fisheries Research Collaborative, and I just want
to support the earlier statements calling for additional
cooperative fisheries research. And I will submit my comments
for the record.
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.
Senator Kerry. Thanks a lot.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hayden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anne Hayden, Resource Services, Gulf of Maine
Fisheries Research Collaborative
On March 31, 2000, a committed group of people met in Brunswick,
Maine to discuss the need for improving the quality, amount and
timeliness of fisheries research information in the Gulf of Maine. This
meeting was hosted by the Davis Conservation Foundation and included
representatives of educational institutions, fishermen's organizations,
fish packers, non-governmental organizations, charitable foundations
and state government. The list of people invited to attend this meeting
is attached. The list in Attachment 1 are those who were able to
respond in support of this letter in a very limited period of time. We
expect the number of supporters to grow as our activities increase.
This new, diverse group has been named the Gulf of Maine Fisheries
Research Collaborative. The Collaborative has set an aggressive agenda
for future action with the intent of sustaining Maine's commercial
fishing industry by developing an effective voice to establish
cooperative research priorities and funding to enhance a variety of
fisheries resources of commercial importance to Maine.
We are writing today to inform you of our collective views and
goals for improving marine fisheries research and management in the
Gulf of Maine ecosystem, both in the U.S. and in Canada. As the Oceans
and Fisheries Subcommittee continues to consider the reauthorization of
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA),
we ask that this letter become a part of the record of today's public
hearing. Not surprisingly, our views and goals closely match last
week's report by the General Accounting Office where the need for
additional, collaborative scientific research and enhanced economic-
impact information were highlighted as significant shortcomings in our
fisheries management system.
Adequate and trusted scientific information is one of the most
important elements in a successful strategy for sustainably managing
United States fisheries resources. The value of the data developed from
our nation's fisheries research efforts is significantly enhanced if
our research strategies are prioritized and pursued through truly
collaborative efforts among interested and responsible parties.
The activities of the Gulf of Maine Fisheries Research
Collaborative will build a solid foundation for implementing
sustainable fisheries management policies in the Gulf of Maine region.
This approach will not only improve the quantity of fisheries research
being done but will improve the value of this research by bringing all
interested parties to the planning table and into the field.
Unfortunately, it has taken far too long for a truly collaborative
fisheries research effort to begin in the Gulf of Maine region,
particularly in the United States. Although the MSFCMA requires the
Secretary of Commerce to develop a strategic plan for fisheries
research, which provides a role for commercial fishermen in the
research, this has yet to happen on a broad, ecosystem basis here in
New England.
The National Marine Fisheries Services' (NMFS) budget for fisheries
research, data collection and other necessary elements of a sustainable
fisheries program is seriously under-funded. Progress has been further
delayed since the collaborative culture necessary to build a strong
constituency for NMFS funding has not been widely embraced by the
agency. Also, rather than focusing primarily on fisheries in trouble,
research strategies and funding adequate to investigate questions key
to the long-term health of all fisheries resources of commercial
importance needs to begin to be put into place.
Your recent efforts to support funding for collaborative fisheries
research in this region, and those of your colleagues Senator Kerry and
Senator Gregg certainly must be commended. Millions of dollars of new
funding for cooperative marine research are being earmarked in recent
appropriations and authorizations. Since nearly all of the new
fisheries research funding coming into the region is only to be used to
solve problems in the groundfishing industry, however, it is difficult
today to move ahead to develop and pursue other collaborative research
efforts in other fisheries important to the Gulf of Maine.
Looking beyond NMFS funding, we also want to bring to your
attention the serious need to enhance our marine science infrastructure
to provide an adequate number of people to manage the new collaborative
research projects that are being developed now and will be in the
future.
One significant problem with the short-term nature of the new
research dollars coming into the region is that it makes it difficult
for some researchers, particularly university researchers, to commit
their time to projects developed to use these new funds. These
researchers' access to longer-term research funding options, like those
available through the National Academy of Sciences for example, may be
jeopardized by spending time using shorter-term funding. This is a
problem that underscores the need for both NMFS and state fisheries
research budgets to be permanently enhanced. It is important that
independent researchers, in addition to those employed by federal and
state agencies, can participate in new efforts to enhance collaborative
fisheries research and be reasonably confident that long term funding
will be made available. This approach will truly create the best
scientific information available.
This month and next, the Department of Marine Resources (DMR) will
be holding a series of meetings, facilitated by the Gulf of Maine
Aquarium (GOMA), to identify research priorities in the clam, lobster,
scallop, sea urchin and shrimp fisheries. As you know, the DMR and GOMA
worked with the herring industry to develop research priorities in the
herring fishery three years ago and similar efforts are ongoing in the
groundfish industry today. Additional, cooperative fisheries research
is essential to our success in sustainably managing the Gulf of Maine's
important fisheries resources and in sustaining its fishing
communities. A tremendous amount of long-term scientific investigation,
concerning a significant number of fisheries, should be pursued but
adequate financial resources to do the job are very scarce.
It is our intent and commitment that the formation of the Gulf of
Maine Fisheries Research Collaborative will provide Maine with a
foundation to better identify and implement fisheries research
priorities and identify alternative funding sources in support of
collaborative fisheries science throughout the Gulf of Maine. We look
forward to working with you to enhance priority marine fisheries
research in the Gulf of Maine by using a combination of federal, state,
foundation, non-governmental organization and industry dollars. We
invite you to attend one of the Collaborative's meetings when your
schedule allows you to join us.
Thank you for your attention to and your consideration of our views
and for your commitment to a healthy Gulf of Maine ecosystem and a
prosperous Maine fishing industry.
Attachment 1
Gulf of Maine Fisheries Research Collaborative
Robin Alden, Stonington Fisheries Alliance
Philip Conkling, Island Institute
Horace A. Hildreth, Jr., Davis Conservation Foundation
Will Hopkins, Cobscook Bay Resource Center
Jeff Kaelin, Maine Sardine Council
George Lapointe, Maine Department of Marine Resources
Linda Mercer, Maine Department of Marine Resources
Craig Pendleton, Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance, Inc.
Donald Perkins, Gulf of Maine Aquarium
Louis Sage, Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences
Alden H. Sawyer, Jr., Davis Conservation Foundation
Pat White, Maine Lobstermen's Association
Jim Wilson, University of Maine
Anne Hayden, Resource Services Facilitator
Attachment 2
Gulf of Maine Fisheries Research Collaborative Meeting Invitees
Brunswick, Maine, March 31, 2000
Facilitator: Ms. Anne Hayden, Resource Services
Mr. Donald Perkins, Gulf of Maine Aquarium
Mr. Philip Conkling, Island Institute
Mr. Louis (Sandy) Sage, Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences
Ms. Barbara Stevenson, Portland Fish Pier
Mr. Craig Pendleton, Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance
Mr. Jeff Kaelin, Maine Sardine Council
Mr. Pat White, Maine Lobstermen's Association
Commissioner George Lapointe, Dept. of Marine Resources
Mr. Jim Wilson, University of Maine
Mr. Horace A. Hildreth, Jr., Davis Conservation Foundation
Mr. Thomas S. Deans, New Hampshire Charitable Foundation
Mr. Alden H. (Tom) Sawyer, Jr., Davis Conservation Foundation
Linda Mercer, Director, Bureau of Research, Maine Department of Marine
Resources
Will Hopkins, Cobscook Bay Resource Center
Robin Alden
Ted Ames
Staff: Nancy M. Winslow, Executive Director, Davis Conservation
Foundation
STATEMENT OF HARRIET DIDREKSEN, PRESIDENT,
SUB-S CORPORATION
Ms. Didreksen. Harriet Didreksen, boat owner from the port
of New Bedford since 1968. I want to thank you, Madam
Chairwoman, for asking for the GAO report. I've read it. I
think it says a lot. I wish it was a little firmer. But as we
see in 1996 the people were included. The other cuts have been
put through, but the people have not been looked at. I think
that speaks for itself.
I'm against ITQs. It does not limit the fishing. It just
limits the resource in the hands of a few people. And at the
New England Council we have a chairman right now who has worked
for a small group of boat owners who are vertically integrated
who want ITQs. So I understand today when people speak and they
do not have confidence in the system. Individual one vote/one
permit owners are not able to get their point across. I hope
you'll look more into this.
Thank you for coming.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Didreksen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Harriet Didreksen, President, Sub-S Corporation
Written submission of Harriet Didriksen. President of a small
family held Sub-S Corporation which has owned fishing vessels since
1968 pre Magnuson and presently one vessel F/V Settler which holds a
full time scallop permit. I am a Massachusetts resident living in the
Town of Mattapoisett. The vessel is moored and sailing from the Port of
New Bedford. I am Vice-President of a ship chandlery New Bedford Ship
Supply where I worked since the age of eleven, serving the fishing
industry for over sixty years owned by my 87 year old aunt Sarah
Tonnessen.
I am not a good writer I will address each issue point by point as
straight forward as I can.
The first and foremost issue I wish to address with the
preauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is maintaining the
moratorium on ITQs. If it has not been made clear, I wish to be clear
once more for the record.
I do not believe that the New England Fisheries Management Council
has the integrity nor the required knowledge of fishing and fishing
communities, particularly in the scallop fishery, its people and its
economics. Making decisions that would change the face of our coastal
communities and the future generations of fishermen.
In March of 1994 National Marine Fisheries implemented Amendment
Four to the scallop fishery. It limited entry into the scallop fishery
permitting vessels based on historic participation. This action
resulted in three types of limited access scallop permits: full-time,
part-time and occasional. It was believed by the majority of permit
holders that Amendment Four would manage the fishery for a planned
seven years. The plan stated that by December of 1994 all permits had
to be attached to vessels. In the fall of 1994 the Council started the
framework process to create history and latent permits. As we know the
Framework process by design grossly limits the scope of public exposure
and process. This Framework created a larger permit base that would
eventually inflate the fishery designed and presentation in Amendment
Four. This action went against the language in Amendment Four which
most permit holders were dependent upon and trusted.
The Regional Director at that time Mr. Allen Pedersen during the
Council deliberation of the Frameworks stated that if this Framework
passed it would change the way he had been handling the appeals process
which was ongoing at that time, by stating ``if an individual had a
legitimate reason for not being able to meet the December 1994 deadline
which called for all permits to be attached to vessels he was
accommodating them. If he saw permit holders attempting to speculate in
the fishery, he would refuse them.'' Nonetheless, the Council passed
the Framework and Gene Martin legal council to New England Fisheries
Management Council condoned this action to be done by Framework. This
was in direct conflict with the wording in Amendment Four and inflated
the fishery. At this time many older fishing vessels were in ill
repair, many having financial problems resulting from ten years of
scallop count regulations which mismanaged the fishery by eliminating
large count scallops. Prior fines for scallop count violations were out
of proportion with earnable revenues resulting in further financial
hardship for a number of vessels.
From that point on a small group of no more than ten vertically
integrated permit holders (boat owners, fish dealers, processors,
purveyors of gear) with the where with all, began to purchase derelict
vessels at auction or direct from owners for their permit value at
bargain prices and then destroyed the vessels. Banks were fearful of
the stability of the fishery as they had known it for generation due to
a slow fishing economy, uncertainty in regulations and press reporting,
they began to call in loans and several seaworthy vessels were forced
into marshall sale purchased for a lower base principle investment,
deflating the value of the entire scallop fleet.
At the Council level, some of these same integrated individuals
acted as scallop advisors, most of them not actively fishermen. Tom
Hill now a Council member, a member of the scallop committee and at
some years Chairman of the Scallop Committee was hired by ``The Scallop
Group'' (those same vertically integrated individuals now formally
organized with Tom Hill as executive director) with the luxury of time
to attend Councils meetings and Subcommittee meetings begin to lobby
for the consolidation of permits (essentially ITQs). Consolidation went
out to public hearing twice, first for the sale of permits and the
second time for the leasing of permits. The majority of the permit
holders testified against selling and leasing of permits. Nonetheless
the NEFMC on the advise of the Scallop Committee presented a motion to
the Council process to allow Framework leasing. Attorney Gene Martine
legal advisor to the NEFMC accepted this language and allowed this
process to proceed forward. If it had not been for Barbara Stevenson of
the Council who understood the implications of this action to a play to
avoid public input presented a second motion which required that even
though it was a framework it must go out for a series of public
hearings, the scallop industry in New England would have ITQs today
disguised as consolidation of days. From 1994 to present ``The Scallop
Group'' members still retain a strong presence and continue to lobby
for consolidation in an effort to own the majority of the East Coast
Scallop resource which in time would force out the remaining one boat
one permit holders. There is no security place for the one boat one
permit owner in a consolidation or ITQ plan. He will sooner than later
be forced out of the fishery. Many examples exist of the ITQ system
results. Dr. DePaul of VIMS a member of the Scallop Committee presented
a minority opinion covering this issue. Today the same Tom Hill
referred to above is in the powerful position as Chairman of the NEFMC.
Considering the above history and the events that have taken place, I
do not feel the Council process is interpreting the Magnuson Act as
intended by the Senate and the Congress. Council should not be
permitted to privatize the resource and allow a few individuals to
accumulate exclusive rights to the resource at the expense and
sacrifice of other permit holders and fishing communities as a whole.
The best example of the devastation of fishing communities and loss
of employment is our own Northern Clam fishery managed by ITQs and
noted in many press releases. Senator Kerry stated when there is a
finite resource and infinite permits ITQs might be the only solution.
In the scallop fishery on the East Coast, there is a finite number of
permits and an infinite resource. Today areas which have been
constantly fished since 1994 due to the four closed areas off New
England and Virginia are yielding remarkable amounts of scallops. This
abundance of resource in the open area cannot be credited to
management. Mother Nature must be acknowledged as Dr. Rothschild
alluded to in his testimony at Northeastern University.
ITQs are an international issue, see attached (Iceland).* Iceland
after having ITQs for 16 years has now been challenged by fishers who
have won their first legal battle and its constitutionality is being
challenged in the Icelandic Supreme Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The information referred to has been retained in the Subcommittee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Rasmussen from Iceland at the ITQ meeting in New Orleans, which
I attended as an industry panel member, stated that many of the pro
premises such as issues of safety and the resource, that ownership
makes more responsible fishers, has not necessarily proven true in
Iceland. It is a false Utopia.
Another example of the devastation of ITQs is in New Zealand where
some coastal communities have unemployment up to 60 percent. The few
large fishing companies that were created by ITQs now hire their crews
from overseas cheap labor. These companies control the science since
the TAC has not changed for several years. This is not a conservation
tactic, it is simply taking a public resource and putting in the hands
of a minority making a few wealthy individuals who now control the
market at the expense of the majority.
I believe it is the responsibility of the Senators and Congressmen
to insure that the resource provides for as many American Fishermen,
their families and related industries as possible.
It has become apparent that fishermen are not respected at most
government agencies, especially the regulators and enforcers. Please
read attached article written by U.S. Coast Guard Captain Raymond
Brown* comparing fishermen with drug smugglers. To have the audacity to
put this in black and white he must have an audience who would accept
its premise. To call New Bedford Scallopers liars is not only a leap of
faith but also defamation of character. Please see attached article
from the Cape Cod Times.**
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The information referred to was not provided.
**The information referred to has been retained in the Subcommittee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a group of people are not respected as any other citizen of
the United States violations of civil rights occur. The rationale is:
it is OK if fishermen are treated unfairly because they are like drug
smugglers (criminals). The lack of respect has led to unrealistic
regulations meant to put your constituents and their families on the
street. This can happen and has happened both directly and indirectly.
The New Bedford Ship Supply has written off over a half million dollars
of debt to relieve financial hardship on fishing families. Their homes
are always connected directly or indirectly to the debt. I am willing
to document the numbers keeping the individuals names confidential.
NOAA and NMFS under the same umbrella creates a situation where the
same agency regulates, controls science that the regulations are based
on, enforces, prosecutes and judges cases. This in the old country is
called tyranny. There are no checks and balances here required by the
democratic ethic.
Science the lack of: Dr. Rothchild of CMAST in his testimony on
April 10th, stated that the over fishing definition was soft and the
methods that NMFS is using as the basis for regulations were of
suspect. This same line of thought was presented by the Academy of
Science when he evaluated NMFS and made his presentation over a year
ago, ``no model is a good model.'' How then can the Secretary of
Commerce dismiss the fishing community's concern with good conscience.
I would ask that the Senate review this issue with renewed energy and
dissect information that is presented by the NMFS and NEFMC
recommendations and absolute answers to complex issues.
I would like to address Mr. Daley's comments rebutting some aspects
of the GAO report recently released. Mr. Daley refers to the behavior
of fishermen challenging the science when their income is jeopardized.
I find this perfectly logical since it is not Mr. Daley's income being
jeopardized: it is not his mortgage on his house or his children's
future.
Although Mr. Daley would like to separate the science from the
socio-economic consequences, he seems to forget he is dealing with
human beings. THIS IS MY COMMUNITY THAT HE SO LIGHTLY IS WILLING TO
DISMISS.
I would like the lack of socio-economic science to be retroactively
investigated. The FMPs that have been passed since 1996, were required
to have this information included. NMFS and the NEFMC chose to ignore
this portion of the ACT, they have cherry picked the parts of the ACT
that they want to enforce. They chose not to hire the social scientist
needed to fulfill the requirements. This in no way implies that they
need more money to mismanage in the same redundant fashion that has
been the trademark of NMFS. People should at least be equal to the
level of fish in consideration of regulations. I do not understand how
plans have been passed from 1996 forward without fulfilling the social
science requirements. This must be ended. ``Best science available'' is
an unacceptable excuse when no effort was made to hire the same number
of social scientist as biology scientist.
I wish to express my thanks to you and the Senate Committee's
initiation requesting the GAO report. It has long been needed. Fishing
Communities have been and are living in fear of their future. Families
are at risk. Children in particular are very vulnerable when the type
of economic stress that fishing people have been trying to cope with
for a long period of time. I see the GAO report as hope, but there is
more to be done. As I stated before I wish the GAO had used stronger
language, but as I reread it as I have several times, it has cast a
black cloud on the entire management process. I want to thank you for
acknowledging the problems facing fishing today and your continuing
efforts to rectify them.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF ELLEN SKAAR,
FISHERMEN'S AD HOC COMMITTEE
Ms. Skaar. My name is Ellen Skaar, and I'm a fisherman's
wife and I come from generations of fishermen. I want to also
speak against lifting the moratorium of the ITQs. Of course,
there is no fishing person that really truly is a fishing
person that wants that. We formed a group that is called the
Fishermen's Ad Hoc Committee and I tried to put consolidation
into the scallop fisheries, and we hired a lawyer and he sent
letters to all of the scallop holders, the license holders, and
98 percent said they did not want consolidation. So the
feelings of the fishing people is they don't want this.
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF MR. DAUPHINEE
Mr. Dauphinee. Thank you both for being here, and I
appreciate being able to speak. Just one--I'm backing Mass
Fishery Partnership letter. And Senator Kerry, I have--for our
state, I have a suggestion that we take the--fill the bed at
Moon Island and make it into a place where we could possibly
raise halibut, which we don't even have to fish as an idea of
how we can be proactive in rebuilding some of the stocks.
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF FRED MATTERA, COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN
Mr. Mattera. Yes. Fred Mattera. I'm a commercial fisherman
for 28 years. I own a freezer troller out of Point Judith.
I've been a staunch opponent to limited entry and ITQs for
years. But most recently I have done a one-eighty, and I do
support lifting the moratorium on ITQs. Just so that we can
explore alternative option. I'm tired, and along with a lot of
other fishermen, of being micro-managed.
I think if we're going to look at that, I think we need to
look at two concepts that should dovetail along with that. One
is a substantial vessel buyout and tax incentives. There are so
many people that would step out of this fishery if there were,
you know, abilities to roll over CCFs into IRAs or, you know,
eliminating capital gains.
The unsafe issues. We just had a vessel--you know, people
have been talking about the unsafety. We're in a derby fishery
with these 88 days or anything else. There was a vessel out
there yesterday who lost a man overboard; another man had to be
air lifted. Why? He's fishing in this hellacious weather
because he's in days at sea and he doesn't want to lose a day.
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF MR. SCOLA, FISHERMAN
Mr. Scola. I appreciate the opportunity to come up to speak
before you here today. I was hoping to have a little more time,
but . . .
As Senator Kerry asked about the inequities within the
Council, do we sometimes feel represented? You know, it was
discouraging to see the first panel get two hours and I get 30
seconds, but I'll do my best to relay my thoughts.
I appreciate your sincere attention. I know you're very
pressed. My statement today was originally going to focus on
safety and some of the issues, and we'll go right over that.
I was the gentleman that Joe was talking about. I was
fishing on weather last year that I shouldn't have been fished
because we were going to be closed down for three months. Ended
up ripping the winch off my deck, cracking a couple of ribs,
and if the winch had fallen on me as it came off, I would not
be standing here to you and I would orphan my three children,
which is really not my goal in life.
There are a lot of things to speak about. Unfortunately, we
can't. I'll just touch on them. ITQs you asked about. You seem
to be interested in. I think some of the sincere fears that
they will not adequately be set forth. In other words, I have
been shut down for three months last year; this year five
months. By the time they come around with ITQs they're going to
go back and say, What did you catch? Well, we didn't catch
anything. We can fish. Then you don't get anything. These are
some of the fears.
The other thing is that there are a lot of other management
tools that are available that would allow fishermen to fish
that are not even being addressed or looked at. It's just these
vast, sweeping closures that push fishermen like myself into
areas that they shouldn't be in. We should not be out there. We
don't belong there. We have small vessels. This safety issue
has to be addressed, and it's not.
I also wanted to talk about possible aid in the future
because if you want these fleets to ultimately survive, you
have to come up with some type of program that allows them to
be in existence. Everybody comes down to the docks and takes
pictures of these fishing boats, and once they get their
pictures, they're gone until they want pictures again. Well,
pretty soon that's all we're going to have left are those
pictures.
Unfortunately, I wish I could say more.
Senator Kerry. Let me just say to you, don't feel as if
your other views--I mean you have your statement in writing,
correct?
Mr. Scola. Yeah. I have a lot more that----
Senator Kerry. I promise you we will digest it. There's no
thought here that your ideas aren't going to be heard or read--
and we're going to be working very hard with our staff to look
at your suggestions. We'll be getting back to you during the
course of the next weeks. So this is not a vacuum.
Mr. Scola. Well, I was encouraged with the interaction.
Normally, we go to the Council, we tell them what we're
thinking, they all sit there and nobody says a word. At least
you guys ask questions. That's encouraging. Thank you very
much.
Senator Snowe. All of these statements will be reviewed.
STATEMENT OF JAMES BRYAN McCAFFREY, DIRECTOR, MASSACHUSETTS
SIERRA CLUB
Mr. McCaffrey. Madam Chairwoman and Senator Kerry, Senator
Snowe, thank you very much for your leadership and interest in
this. The Sierra Club, we have detailed comments here that I'll
submit in writing so we don't need to take any time. But these
are submitted on behalf of the Massachusetts Chapter of the
Sierra Club of which I'm the Director. We have 25,000 members
in Massachusetts, and we want to work with all the constituents
and communities on this in solving it.
Senator Kerry. Thank you very much.
Senator Snowe. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McCaffrey follows:]
Prepared Statement of James Bryan McCaffrey, Director,
Massachusetts Sierra Club
My name is James Bryan McCaffrey and I am the Director of the
Massachusetts Sierra Club, representing more than 25,000 members in
Massachusetts. On behalf of the Massachusetts Chapter Executive
Committee, and our Sustainable Fisheries Subcommittee, we would like to
thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the reauthorization
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
The collapse of the groundfish and scallop stocks in New England as
consequence of overfishing by the commercial industry has wreaked havoc
on the biological diversity in our coastal oceans; created economic
hardships for fishers and their associated communities; and caused
public distrust in the ability of our governmental stewards (National
Marine Fisheries Service--NMFS and New England Fishery Management
Council--NEFMC) to carry out their responsibilities to protect our
public trust biological resources in the ocean. It is not the intent of
the Massachusetts Chapter-Sierra Club to rehash who is responsible for
getting us in our current predicament, but to encourage all parties
(commercial and recreational fishers, consumers, environmental groups,
governmental regulators, and the general public) to move forward toward
a policy to recover depleted fisheries stocks and develop a sustainable
fishery management policy for the future in order to prevent a repeat
of recent history. Moreover, despite the success of many components of
the fisheries management plans which have led to preliminary signs of
recovery of some species, the challenge to adopt viable long term
sustainable fisheries policies remains.
The situation in which we have too many vessels chasing too few
fish (overcapitalized industry) remains, despite recent NMFS efforts to
buy back vessels and NEFMC endeavors to reduce fishing mortality under
amendment 7 to the New England multispecies groundfish fishery
management plan. Still, we need to move towards addressing issues of
controlling open access, developing management measures to limit
fishing effort, and to address allocation of living marine resources
(LMRs) between the commercial and recreational fishing interests.
We need a new conceptual perspective to move towards a sustainable
fisheries policy (Charles, 1994; Christie, 1993). Dr. Carl Safina,
Director of National Audubon Society's Living Oceans Program (and
former member of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council--MAFMC),
has pointed out that we need to stop viewing marine fish as commodities
to be harvested, but recognize that fish are wildlife that are an
important component of a healthy ocean ecosystem. Current commercial
fishing practices (gill nets and draggers) currently change the
biological composition of the ocean ecosystem both directly (excess
fishing mortality on target species and bycatch of nontarget finfish,
marine mammals, marine birds, sea turtles, etc.) and indirectly (damage
to epibenthic invertebrates on the bottom as a consequence of otter
trawls and ghost fishing in abandoned gill nets). As a consequence the
demersal fish community on Georges Bank has changed from one dominated
by cod and haddock to one dominated by dogfish and skates, with an
accompanying explosion in the populations of pelagic species such as
Atlantic mackerel and sea herring which has shifted the feeding grounds
of large whale species, pelagic seabirds, and pinnipeds (Hofman, 1995;
Kenney et al., 1996). These unprecedented changes in the composition at
the top of the food chain are likely to impact the biodiversity in
other components of coastal ocean ecosystem (Olver et al., 1995). Also
the indirect impacts of fishing gear on the bottom organisms and ghost
gill nets impoverish oceanic biodiversity (Auster et al., 1996; Dayton
et al., 1995; Hofman, 1990).
In order to move towards a sustainable fisheries management
strategy we need to adopt a precautionary approach in which management
errs on the side of conservation in the face of uncertainty (Hewison,
1996). The current scientific advice provided by the NMFS is
accompanied by a variety of sources of uncertainty in the assessment
advice, stemming from incomplete knowledge of stock size and natural
mortality rate; incorrect assumptions in the underlying mathematical
models; and projection techniques of limited efficacy in the face of
habitat degradation, climate change, and the inability to predict the
socioeconomic behavior of the harvesters (Rosenberg and Restrepo, 1994;
Sharp, 1995). In the past this uncertainty has caused the NEFMC to
allow excess harvesting rates by the commercial industry. In the future
we need to adopt a precautionary approach in which we allocate harvest
levels well below optimal sustainable yield (OSY), with the onus being
placed upon the commercial fishers to justify harvest levels above this
reduced amount. Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Sustainable
Fisheries Act offers further opportunities that each Fishery Management
Plan (FMP) will have its essential fish habitat described (including an
assessment of the impacts of fishing gear and habitat degradation from
pollution or loss of inshore nursery areas, such as wetlands and
seagrass beds); support conservation engineering programs to reduce
bycatch; and promulgate measures to reduce overfishing. Long term
ecological health of the coastal ocean and sustainability of the
biodiversity needs to dominate short term economic considerations. We
need a greater focus on managing the behavior of fishers, as opposed to
the current emphasis on managing fish populations from a strictly
biological perspective.
The regulatory groups (NMFS-NER and NEFMC) need to take action and
make provisions as follows:
Provide membership in the NEFMC to non-commercial fishing
representatives (recreational fishers, environmental groups,
and consumer groups). Need a greater sensitivity to conflict of
interest issues from commercial interests on the council (fox
guarding the chicken coop analogy which diminishes public
trust).
Establish marine reserves to serve as a recruitment areas
for fish, protection of fish breeding and nursery areas, and to
provide a baseline for evaluating the impact of otter trawl/
scallop dredge fishing gear on the bottom invertebrate
communities (could make the amendment 7 closed areas I, II, and
Nantucket Lightship permanent and seasonally close
Massachusetts Bay/Great South Channel area). This would also
protect migrating Northern right whales, humpback whales, and
harbor porpoises (see Roberts, 1997; Auster and Malatesta,
1995).
Set aside a component of the TAC for less environmentally-
damaging fishing techniques. Hook and line fisheries are more
selective, produce a higher quality product for the consumer,
and don't damage the habitat as much. The trip limits for hook
and line fishers should be high enough to support two persons
per boat in order to promote safety. The TAC and days at sea/
trip limit regulations should be adjusted in order spread out
fishing effort seasonally. This would prevent the race for fish
by large offshore trawlers which reduces the value of landed
product for all participants.
Develop better coordination of fisheries management
jurisdictional issues between the state waters (0-3 mile),
federal waters (3-200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone), and
international Hague Line (U.S./Canadian conflicts). Since the
fish and marine mammal stocks move without regard to artificial
political boundaries, we need better coordination between the
coastal states, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
(ASMFC), NMFS/NEFMC and Canadian Department of Fisheries &
Oceans (DFO).
Develop a government-funded conservation engineering effort
to develop less destructive fishing gear to reduce bycatch and
damage to the bottom organisms. This can be conducted by
commercial fishers in conjunction with Sea Grant programs and
funded by Saltonstall-Kennedy and Fishing Industry Grant funds
supplied by NMFS.
Establish programs to mitigate habitat degradation from
land-based nonpoint sources of pollution and elimination of
nearshore nursery areas/breeding grounds (coastal wetlands and
seagrass beds; gravel habitats in rivers). This needs to be
based upon an assessment of areas already degraded (for which
we lack an easily accessible database); success/failure of past
mitigation efforts (for which we lack adequate follow up
monitoring due to understaffed NMFS habitat programs); and lack
of research on the dynamic habitat requirements of fish at
different life stages (resulting from lack of NMFS resources
devoted to this effort). As our depleted stocks recover from
overfishing, mitigation of degraded habitat will become a more
critical bottleneck in developing a sustainable fishery policy
(Dayton et al., 1995; Langton et al., 1995).
Devote greater attention to the threats to wildlife posed by
biotoxins, bacteria, and viruses. Even though it is recognized
that biological hazards pose a human health threat from the
consumption of contaminated shellfish (Ahmed, 1991; Grimes,
1991), not enough attention has been focused on the threat
posed to wildlife from these human-based sources of pollution
(Geraci et al., 1989; White et al., 1989). Of special relevance
is the threat posed by the ocean disposal of dredge spoils
(Massachusetts Bay Dredge Spoil Disposal site) and municipal
wastewater (Massachusetts Water Resources Authority outfall).
Comments on NPDES permits for pollution from point sources
discharged into the coastal ocean should address issues of
changes in the biological integrity of the receiving system, as
well as the toxic effects emanating from the chemicals
discharged.
Improve ability of stock assessments to incorporate
information on habitat, bycatch mortality, climate change, and
socioeconomic behavior of the commercial/recreational fishing
community (Sharp, 1995). Since uncertainty will still exist
even with such improvements, a precautionary approach should be
adopted, the primary purpose of which would be to protect the
biodiversity and integrity of the coastal ocean ecosystem which
is the ultimate guarantor for a sustainable fishery (Charles,
1994; Christie, 1993; Dayton et al., 1995; Olver et al., 1995).
Improve coordination with the scientific community to
utilize area closures and restrictions on fishing effort as
large-scale experiments to determine the efficacy of management
actions (adaptive management approach). This would require
maintaining closures even after some stocks recover, but this
information would help manage fisheries better in the long
term.
Provide more resources to the Coast Guard and NMFS to
enforce fishery regulations and collect better information on
landings, bycatch, and interactions between fisheries and
marine mammal, seabird, sea turtle, and non-target finfish
species. These non-target fish are forage for other components
of the oceanic foodchain.
NMFS Fishing Capacity Reduction Initiative (FCRI) has
fostered social justice, but is likely to fall short in the
areas of resource conservation (limited effort reduction will
be reallocated to the fishing effort of the remaining fleet and
inactive permit holders) and economic efficiency (effort
reduction will be overcome by input stuffing, input
substitution and technological improvement) (Gates et al.,
1997).
Need to eliminate governmental subsidies that prop up
unsustainable fishing operations, whether these occur as a
result of low-cost industry loans, development of fisheries for
``underutilized'' species, market research and development,
etc. Government financial aid should be limited to retiring
fishing vessels and gear and retraining displaced fishers.
Provide a forum outside the FMC format for the variety of
constituents interested in harvesting and protecting our public
fisheries resources to agree upon the way forward toward a
sustainable fishery policy from our present situation (since
the problem has political, socioeconomic, and allocation
components which can only be solved if all parties work towards
a solution without castigating one another).
STATEMENT OF RON PHILLIPS, PRESIDENT,
COASTAL ENTERPRISES
Mr. Phillips. Good afternoon. I submitted my comments in
writing. Thank you very much for just a moment. My name is Ron
Phillips. I'm president of Coastal Enterprises, a community
development corporation and community development financial
institution in Maine. We do a lot of financing of businesses in
Maine, especially natural resources and particularly the
fishing industry. We directed $23 million into this industry.
I'm here to say that it is a very lively and vibrant industry
in Maine. We're doing a lot of deals. We have a lot of demand
on capital. And my testimony is about access to capital. And
I'd like to encourage you to consider in supporting the
reauthorization of this, of the Act, and also be very sensitive
to the biology and the participation of fishermen and data
collection, which we encourage. I want to encourage and urge
you to consider ways to create some capital to recapitalize our
funds to keep this industry going, which is so important to the
traditions and communities and values of people in New England.
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you. First of all, let me just
apologize. I'm sorry there isn't enough time. I want to assure
you that the Subcommittee will review all of the statements.
There are ten legislative days to include additional comments,
statements, concerns, and questions for the record. We'll be
reviewing all the comments that have been issued here today.
Unlike the Senate, I served in the House of Representatives for
16 years and more often than not we only had one minute to
speak. And so I sympathize. It's not an easy thing to do. I do
appreciate your willingness to be here today, and I realize
that it's no small sacrifice. I want to assure you that we
understand the value of this industry to you, your families,
your state, and your region. As a fellow Mainer, I certainly
appreciate that.
I want to express my appreciation to Senator Kerry for his
leadership and his contributions. Again, I assure you that
we're going to be working together to move forward on this very
critical and valuable process. So again, I want to thank you.
Senator Kerry. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, thank
you.
Senator Snowe. The hearing is adjourned.
(Whereupon the hearing was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.)
A P P E N D I X
Fishermen's Ad Hoc Committee,
Dartmouth, MA, April 18, 2000.
Hon. Olympia J. Snowe,
Chairperson,
Senate Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries,
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee,
Washington, DC.
Re: Comment letter on ITQ's
Dear Senator Snowe:
The Fishermen's Ad Hoc Committee consists of boatowners and
fishermen from the northeast who are engaged in the scallop fishery and
have been actively represented in the past before the New England
Fishery Management Council (the ``NEFMC''). This comment letter is to
record the opposition of our Committee to individual transferable
quotas (``ITQ's'') in the limited entry scallop fishery.
Our group has opposed similar proposals previously put forth by an
``interested few'' under the names of consolidation and leasing who
sought to transfer and stack limited access scallop permits and the
``days at sea'' (DAS) which are allotted to set a quota or limit on the
scallop total catch by limiting the number of fishing days for a
scallop vessel each year. Our opposition goes back over four years and
is well stated in our comment letter to the NEFMC dated October 31,
1997. A copy of our letter with its attachments is attached hereto and
sets out a position that is equally applicable to ITQ's today.
When ITQ's were put on hold until October 1, 2000 the small group
mentioned in our letter of 1997 worked vigorously to get around that
prohibition claiming it did not apply to ``stacking'' or
``consolidating'' licenses or transferring ``days at sea'' because
quotas were limited to weight and volume and did not specifically
include time spent fishing in the allotted DAS.
The matter was attempted to be imposed as a regulation which
required public hearings and comment. It was overwhelmingly opposed by
scallop fishermen up and down the coast from Maine to Florida and its
implementation was checked but not defeated. A member of the NEFMC (now
its Chairperson) was the paid consultant and spokesman for the small
group seeking the change to allow the transfer of permits and/or
fishing days. His efforts almost succeeded when the catch-word was
changed to leasing to allow the transfer of DAS. The NEFMC, responding
to the opposition in the industry, resisted the change in 1998 but
succumbed to the pressure of the small group and its spokesman to allow
leasing to be implemented through the regulatory framework process
which would not require the public hearings and notice of a regulation
change for its adoption. Ms. Barbara Stevenson as a Council member from
Maine was able to neutralize the framework vote by amending the motion
to require that public hearings be required before any framework
adjustment can be implemented.
The arguments against ITQ's remain the same as those against
``consolidation'' and ``leasing''! At the present time the class 2
(full-time) limited access scallop fishing permit (``license'') is
attached to a fishing vessel and goes with the vessel or its
replacement vessel. This is so even though the permit purports to go to
the owner as an individual or as a corporate entity. We believe that an
individual fishing quota makes sense when we have sufficient scientific
data to determine a total allowable catch in a particular fishery.
However, the fishing permit should not be separated from the fishing
vessel and it should not be transferable in whole or in part which
would allow another to acquire and be guaranteed a larger share of
scallops in a season than its competitor. Fishermen should be allowed
to conduct business in the fishery on a fair and level playing field.
To allow ITQ's is to encourage speculation and to threaten the
small family-owned fishing boat business and the fishing communities.
It will open the door for dominance in the scallop fishery by a
prosperous few and will not foster conservation which is the essence of
the Magnuson Act and the Sustainable Fisheries Act. ITQ's will destroy
a way of life for the small family owned fishing business as it did in
the surf clam fishery and as it has in Alaska. Iceland is presently
embroiled in litigation that seeks to eliminate ITQ's.
Our Committee is opposed to ITQ's in the scallop fishery.
Very truly yours,
John A. Birknes, Jr.,
Fishermen's Ad Hoc Committee.
______
Massachusetts Audubon Society,
Wenham, MA, April 10, 2000.
Hon. Olympia J. Snowe,
Chairperson,
Senate Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries,
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Snowe:
My name is Robert Buchsbaum. I work as the Coastal Ecologist for
the Massachusetts Audubon Society and have a Ph.D. in marine ecology. I
serve on Essential Fish Habitat Technical Team for the New England
Fisheries Management Council. It has been involved in delineating
essential fish habitats, habitat areas of particular concern, and
identifying conservation issues related to fish habitats. I also serve
on the Scientific and Statistical Committee of the Council.
The Massachusetts Audubon Society believes that the Sustainable
Fisheries Act is working to improve fish stocks in New England, and we
urge Congress not to weaken it. A number of stock, such as yellowtail
flounder and haddock are showing signs of recovery, as a result of
management actions required under the SFA. The law itself is good and
needs to be given more time to fully provide its benefits we envision
it will. The fisheries crisis in New England is something that
developed over more than ten years of lax management, so it will take
some time for many fish stocks to recover to sustainable levels. Where
we believe the Act has fallen down is on some aspects of its
implementation by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the
regional councils.
Our organizations has been most actively involved in the Essential
Fish Habitat (EFH) provisions of the AFA. This is an innovative aspect
of fisheries management that we strongly support. It moves fisheries
management toward an ecosystems approach and away from single species.
It is important to maintain and strengthen this approach, which
recognizes the connection between habitat and fish productivity and
also the need to be conservative. New England Council has done a good
job in identifying habitats and problems to those habitats.
Major habitat issues that need to be addressed:
1. More funding is needed for habitat research. Research is needed
to:
identify habitats that are really important to the fish at
a finer scale than is presently possible,
examine how gear, particularly trawls and dredges impact
different types of habitats,
examine the effects of closed areas on a variety of fish.
Closed areas work, as evidenced by the increase in sea
scallops in Closed Area 2 (Georges Bank).
2. The New England Fisheries Management Council and other regional
councils have not acted to address impacts to fisheries habitats,
particularly those from fishing activities. We support the suggestions
of the Marine Fish Conservation Network who want to change the burden
of proof so that gears would have to prove they are not harming habitat
rather than the other way around. This would be done for new gear and
for all gear in closed areas that are being reopened.
3. We need to support and maintain the consultative process for
projects that might impact EFH. NMFS and the regional fisheries
management councils provide the only review of projects that focuses on
potential impacts on fish habitat. Evidence is that it has not caused
any undue extra regulatory burden on project proponents or regulatory
agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers.
We thank you for this opportunity to comment and look forward to
continued progress in the conservation and management of New England
fisheries.
The Massachusetts Audubon Society is a voluntary association of
people whose primary mission includes the preservation of a
Massachusetts environment that supports both wildlife and people. The
Society's programs encompass three broad areas: biological
conservation, environmental education and advocacy. The Society is one
of the largest independent conservation organizations in New England
with a membership of 63,000 households.
Sincerely yours,
Robert Buchsbaum, Ph.D.,
Coastal Ecologist.
______
Prepared Statement of James A. Donofrio, Executive Director,
Recreational Fishing Alliance
It is very disappointing to the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA)
that the issue of eliminating spotter aircraft from the harpoon and
general category fisheries has not been addressed by the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in a timely manner. There has been a
recognition by the Highly Migratory Species Advisory Panel and most
bluefin tuna fishermen in the harpoon and general categories for some
time now, that the use of spotter planes goes against the philosophy
that led to the development of the harpoon category and that the
general category has operated under until recently. Since NMFS has not
fulfilled its management responsibilities on this issue, we are forced
to ask for your help.
The harpoon fishery has been a traditional bluefin fishery for
about as long as there has been a fishery--it outdates most if not all
other gear types. The sentiment for retaining this traditional fishery
with emphasis on the one-on-one battle of fisherman and their keen
sight against giant bluefin has been strong over the years. When
bluefin tuna regulations were first implemented there was recognition
of this fishery and when quotas were drastically reduced in the early
1980's, again there was recognition of the need to retain this
traditional fishery and provide the opportunity for the fishermen in
small boats, pursuing their quarry on the few calm days when the fish
could be seen well at the surface, to take more than one fish. This
respect for and desire to preserve the traditional fishery existed then
and exists now. This can be seen when looking at the results of public
hearings on this issue and all the comments received from fishermen.
There were no airplanes guiding the fishermen in the traditional
fishery--only their skill at spotting and then moving in on a fish at
the surface to where they could throw their harpoon by sight. There was
concern, however, as early as 1980 that bigger boats pursuing swordfish
with aircraft would get into the bluefin fishery and destroy the
traditional aspect of the fishery. This concern was realized about five
or six years later and the catch rate was skewed towards those vessels
with aircraft prompting an attempt by traditional harpooners in 1988 to
get the Government to ban the use of aircraft to assist in the capture
of bluefin. The desire of the fishermen in this category has been
ignored too long. The message that has been sent to NMFS can not get
any stronger than this. Spotter aircraft in the harpoon category
destroy the objective of sustaining a traditional harpoon fishery. They
must be eliminated.
The same argument can be made for the general category fishery
since aircraft were not a traditional part of this fishery. More
important in the general category, however, is the fact that spotter
aircraft substantially diminish the impact of effort controls that NMFS
and fishery participants worked hard to implement in an attempt to
maximize the use of available resources and split the catch among as
many users as possible. This philosophy to spread out the catch over
participants, space and time was recognized in 1980 regulatory
documents and has persisted in bluefin regulatory actions since with
the exception of the use of spotter aircraft which is counter to that
philosophy. In addition to being a guiding philosophy for domestic
allocation of bluefin under the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, the
National Standards for the Magnuson-Stevens Act (Section 301) states:
``Allocation of fishing privileges shall be (A) fair and equitable to
all fishermen; (B) reasonably calculated to promote conservation; and
(C) carried out in such a manner that no particular individual,
corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of such
privileges.'' The use of spotter aircraft in the harpoon and general
categories goes against all of these standards. First, it is not fair
and equitable but provides vessels using aircraft a distinct advantage
over vessels fishing traditional techniques. Also, it ensures that the
opportunity to catch bluefin will not be equitable but skewed towards
those vessels with aircraft since their catch rate is greater and the
season closes quicker. Second, the use of aircraft certainly is not
calculated to promote conservation but to catch as many fish as
possible. With this ``tool,'' the temptation to high-grade is greater
and more undersize fish are killed and released than under traditional
fishing techniques which is certainly not conservation. There are
letters from fishermen documenting this. The third part to the standard
is violated for the same reason as the first--the vessels with aircraft
catch an excessive share. Again, there is information from fishermen
that document the difference in catch between vessels using planes and
not using planes.
One of the most important reasons for banning spotter aircraft in
the general category is directly related to responsible management and
thus conservation of bluefin tuna resources. The criteria listed in
1982, and remaining in effect today, for the preferred management
strategy included language from the assessment scientists that ``the
effort that generates the catch is related to the fishing mortality
rate.'' This requires a measurable unit of effort such as vessel days
or hours fished which is proportional to the fishing mortality rate.
The traditional general category fishery has measurable units of vessel
effort and has been the basis for the very important large fish index
which is used in the assessment for the status of Atlantic bluefin tuna
stocks. The addition of aircraft to this category, however, throws in a
bias that can not be measured. The effort from the vessels using
spotter planes is not quantifiable since catching the fish has nothing
to do with vessel effort but plane effort which is not quantifiable.
Basically, with airplanes, you have a catch-per-unit-of-effort (CPUE)
that doesn't relate to changes in abundance. Therefore, the catch and
effort data from vessels capturing fish with the aid of aircraft should
not be used in developing the large fish index used in the bluefin tuna
assessment. Each data point is important and the International
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas assessment scientists
can not afford to loose data key to determining the status of bluefin
stocks. Spotter aircraft should be banned from this fishery so there
can be use of the CPUE data from all the vessels in the fishery.
Also, there is a safety issue that is particularly important as
more and more boats get into the fishery. Even on days when visibility
may be poor for the vessels on the water, a plane can be seen in the
clear skies above and when this plane circles, it is instinct to rush
towards that area. This can be dangerous when a number of boats, many
that can go very fast, rush to the same area.
I hope that you can see that there has been much thought put into
this issue by the fishermen involved in these fisheries and that they
have developed a record of opposing spotter planes in the harpoon and
general categories. This information and comments/requests have been
presented to NMFS and we have been waiting for a regulation to
implement a ban on spotter planes in these categories. Despite the
efforts of many organizations and individuals, we are frustrated by the
delay and, thus, are seeking your help in getting this ban implemented.
______
Prepared Statement of Ronald Enoksen, Eastern Fisheries, Inc.,
New Bedford, MA
I am the third generation in the sea scallop harvesting business. I
represent twelve vessels in New Bedford, MA, all of which fish for sea
scallops. These vessels fish off New England and Middle Atlantic
waters.
I have seen many changes in this business. I can remember being on
my father's boat back in 1976 fishing for scallops with no meat count
before the 200-mile limit. We would be catching scallops off the coast
of New Jersey along side with the Canadian scallopers. The
implementation of the 200-mile limit and the Magnuson Act has generated
many good changes particularly protecting our resource from the foreign
fishing vessels. It also created new work for the shipyards for
construction of new vessels. Unfortunately, it also created excess
fishing capacity since the new vessels were not replacing other
existing boats. This increase in the fishing capacity put tremendous
pressure on our resource, which in turn created an uphill battle for
all regional councils to protect the diminishing resources.
The council would address the excess fishing capacity problems by
having minimum fish size and a moratorium on permits issued. The
council would also close off areas to fishing and force vessels to
spend more time at the dock than out fishing. Next, the council would
require a fishing gear change that reduces the efficiency of the vessel
to catch the seafood. Later on the council would address all other
species caught besides the directed species.
I have followed the rulemaking in the New England Fisheries
Management Council process. I have attended many meetings from Planning
Develop Team, Advisor, Oversight committee, and the Council levels
since the Amendment 4 of the sea scallop. I became directly involved in
the council process when I volunteered to be sea scallop and monkfish
advisor in 1998. I have seen how our council rulemaking process works.
In my mind all regional councils have an enormous responsibility to
address the problems of rebuilding and protecting our resources. Now
the U.S. Congress has given Sustainable Fishery Act to the Regional
Councils, which requires the Council to rebuild the biomass within ten
years. The biggest threat to our resource is too many boats capable of
chasing for the same fish. Right now there are too many vessels with
too few days at sea chasing for the same fish that are not in the
existing closed areas.
The majority of the fishing vessels are approaching twenty-five
years old. Some vessel owners have difficulty in spending monies to
take proper care of their vessels. There is no economic incentive to
build new or upgrade vessels. Few or no banking institution would
finance new vessels or upgrade because too few fishing days are
allowed. Currently the crews are jumping from boat to boat to try to
maintain a year's pay when the boats are tied up two thirds of the
year. This is where I would strongly encourage all Senators to please
lift the moratorium on ITQ's, IFQ's, and quota based programs. I
believe that by giving the Regional Councils more latitude they address
the over fishing capacity. Give the Council more options to develop a
sustaining fishery off our coast. I know that ITQ's, IFQ's, and quota
based programs are not perfect but at least allow each Regional Council
to explore the concepts. The Councils could learn from the downfalls
and problems of other existing quota-based programs.
Hopefully, Congress will consider lifting the moratorium which will
in turn give each Regional Council more latitude in the decision-making
process to address the issue of over fishing capacity. Thank you for
this opportunity to speak.
______
Prepared Statement of Ronald L. Phillips, President,
Coastal Enterprises Inc.
Senator Snowe and members of the Subcommittee,
I am pleased to present testimony in support of reauthorization of
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act hearing.
My comments relate to the need to continue investing in the New England
fishery to preserve the infrastructure and support a way of life,
values and traditions so important to many coastal communities and
families.
Coastal Enterprises, Inc. (CEI) is a nonprofit community
development corporation and community development financial institution
based in Wiscasset, Maine. We finance small businesses, community
facilities, and affordable housing. Development of value-added natural
resource industries has been a major economic sector of CEI's and a
vital part of the state's economic development activity in this sector.
In the past, and with the infusion of FDA revolving loan funds three
years ago, we continue to focus and target scarce financial resources
toward Maine's traditional and emerging marine resource based
enterprises.
Despite the doom and gloom headlines of the regional papers, this
sector represents an important asset and source of income for coastal
communities. To capture the valuable web of shoreside linkages, a
recent study from the University of Maine calculated that for every
$1.00 of seafood landed an additional $2.39 of income is generated. The
danger we face in the current climate of stock assessment and
rebuilding is that we will underestimate the importance of maintaining
and carefully building upon the industry infrastructure. This is not
just traditional wharves and piers, but the irreplaceable skills that
the shrinking pool of professional Captain and crew contribute.
CEI's portfolio continues to grow and responds to both traditional
sector needs as well as new venture opportunities emerging in
aquaculture and marine biotech. To date, we have directly invested over
$23 million in 116 fisheries-related businesses that support well over
1000 captain, crew, and shoreside jobs from York to Washington County.
Worth mentioning is that over the last five years our portfolio
performance has improved as our loan volume has increased.
At the same time that we see the real need for community
development financing, we also believe that the future of Maine's
fishing industry depends upon our ability to better understand the
biology of the resources we harvest and to effectively manage them.
From a community economic development perspective, the challenge of
managing marine resources for the future and maintaining the commercial
viability of this critical industry takes place deal by deal in
specific coastal ports and towns. Biological data is key to resource
understanding and management. Financial capital is critical to
investing in the future of Maine's Fishing Industry.
We have submitted a proposal to the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation for our Fishtag financing in which borrowers agree to
contribute scarce biological data towards management efforts. Our main
goal right now is to raise the loan and investment capital to meet the
growing demand. In the last four months alone, for example, we loaned
out over $800,000.
There are clearly many elements to the Magnuson-Stevens Act
critical for ongoing management of the fishery. The 1996 amendments
established guidelines for research to better determine the social,
economic and cultural value and impact of the fishery as stocks
plunged, and efforts were made to preserve and rebuild. Findings from
these studies suggest that reinvestment presents a critical
opportunity. Our recommendation is that resources are allocated to new
venture opportunities, and that the Subcommittee to consider ways to
setaside funds to capitalize revolving loan funds. CEI alone could use
additional funds to build on our existing portfolio.
We look forward to working with you on these issues and others that
are crucial to Maine's Fishing Industry. Thank you for the opportunity
to present this brief testimony.
Attachment
CEI's Fisheries Project
What is the goal: To foster the sustainable development of Maine's Fisheries and
fishing communities by making investments, initiating
projects, supporting policies and assisting marine related
enterprises that:
generate quality jobs;
add value to marine resources;
strengthen marine infrastructure;
improve management of marine resources;
reuse and or recycle waste streams
What are the terms: 7% fixed rate, 5-10 years
How much have we lent: $7.9 million and leveraged an additional $15 million
Our Bank Partners: Androscoggin Bank, Bath Savings Institution, Camden National
Bank, Damriscotta Bank and Trust, Farm Credit of Maine,
Finance Authority of Maine, First National Bank of
Damriscotta, Fleet Bank, Key Bank of Maine, Northeast Bank,
Peoples Heritage Bank, Pepperell Trust Co., Union Trust
How many deals: 116 loans
Who do we lend to: 38.9% harvesters, 15.1% processors, 11.9% shoreside suppliers,
11.1% wholesale, 7.9% infrastructure, 11.1% new marine
related, 4% retail
Uses: $10.7 million fixed assets, $11.7 million in working capital
Portfolio Strength: Loss rate under 1%
Jobs: 953 full time and 172 part time; Avg. job pays $10/hour with
some benefits
What is a FISHTAG: A FISHTAG commits the borrower to collect and contribute scarce
biological data toward a management effort. CEI links the
borrower, regulatory agencies, with the scientific community
to define the data, methodology, and monitoring protocols.
______
Prepared Statement of David K. Roach, Executive Director,
Florida Inland Navigation District, Jupiter, FL
Good morning Members of the Subcommittee, my name is David K.
Roach. I am the Executive Director of the Florida Inland Navigation
District, an independent unit of Florida State Government that serves
as the ``local sponsor'' of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway project
in Florida. The District's Board of Commissioners has directed me to
provide this testimony on behalf of the commercial and recreational
users of the waterway which come from all states of our nation. My
testimony today will provide some background on the waterway and the
effect that Essential Fish Habitat is having on our ability to maintain
the waterway.
Background on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway is an integral part of our
nation's navigation system. Originally developed in 1881 by private
interests in conjunction with the State of Florida, the waterway today
is a federal/state project serving many national, regional and local
interests. On an annual basis the waterway carries close to 1 million
tons of commercial cargo, transports over 500,000 cruise passengers,
provides connecting access to 18 inlets and ports along Florida east
coast, supports 33,000 commercial waterway related jobs, supports a $10
billion per year recreational marine industry, provides access for over
500,000 recreational vessels, and supports $320 billion of land side
real estate values.
The waterway also serves as part of the nation's national defense
system, provides access and recreational opportunities to the six
million residents of Florida's east coast, provides a destination to
the millions of tourists from other states or other countries that come
to Florida each year to enjoy our waterway and beaches, and provides
environmental benefits to our natural lagoons and waterways. Yes, the
waterway channel does provide environmental benefits by facilitating
the mixing of ocean and lagoon waters to create excellent water clarity
to support marine habitats that make our lagoons and bays some of the
most productive and diverse in the world. Additionally, the waterway
provides a corridor for the migration of any species such as the
endangered manatees. Indeed, the waterway is essential to the quality
of our lives along the eastern seaboard.
Waterway Maintenance Status
Since 1985, the District has been working on a Long Range Dredged
Material Management Plan for the waterway that, when implemented, will
provide a permanent infrastructure of sites to properly store, manage,
and recycle 50 million cubic yards of dredged material over the next 50
years. The primary goal of the plan is to allow the waterway to be
maintained in perpetuity without further impacts to our wetland
resources. The implementation of the plan will preserve over 25,000
acres of wetlands and submerged land resources. Our plan is the most
forward thinking dredged material management plan in the nation.
The District has currently invested over $5 million in producing
the plan, $50 million in land acquisition costs, and $10 million in
development of the infrastructure. Our dredged material plan is
currently the most implemented plan in the nation. Future investment
costs will be an additional $10 million for land acquisition, $50
million for infrastructure development, and approximately $300 million
for maintenance dredging over the next 50 years. While dredging and
infrastructure costs are the responsibility of the federal government
sponsor, the District has stepped forward to commit at least $80
million of these costs for better maintenance of the waterway in
Florida. Pursuant to our agreement with Congress we will not seek
reimbursement of these expenses. As you can see the District has made a
substantial commitment to the maintenance of this waterway that will
protect the environment and provide safe and efficient navigation.
Effects of Essential Fish Habitat on Waterway Maintenance
While the spatial area of waterway channel is a very small portion
of the acreage of the natural and man made waterways that the channel
passes through, the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Florida is
entirely within the designated boundary of Essential Fish Habitat for
several species including red drum, penaeid shrimp, gray and lane
snapper, gag grouper, and spanish mackerel. This designation of
essential fish habitat in the waterway channel was done without any
specific investigations being performed in the channel itself
A recent request to perform routine maintenance dredging of a
section of the waterway channel, that has been maintenance dredged
every four years since 1965, resulted in an adverse impact letter to
Essential Fish Habitat from the National Marine Fisheries Service. In
their letter, the Service requested that we avoid or mitigate for the
impact to the sparse seagrass bed that had moved into the channel since
the 1995 dredging event. We could not avoid the potential impact
because of the linear nature of the channel and more significant
resources located outside of the channel.
We had never heard of a request to mitigate for a maintenance
project so we contacted the Service to determine the rationale and
authority for this mitigation requirement. Conversations with Service
personnel indicated that ``This is a new day.'' They also indicated
that the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Habitat Protection Plans
developed by the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council did not
exclude the channel and required mitigation for all seagrass impacts.
They further indicated that the Act and the Plan did not provide them
with any flexibility in their decision-making. Finally, they stated
that if seagrasses were to recolonize in the channel after we had
dredged and mitigated this year, ``We would probably have to mitigate
the next time we dredged'' as well. This seemed to be an unreasonable
approach to environmental protection in relation to the routine
maintenance of an authorized public project.
With the necessity to begin the project because of environmental
timelines on the use of the beach placement area, we had to eliminate
this portion of the channel from our permitting request. We expect
that, until this issue is resolved, this shoal will continue to grow.
As it grows toward the water surface it will be routinely impacted by
more and more vessels attempting to legally use the waterway channel
until eventually the seagrass will be removed by this vessel impact.
Therefore, it does not seem that the Service's goal of protecting this
seagrass bed will be realized.
Comments on Essential Fish Habitat
The District is of the opinion from our experience that the
definition of Essential Fish Habitat is too broad. While the waterway
channel may serve as fish habitat it certainly is not ``essential''
fish habitat because of the extreme amount of vessel use and ongoing
maintenance dredging that occurs within the channel limits. These
activities do not support or encourage within the channel a ``substrate
necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to
maturity'' as defined in the Act. It is not reasonable to conclude that
the waterway channel itself is ``necessary'' or ``essential'' for the
fishery. Maintenance dredging of the waterway using today's technology,
a proper dredged material management site, and limited by environmental
permit conditions will not negatively or perpetually alter the
``physical, chemical, and biological properties'' of the channel in
relation to its use by fish.
There have been no specific studies by the Service throughout the
374 mile length of the waterway channel to document resources in the
channel that would meet the definition of essential fish habitat. It
now seems that the Service wants navigation interests to prove that the
channel is not essential fish habitat. A recent resource survey of a
small section of the waterway channel for a channel expansion project
cost the Corps of Engineers $220,000. The cost of this type of survey
for the 374 miles of waterway channel in Florida would be over $3
million.
It is our belief that Congress did not intend for essential fish
habitat protection to preclude or increase the complexity or cost of
routine maintenance dredging of the nation's public navigation system.
The District is of the opinion that the Act sought to protect areas
outside of maintained channels and harbors that provide the
``essential'' habitat for the fisheries. The District supports this
concept. It is not logical that altered and maintained channels and
harbors would constitute ``essential'' fish habitat. A change to the
definition of essential fish habitat in the Magnuson-Stevens Act to
exclude public channels and harbors from this provision would rectify
this unintended consequence.
Conclusion
The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway is an integral part of our
nation's navigation system. The application of Essential Fish Habitat
provisions to the waterway channel is an unintended circumstance that
threatens the efficient maintenance and safe use of the waterway. The
District requests that the Subcommittee modify the definition of
essential fish habitat to exclude the nation's waterway channels and
harbors from this designation. Thank you for this opportunity to
address the Subcommittee and provide this testimony.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Kerry to
Dr. Brian Rothschild
Multispecies and Ecosystem Management
There is certainly a need to begin instituting multispecies
management measures in New England so we can ensure that fishermen have
the flexibility to switch among species. However, it is unclear how you
would accomplish this under current guidelines and legislative
requirements.
Question 1. What measures are available to the Council as they
prepare Amendment 13?
Answer. It is possible to develop an index nominal fishing effort
(days-at-sea for given engine horsepower) that is translatable into
species specific fishing mortality.
Question 2. What new tools and authorities are necessary to
institute an effective multispecies management approach?
Answer. Tools include developing a better understanding of 1)
catchability in a multiple species fishery, and 2) biological or
ecological interactions among species. The latter contains some
difficult components because some of these interactions may involve
recruitment.
Question 3. Is there enough flexibility in the National Standard
Guidelines to manage the New England multispecies fishery as a unit?
Answer. I think there is enough flexibility in the National
Standards to manage the New England multispecies fishing. One of the
significant difficulties is the rebuilding idea, which is
scientifically difficult to defend.
Question 4. How close are we to achieving multispecies and
ecosystem management, respectively? Do we need more data to do this?
Answer. In principle, we are close to achieving multiple species
management. Achieving ecosystem management will require substantial
data. Its cost-effectiveness could come into question. The issue is
really not so much ``more data,'' rather, it is developing an improved
conceptual basis for multispecies management. This improved conceptual
basis will need to involve principles of optimality.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Rip Cunningham
Question 1. In the 1999 fishing season, the groundfish regulations
changed five times. Changing the rules for a fishery five times in one
year appears to be a de facto disregard of National Standard 8, which
requires the consideration of socio-economic impacts of regulations on
fishing communities.
A. Do you have any recommendations to increase the focus on such
factors?
Answer. First, to my knowledge, the NE Council has considered
socio-economic impact in all their deliberations. Next, I do not
believe that the whole management process can take a short-term
perspective. If that is the case, then it is reflective of where we
currently are with managing groundfish. Rebuilding groundfish resources
is beneficial to the communities that use those resources. The process
of rebuilding cannot be undertaken without some short-term economic
dislocation. For too long the New England Council has been under the
misapprehension that there can be gain without pain. It has not worked
and cannot work without some sacrifice. The very fact that the Council
is attempting to manage a living resource requires an ability to make
the necessary changes in management on an immediate basis. The easiest
strategy would be to close the entire fishery for a period of time, but
this has not been an acceptable alternative.
B. What can be done to inject more flexibility into the Act?
Answer. Flexibility is, in part, responsible for the failure of a
lot of management efforts by the Council. The flexibility aspect has
been used by commercial fishing participants who don't like regulations
and want to get around them. On the FMP side, flexibility has been
built into the framework management strategy. I do not believe that any
more flexibility is necessary.
Question 2. Please comment on whether you think that the Council
decision-making process involves an adequate level of public
participation and whether establishing standard operating procedures
for its advisory committees would improve the Council's work.
A. Are you aware of any instances when the Council has not
adequately considered an Advisory Committee recommendation? If so,
please explain.
Answer. I am not aware of any instances when the Council has not
adequately considered an Advisory Committee recommendation, although I
am aware of instances where the Council's action may not have reflected
the Committee's suggested approach. Perhaps the best way to manage the
flow of information would be to have the Advisory Committee suggestions
incorporated into the Species Oversight Committee recommendations to
the Council.
Question 3. Do you support the Marine Fish Conservation Network
recommendation that the Magnuson-Stevens Act should be amended to
guarantee that more non-fisherman (specifically members of
environmental organizations) are appointed to the regional fishery
management councils?
Answer. I support better representation on the Councils of the
broad spectrum of user groups interested in our marine resources. By
any measure, the commercial fishing users have dominated the Council
process. If either economic measures or participation levels were used
to determine representation, the Council make-up would be substantially
different. I am also concerned over the amount of influence that State
marine fisheries leaders have over the process, but I do not have any
panacea for that problem.
Question 4. Please state whether or not Congress should extend the
moratorium on Individual Transferable Quotas and how such action would
affect fisheries in New England.
Answer. As I stated in my oral testimony, I have a philosophical
problem with transferring rights to common property resources. I am not
sure that there is any way to mitigate this concern. On the other hand,
I am coming to believe, as stated by Senator Stevens at the Hearing,
that ITQ's may be our last option to try to save some of our fisheries.
Question 5. Please share your views on the conservation and
management of Atlantic highly migratory species such as bluefin tuna
and swordfish.
A. Do you believe that multilateral management through the
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)
is the appropriate approach, or should the United States, through the
regional fishery management councils and the National Marine Fisheries
Service, manage these species unilaterally? Please explain.
Answer. I believe that multilateral management is the only real
solution. Unfortunately, it is a painfully slow process. When it comes
to billfish, such as marlin and swordfish, the US EEZ management can
impact only 5 percent of the total populations, so we need
to have viable international management.
B. Should the United States strictly abide by the time and quota
provisions of an ICCAT adopted rebuilding and conservation program for
a given species, or should the United States be able to impose a
different, either more or less restrictive, rebuilding schedule on its
own fisherman? Please explain.
Answer. It is my feeling that the U.S. should not have the option
to be less restrictive than the quotas imposed by ICCAT. If all the
signatories had that ability, then the negotiations would be a waste of
time and effort. On the other hand, if the U.S. wants to be more
restrictive, that does no harm to the negotiated quotas and benefits
the resource in the long run.
C. Are there times when it would be appropriate for the United
States recreational or commercial fisherman to be required to shoulder
a greater respective conservation burden than that required by ICCAT of
other nations? If so, please explain.
Answer. As stated above, I do not believe more restrictive measures
implemented by the U.S. on their own users has any detrimental impact
on the international process. In some cases, it might be used as
leverage to get other signatories to impose more restrictive measures
themselves. A case in point could be restrictive measures to curb the
waste of billfish bycatch in the longline fishery. This could be used
to try to get other nations to help rebuild marlin populations. We are
virtually the only nation that understands the value of billfish as a
recreational resource.
D. Should all commercial and recreational sectors of HMS fisheries
be expected to provide a comparable level of scientific data on their
fisheries to ICCAT?
Answer. I do not have a problem with the concept, but feel that the
implementation would be the crucial factor. Voluntary logbooks used by
the commercial fishing industry have proven to be unreliable. That
means a much greater number of observers would have to be used. There
is also a great deal of information through observer covered sport
fishing tournaments and this information is not being used.
E. Should ICCAT take greater steps to develop scientific
information on recreational fisheries for highly migratory species
internationally?
Answer. Yes, I feel that they should, but as mentioned above the
U.S. is the only major recreational user of HMS species.
F. What, if anything, would you change about ICCAT and the manner
in which the United States participates therein?
Answer. I would like to see the process move faster and that is not
likely to change. From the U.S. perspective, I feel that the advisory
committee meetings should be held earlier and then the U.S. position
should be discussed with other nations that have been receptive to past
U.S. positions. Discussions prior to the actual meeting might be
fruitful in getting better decisions from the process.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Penelope D. Dalton
Question 1. Over the past year, you have consistently testified
that one of your highest priorities is to improve social and economic
analyses of the agency's regulations. However, the Government
Accounting Office (GAO) report, Problems Remain with National Marine
Fisheries Service's Implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
concluded that NMFS has done little more than identify adverse economic
impacts and has not satisfied the requirement to minimize such impacts.
You have also maintained that National Standard 8 has been an important
part of your decision-making process. Yet, GAO says that economic
impacts are not considered early enough in the decision-making process
to have an impact.
A. What changes, if any, do you plan to make administratively as a
result of GAO's findings and recommendations to address social and
economic impacts in the decision-making process?
Answer. Response was not available at the time hearing went to
press.
B. In response to GAO's comments that NMFS needs to work more
consistently with fishermen in research activities, the agency stated,
in part, ``Realistically, the criticisms are likely to continue as long
as the industry's activities are constrained.'' What changes, if any,
do you plan to make administratively to engage the industry more
effectively?
Answer. Response was not available at the time hearing went to
press.
C. In response to GAO's comment on NMFS's use of best available
scientific information, the agency stated, in part, ``A more complete
description of the `miscommunication' between NMFS, the Councils and
those affected by the decision would be useful, with reference to
specific situations.'' This comment implies that the agency may not be
aware of any specific situations where there has been such a
miscommunication or that the agency simply takes exception to the
comment. Please explain in detail whether or not the agency is aware of
any situations where there has been such a miscommunication.
Furthermore, please explain why a more complete description of such
situations would be useful, and how the agency would respond.
Answer. Response was not available at the time hearing went to
press.
Question 2. During the hearing several witnesses suggested a shift
from current MSY-based Fishery Management Plans to the use of Fishery
Ecosystem Plans. The Secretary's recent decision on dogfish resulted in
the termination of the directed dogfish fishery. Due to the low value
of dogfish, the new catch limits will make the harvest of such fish
economically infeasible. Consequently, it is safe to assume that much
of the effort previously targeted at dogfish will be transferred to
groundfish.
A. Please comment about the abilities of the regional councils to
develop plans that would be ecosystem-based, rather than species-based.
Include comments on how the interaction between dogfish and groundfish
might be better incorporated in an ecosystem plan that accounts for
predator-prey and competitive interactions.
Answer. Response was not available at the time hearing went to
press.
B. Is sufficient scientific information available at this time to
make the shift from species management to ecosystem management?
Answer. Response was not available at the time hearing went to
press.
C. What would the resulting workload be for the regional councils
if we shifted to ecosystem management at this time?
Answer. Response was not available at the time hearing went to
press.
Question 3. One of NMFS's recommendations to change the Magnuson-
Stevens Act would reinstate initial Secretarial review of council
management plans--to allow the Secretary to make a preliminary
determination on council actions. Currently, two to three months elapse
before the Secretary makes a determination on a plan, and if it is
disapproved, or partially disapproved, it can be many more months
before the Council can modify and resubmit the plan. Obviously, this
can leave a particular fishery with a great deal of uncertainty and in
potential danger.
The stated intent of this recommendation is to shorten the time it
takes to get a plan approved. However, this authority was eliminated in
1996 for the very same reason. Please explain why you now think initial
Secretarial review will be more efficient?
Answer. Response was not available at the time hearing went to
press.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Tom Hill
Question 1. The Government Accounting Office (GAO) report, Problems
Remain with National Marine Fisheries Service's Implementation of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, concluded that NMFS has done little more than
identify adverse economic impacts and has not satisfied the requirement
to minimize such impacts. GAO also said economic analyses have not been
sufficiently considered at the beginning of the decision-making
process. Please explain in detail how the Council has minimized the
social and economic impacts without this information?
Answer 1. The New England Council has minimized social and economic
impacts in a number of ways to the extent possible, despite the lack of
detailed social and economic information available. It is also
important to bear in mind that at times it is not possible to minimize
such impacts when overharvesting of a given resource requires effort
reductions in the areas and seasons in which the fish are caught--and
that inevitably this will impact the fleet sectors who fish during
those seasons and in those areas. Nonetheless, our Council is not
insensitive to the communities which derive their livelihood from the
resources we manage.
Many New England Council members have extensive experience
in the fishing industry and, as a result, fully understand the
impacts of difficult but necessary conservation measures.
The general economic impacts of various types of fishery
management measures are well-understood because they have been
used many times before. These include closed areas, increased
fish sizes, mesh sizes, reductions in days-at-sea, and trip
limits. Ironically, economic analyses have demonstrated that
days-at-sea reductions have had less negative and more positive
impacts than other management alternatives (other than
individual quotas, which currently are prohibited), but the
Council has not imposed further days-at-sea reductions because
of very strong opposition from commercial harvesters.
The Council has listened very carefully to public input
including input from the fishing industry and support
industries. This might not be apparent because conservation
restrictions imposed under National Standard 1 often cause
severe short-term negative impacts on all groups.
Examples of this are:
In recent actions to protect Gulf of Maine cod, the Council
chose a mix of measures to minimize adverse impacts. It
implemented seasonal closed areas rather than trip limits when
data indicated the fish were sufficiently concentrated in
specific areas and seasons. It also implemented trip limits to
prevent directed fishing for cod so vessels could continue
fishing for other species rather than more extensive area
closures that would have virtually closed the fishery for
certain groups of inshore vessels. A greater reliance on
reduced trip limits would have increased discards and waste in
the fishery and not achieved mandated conservation targets and
a greater reliance on closures would have had more severe
community impacts.
Another example of how the Council minimized economic
impacts was its choice of a 10-year rebuilding schedule for the
scallop fishery. In the face of uncertain scientific advice,
the Council chose the longest time period allowed under the SFA
to rebuild the resource. It also chose a rebuilding schedule
that delayed days-at-sea reductions. The scallop industry
strongly criticized the Council for giving National Standard 1
priority over National Standard 8 while at the same time the
Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee criticized the
Council for not taking stronger conservation measures. The
Council chose a mid-course. The most recent scientific
assessment show a strong rebuilding of the scallop resource.
It is interesting to note that in a Portland Press Herald article
on the recent increases in groundfish landings, one prominent industry
member who filed a legal suit against Amendment 5 to the Northeast
Multispecies (Groundfish) Plan about five years ago, stated, ``We're
ahead of every year back to '94. It's the fishery management plan
working.''
Question 2. During the hearing several witnesses suggested a shift
from current MSY-based Fishery Management Plans to the use of Fishery
Ecosystem Plans (FEPs). The Secretary's recent decision on dogfish
resulted in the termination of the directed dogfish fishery. Due to the
low value of dogfish, the new catch limits will make the harvest of
such fish economically infeasible. Consequently, it is safe to assume
that much of the effort previously targeted at dogfish will be
transferred to groundfish.
A. Please comment about the ability of the Council to develop plans
that would be ecosystem-based, rather than species-based.
Answer. Changing from the current FMP-based system to a two-tiered
FEP/FMP-based system may be within the ability of the Council at some
future point, but would be possible only if significant hurdles could
be surmounted. It would, of course, require very substantial additional
resources to acquire, analyze, and process all the information that
would be necessary to accurately describe the ecosystem and its many
inter-relationships. It also would be very important to only undertake
this approach with realistic expectations and an understanding of the
time it would take to fully develop and implement such a plan. It would
also be important to have a clear understanding of the limitations that
the Council would face in developing an FEP:
We do not have a complete understanding of the ecological
system that produces and supports fishes; and, like the
essential fish habitat (EFH) initiative begun in 1996, much of
the information required to develop a complete understanding is
not currently available.
We cannot forecast weather or climate and their effects on
ecosystems. Much of the interannual variability of fish
populations may be related to weather and climate cycles that
cannot be predicted, resulting in uncertainty related to the
effects of management measures.
Systems evolve over time and knowing how the system works
does not necessarily mean that an ecosystem would respond
predictably to future changes.
Our management institutions (Congress, NMFS, Councils) are
not necessarily configured to manage at the ecosystem scale.
Fish and the fisheries that pursue them are not easily aligned
with our political and jurisdictional boundaries. The Gulf of
Maine and Georges Bank are significant parts of the Northeast
Shelf ecosystem, yet we share these areas with Canada and
cannot be certain that ecosystem protection and management
measures implemented in the United States will be mirrored in
Canada, resulting at best a confounding of the effects of our
management measures and at worst an undermining of our
measures.
The 1998 Report to Congress by the Ecosystems Principles Advisory
Panel entitled ``Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management,'' recommended that
Councils should continue to use existing Fishery Management Plans (FMP)
for single species or species complexes, but that these should be
amended to incorporate ecosystem approaches consistent with an overall
Fisheries Ecosystem Plan (FEP). The FEP, the report said, would be used
to provide Council members with a clear description of the fundamental
physical, biological and human/institutional context of the
ecosystem(s) within which fisheries are managed. The individual FMP's
would continue to serve as descriptions of the specific management
measures employed for each fishery operating in the region, but these
management measures would be set within the greater context of the
ecosystem described in the FEP. This two-tiered approach would be more
appropriate and easier to implement than the wholesale replacement of
existing FMP's with a new single FEP, according to the report.
Many fisheries managed by the Council operate quite independently
and differently from each other and individual FMP's provide the
Council with the flexibility to make changes to the management and
specifications for these fisheries without impacts to other fisheries.
The overarching FEP theoretically would be used to establish management
baselines and guidelines for the individual FMP's. Once the Council
developed the FEP, all changes to individual FMP's should be relatively
transparent to the other fisheries operating within the ecosystem.
A wholesale change from FMP-based management to FEP-only-based
management, however, may not be within the current ability of the
Council, or at a minimum would be exceedingly difficult to implement.
Rather than establishing a fairly static FEP and making relatively
minor changes to individual FMP's, changes to the management or
operation of an individual fishery would require a change to the
overall FEP which would affect all fisheries and fishermen operating in
the region. There is also the problem of inter-Council jurisdiction.
There are additional issues of concern. The American Association
for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), and hundreds of scientific experts have
described the boundaries of 49 large marine ecosystems (LME's)
worldwide, of which the Northeast Shelf ecosystem is one. This
ecosystem overlaps the jurisdiction of the New England and Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Councils. Requiring a single FEP as the only
management document for all fisheries within the ecosystem would
require a joint plan for all New England and Mid-Atlantic fisheries.
Any changes to one fishery would require joint approval from both
Councils, further complicating an already complex system. Using the
two-tiered approach the two Councils would need to share information
and agree on certain operating principles and guidelines for the shared
ecosystem, but then independently make changes to the individual
fisheries they manage.
B. Is sufficient scientific information available at this time to
make the shift from species management to ecosystem management?
Answer. In their book Exploitable Marine Ecosystems: Their Behavior
and Management, Drs. Taivo Laevastu, Dayton Alverson and Richard
Marasco (1996), describe five basic kinds of information required for
marine ecosystem management:
The determination of the present state of the ecosystem. The
authors describe this as an expensive and nearly continuous
process involving surveys, the collection of fishery dependent
and independent data, analyses of these data using models and
simulations, and the collection and processing of environmental
data that describe the physical and temporal aspects of the
ecosystem.
The need to know quantitatively the processes affecting the
natural fluctuations of the components of the ecosystem. The
authors suggest that this level of quantitative knowledge is
required to develop predictive models of the responses of fish
populations and fisheries to changes in the ecosystem either
through natural fluctuations or management strategies.
The evaluation of a variety of economical aspects of fishing
concurrently with the examination of the effects of different
fishing intensities assigned in the various ecosystems models
and simulations.
The evaluation from the biological point of view of the
state of the ecosystem resulting from the potential
exploitation strategies.
The determination of management criteria, such as TAC's,
their allocation, management measures, and enforcement.
Underpinning these types of information ``required for marine
ecosystem management'' is the need for mathematical models and
simulations that describe the biological inputs and outputs of
multispecies fisheries, the economic and social aspects of ecosystem
management, and the environmental variables (weather, climate, and
oceanic patterns) that affect ecosystem productivity, as well as the
data required to run these models. Many mathematical models and
simulations that address these needs either exist or are being
developed (ECOPATH, ECOSIM, MSVPA, DYNUMES, PROBUB, NORFISK, BEAM 4,
ERSEM, etc.). Much of the data currently collected by the National
Marine Fisheries Service (fish and plankton surveys, commercial fish
landings data, fish stomach contents, etc.), the U.S. Geological Survey
(substrate and sediment mapping), the Global Ocean Ecosystems Dynamics
Program (GLOBEC), the Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program (CETAP),
and the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) would contribute to our
abilities to apply these models to the Northeast Shelf ecosystem. A
very large amount of additional data, however, would be necessary, as
would the continuation of existing data collection programs.
Luckily, groups such as NOAA and the Regional Association for
Research on the Gulf of Maine (RARGOM) have convened symposia and
published documents which have contributed much toward the state of our
knowledge and understanding about the ecosystem processes operating in
the Northeast Shelf ecosystem. Clearly, much remains to be done,
although it may be many years before there is enough scientific
information available to completely understand all of the parameters of
the ecosystem and their cycles and interactions.
Question 3A. The 1994 NRC Study on Improving Fishery Management
suggested the creation of an independent expert body--somewhat like the
Marine Mammal Commission--to which technical and other disputes could
be referred. In response, in the 1996 reauthorization we added Section
305(g) which allowed Councils to establish fishery negotiation panels
to assist in developing specific conservation and management measures.
A. Is this the right approach? B. Have any Councils convened these
panels?
Answer. The Councils have been given the authority to manage
fisheries in federal waters off our coasts. While the use of fishery
negotiation panels may be useful in certain circumstances to resolve
contentious issues or to encourage the development of new approaches,
overall responsibility for decisions rests with the Councils, and
ultimately the National Marine Fisheries Service. Considering these
realities, it is not immediately clear that stakeholders would be any
more satisfied with an alternative outcome given the necessity of any
group to balance the competing and diverse interests identified during
any management decision-making process in New England. To date the New
England Council has not used such a mechanism.
Question 3B. I understand the Science & Statistical Committee (SSC)
can be called in to resolve scientific disputes, but wouldn't these
sort of independent panels be useful in providing expert guidance to
Councils as they develop alternative or innovative management measures,
and in resolving disputes about allocation or economic impacts of
certain measures (i.e. under National Standards 4 or 8)?
Answer.
Any set of management measures will always have impacts on
allocation. No matter what group makes these decisions, whether
it be a Scientific and Statistical Committee, a Social Sciences
Advisory Committee (SSAC) or negotiation panel established
solely to handle allocation problems, the outcomes always will
seem unfair to those disadvantaged by the final management
decisions. For example, as mentioned in an earlier response,
quotas, trip limits and closed areas always affect some groups
more than others. The development of independent ideas and
creative solutions is to be encouraged, but not the
establishment of an additional layer of decision-makers who
will meet each time a particular group is dissatisfied with the
management measures approved by the Council.
Additionally, the Scientific and Statistical Committee is
composed of independent scientists who volunteer a very limited
amount of time, who have a professional interest in matters of
science, and who are largely unfamiliar with the specifics of
allocation issues. The primary responsibility of the SSC is to
ensure that the Council bases its decisions on the best
available scientific information (to meet its obligations under
National Standard 2).
Similarly the Council's Social Sciences Advisory Committee
consists of social scientists known for their research on the
social and economic impacts of management measures. The SSAC
has the same primary responsibility to ensure that the best
possible information is used to make management decisions.
Similarly, they are not equipped to serve as an arbitration
panel to resolve allocation issues among fishing groups.
Question 3C. If not, how can the Council address criticisms that
decision-making is inequitable or under-representative?
Answer.
The Council has a well-defined public process that provides
adequate opportunity for input from and considers the interests
of all public sectors including commercial and recreational
fishers, conservation organizations and taxpayers.
The Councils continually face controversial conservation and
resource allocation decisions. By definition, controversy means
that there will be groups that will not be happy with the
actions that attempt to resolve the issues. It is difficult for
the Council to act as a representative body, because there are
a very limited number of Council appointments and a great
number and variety of interest groups in the New England
fisheries as well as limited resources to fund Council
operations.
The Council is committed to continually improving its
process to provide the best exchange of information between
decision-makers and the public. To this end it has:
undertaken the responsibility, in cooperation with NMFS,
for producing and improving annual Stock Assessment and
Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Reports to provide the public
with the information it needs to fully participate in the
FMP development process;
strengthened its advisory panel process;
engaged in outreach through numerous meetings of its
committees in various areas of New England, through its web
site, news releases, and participation of the Chairman and
Executive Director in constituent meetings at the local
level; and
tasked its Social Sciences Advisory Committee (SSAC) to
provide recommendations on improving SAFE reports and
impact analyses, particularly with respect to identifying
critical social and economic issues and analyses early in
the plan development process.
The New England Council appreciates the opportunity to respond to
the follow-up questions forwarded by the Committee. If you should
require further information, please feel free to contact either
Chairman Tom Hill or Executive Director Paul Howard.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Frank Mirarchi
Questions.
1. It has been suggested that the regional councils should switch
from single or multi-species Fishery Management Plans to Fishery
Ecosystem Plans.
A. Please assess the amount of work this would create for the
regional councils?
B. Is there currently enough life history and environmental data
to create such an ecosystem plan?
2. Please state whether or not Congress should extend the
moratorium on Individual Transferable Quotas and how such action would
affect fisheries in New England.
3. Does the term ``overfishing'' need to be changed? If so, please
describe.
Answers.
As you are aware the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act mandates stock specific fishing mortality targets and
biomass thresholds with the laudable objective of producing maximum
sustainable yield on a continuing basis. I believe that this strategy
is self-defeating as present technology does not permit discrete
harvest rates among commingled stock components of a multispecies
fishery. Either overall harvest rates are limited by the fishing
mortality allowable for the weakest stock in the multispeices complex
or we soon confront regulatory discarding as is now the case with Gulf
of Maine cod.
A superior alternative would be to allow managers to target MSY
across a stock complex. This would require the Act to be amended to
allow temporary overfishing on some stocks. Guidelines should be
established to prevent the risk of a stock collapse while still
allowing biomass to rebuild to BMSY but at a slower rate than the 10
years plus 1 generation now specified.
Some have recommended a further broadening of the management
horizon to encompass entire ecosystems within a management unit.
Presumably this approach would embrace variables and contingencies
which are external to fishing activity. Some of these are undoubtedly
human induced--examples include pollution, estuarine habitat
degradation and destruction of fish larvae by industrial scale cooling
systems.
To the extent that these examples and others are regulated
activities, the RFMC's already have the opportunity to comment on
fishery impacts during the permitting process. Expanding the Council's
role would require Legislative action.
However, ecosystems are thought to exhibit great natural
variability independent of anthropogenic causes. A notable example off
the New England coast is the dynamic balance among stocks of sand
lance, mackerel, and herring, which appear to be in competition for the
same ecological niche. These stocks interact with New England
groundfish at several levels: (1) providing alternative fisheries, (2)
providing a forage base and (3) exhibiting predation on the pelagic
larvae of demersal species.
At this time I believe we lack sufficient knowledge to introduce an
ecosystem approach into the Council process. However, I am concerned
that some calculations of biomass necessary to produce MSY (Bmsy)
included in our overfishing definitions may be unrealistic and should
be re-examined in the light of potential shifts in carrying capacity.
In the meantime I hope that NOAA's research priorities will
continue to reflect the need for expanded knowledge on factors beyond
fishing mortality which adversely affect the productivity of our
fisheries. This information is especially valuable given the Council's
limited role as advocate for fisheries in many permitting procedures.
Finally, it is my desire that the 1996 prohibition on ITQ based
management measures be allowed to expire.
Please bear in mind that I am not requesting that Congress require
ITQ's be implemented but merely that this become a legitimate option
for RFMC consideration. The contrarian argument seems to hold that
rights based management in general and ITQ's in particular are so
pernicious that legitimate debate on their merits cannot take place.
This argument is so logically and legally flawed that it scarcely
requires rebuttal.
Furthermore, if New England fisheries were undergoing a renaissance
under the present programs I would be less strident in seeking
alternatives. However, the biological gains which we observe are being
muted by increasing social and economic dislocation. In the
southwestern Gulf of Maine, where I fish, we seem to be re-discovering
how the Pacific Halibut fishery became a semi annual derby. Please
enable us to benefit from the lessons of history by including rights
based management as an option for New England.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these important issues.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Marjorie Mooney-Seus
Question 1. Several of the witnesses testified that Maximum
Sustainable Yield is an outdated concept.
A. In the absence of Maximum Sustainable Yield, what would you
advocate as a responsible benchmark to achieve sustainable yield?
Answer. I do not believe that Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) is an
outdated concept. However, I do think that there has been considerable
misunderstanding as to exactly what is meant by this term. Some have
interpreted the term to mean that all fish stocks must be rebuilt to
historic high levels or virgin stock size and then maintained at these
levels. In reality, the word maximum refers to the catch or yield, not
the population level (although that catch must be low enough to be
sustainable over the long term). MSY is the catch available from a
population at BMSY; for many species this level is roughly
half of the virgin (or unfished) biomass. Furthermore, MSY is not a set
number to be maintained but rather a dynamic property (a range) to
achieve better fishery yields. Lastly if you look back to the 1960s
when fishing pressure was less than it is currently, many of the
commercial fish stocks were at high levels. So, there is no real
evidence to suggest that density is a limiting factor in terms of
population growth rates. Therefore, a rebuilding target of BMSY
to achieve MSY is not only reasonable, but serves to maximize long-term
benefits to the fishermen as well as the fish populations.
While today New England commercial fisheries are a lucrative
business (producing almost $540 million dollars in dockside revenues in
1998), current catch levels are only a fraction of their estimated
long-term potential; reaching this potential could translate into
exponential benefits for the regional economy. According to the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), if we were to rebuild New
England commercial fish stocks, dockside revenues could be in the
billion-dollar range.
Under the current management regime, there have already been some
positive signs of fish population recovery and ensuing benefits to the
region's fisheries. For instance, the adult stock biomass of haddock
has increased fourfold since 1993 and is at its highest level since the
early 1980s; gray sole (witch flounder) spawning stock biomass has
doubled since 1995 and is reported to be near BMSY due to
favorable recruitment, lower fishing mortality and reduced bycatch in
small mesh fisheries; Georges Bank yellowtail flounder total stock
biomass has increased substantially and is expected to be rebuilt in
about three more years if the current management strategy remains in
place.
Clearly, if we were to rebuild our commercial stocks to targets
associated with MSY (or BMSY), ultimately, everyone would
benefit--the ecosystem as well as the fisherman--because with healthy,
abundant fish stocks, it's cheaper and easier to catch fish.
In addition, if stocks are rebuilt and kept at healthy levels,
Council and NMFS staff would be able to spend less time revising
fishing regulations and have more time to focus on improving habitat,
bycatch and ecosystem provisions.
B. What further data would be required to quantify this benchmark?
Answer. N/A. I believe population levels that yield MSY are
appropriate rebuilding targets; data required to calculate or estimate
these targets are for the most part available.
However, it would be advantageous to increase collaboration among
the fishing industry and other relevant stakeholders in order to
collect more real time data and information so that adjustments to
management decisions, if needed, could be made in a more timely manner.
This would require appropriate investment in enabling technologies such
as Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) and upgrading VMS data management
infrastructure. The Canadian Maritimes have had considerable success
with this type of adaptive management in their herring fisheries.
Question 2. You testified that the emphasis of this reauthorization
should be on fine tuning the Act rather than rewriting significant
components. However, you also stated that the Act should be amended to
require Fishery Ecosystems Plans instead of the current system of
single or multi-species Fisheries Management Plans.
A. Isn't this a major departure from the current management
structure contained in the Sustainable Fisheries Act? Please explain.
Answer. I am not suggesting a departure from the current management
structure contained in the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) but rather
an expansion of the current structure. Through the SFA, we have already
taken some important steps to consider ecosystem dynamics and impacts
on ecosystems as a result of human activities. This is evidenced by the
SFA focus on minimizing bycatch and identifying and protecting
Essential Fish Habitat.
As I stated in my testimony, I see the SFA as a work in progress.
However, further refinements in the Act are warranted. We cannot
continue to look at management actions for species in isolation. We
need to recognize that what we do with respect to a given species has
an impact on its predators and its prey and that our actions in one
fishery can impact the effectiveness of management in other fisheries.
Therefore, the Act should provide provisions for considering management
actions at multiple levels--for considering the ecosystem not just its
individual components.
It also is important that we clearly acknowledge that overfishing
is only part of the problem; there are other factors that contribute to
a decline in fish stocks, such as environmental conditions, pollution
and natural variability. By moving towards ecosystem management we can
more readily account for these other variables.
Single or multi-species Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) should form
the basis of management actions and outline specific measures necessary
to maintain fish stocks. However, FMPs should be amended to include an
evaluation of management actions on other species, including predator-
prey interactions, where information is available. An Ecosystem
Management Plan (EMP) (others have referred to this as a Fishery
Ecosystem Plan (FEP)) also should be developed for each major marine
ecosystem within a Fishery Management Council's jurisdiction as a means
for formally linking the FMPs. Included in the EMP should be
information on the structure and function of ecosystems, including the
geographic extent of ecosystems and their biological, physical and
chemical dynamics; a description of the significant food web including
key predator-prey relationships and habitat needs of different stages
of species that make up the significant food web, indices of ecosystem
health and integrity; and an outline of a long-term monitoring program
to evaluate fishery dependent and fishery independent changes in the
ecosystem. Used in concert FMPs and EMPs can lead to more informed
management decisions.
B. Please assess the amount of additional work this could create
for the regional councils.
Answer. While this effort will require more work on the part of the
councils, if reasonable timeframes are adopted for completing the work,
it is achievable. For instance, a possible timetable might be the
following: once the Act is passed, NMFS would have one year to compile
and distribute data to the Councils; and while the Councils were
amending all their FMPs to include predator-prey information in Year 2,
NMFS would begin to assemble additional data for the EMPs. It would
complete this task in Year 3. At the start of Year 4, NMFS would
provide the Councils with all data and information for the EMPs. The
Councils would then have two years to prepare EMPs incorporating both
NMFS data and data collected through collaborative research projects.
In total, the project would span five years. If the timeframe were to
be any shorter than this, the councils and NMFS would require
additional resources to complete the work.
The key here is that reasonable timetables be adopted and adhered
to not only by the Councils but also by the federal agencies providing
the data. One of the difficulties encountered by the New England
Fishery Management Council's Habitat Committee and its Advisors in
assembling Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) designations were long delays
in receiving guidelines for preparing the designations and
corresponding species data and information from federal agencies.
C. Do you believe that NMFS and the councils have enough life
history and environmental data that would be needed to create such an
ecosystem plan?
Answer. I believe there is enough available data to begin to amend
existing FMPs and create a foundation for the development of an EMP.
What is needed is directive to appropriate staff to afford them time to
overlay existing data and information. However, the operative word here
is ``begin.'' This should not be viewed as a short-term process. As is
the case with refinement of EFH and designation of Habitat Areas of
Particular Concern (HAPCs), a foundation of data and information must
be established and then built upon.
A challenge that must be overcome is access to data from other
federal and state agencies. For instance, the U.S. Navy and the
National Ocean Service both possess considerable biological and
ecological information, respectfully. The adoption of legislative
language urging enhanced cooperation among various agencies at the
federal and state level would enhance data and information exchange.
It also is critical that there be a clear mandate that all Councils
adopt a regional strategic research plan and immediately begin to
implement various collaborative applied research projects to collect
additional biological and ecological data that can be used to refine
FMPs and EMPs. In New England, the availability of $4 million dollars
for collaborative research in the region and the prospects of more
monies next year afford the opportunity for strategic planning to
ensure collection of needed ecological information and data. In the
short term, further studies of predator-prey relationships within the
Gulf of Maine should be encouraged.
Question 3. Please state whether or not Congress should extend the
moratorium on Individual Transferable Quotas and how such action would
affect fisheries in New England.
Answer. The national moratorium should be lifted so that the
appropriateness of ITQs as a management tool can be assessed at the
regional level. At least some participants in New England fisheries
seem interested in exploring ITQs as a management option.
However, ITQs have the potential to threaten the social fabric of
New England fishing communities and may have limited conservation
value. Managers should therefore consider incorporating mechanisms to
maintain fishing community integrity as well as to ensure that ITQs are
closely tied to effective fish conservation measures. Specifically, ITQ
frameworks should be flexible enough so that managers could consider
measures to limit the number of licenses one individual or institution
could hold, maximize conservation benefits of ITQs, regulate the cost
of ITQs and ensure access for new entrants into fisheries once
resources are rebuilt (e.g., a set number of licenses should be set
aside and apprenticeship programs developed). If ITQs only result in
the consolidation of fishing rights in the hands of a few large
corporate enterprises, they are not a viable option for New England.
Furthermore, if the moratorium were lifted, it would be worthwhile
to consider experimentation with ``community-based rights schemes''
which give management authority to a broad set of stakeholders to
determine if the concept is as attractive in reality as it is in
theory.
Question 4. Does the term ``overfishing'' need to be changed? If so
please describe?
Answer. No, I believe the term is satisfactorily defined. However,
the definition of ``conservation and management'' should be amended to
require that management measures include a margin of safety
particularly when there is scientific uncertainty.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Rear Admiral George Naccara
Summer Transfer Impacts on Operations
Question. During the summer months, Coast Guard personnel will be
moving between duty stations which will result in some of the agency's
greatest shortages. For routine, non-emergency operations, please
describe, by percentage of aircraft patrol hours and cutters days, any
resulting reduction that will likely occur from June-August 2000,
compared to June-August 1999, in fisheries law enforcement, search and
rescue, and other multi-mission responsibilities in your district?
Answer. Summer is the season during which many of our military
personnel transfers occur. These transfers often create temporary and
planned reductions in the number of personnel qualified and available
to fulfill the responsibilities of a given duty station. However,
personnel transfers ordinarily do not affect the number of hours our
cutters or aircraft are employed, nor do we expect employment hours to
be significantly reduced from June-August 2000 due to personnel
transfers.
Impact of Reduced Operations on Fisheries Law Enforcement
Question. You testified that your district share of the reduced
non-emergency operations could be up to 35 percent in aircraft patrol
hours.
In the area of fisheries law enforcement, what specifically are you
likely to forego during this period of reduced operations? Please
describe by percentage, aircraft patrol hours and cutters days, and
reduction in New England fisheries law enforcement.
Answer. The Coast Guard will not forego the enforcement of any
particular fisheries regulations during the fiscal year 2000 period of
reduced operations. Reductions relating to fisheries law enforcement
operations will be applied equally to all Coast Guard fisheries
enforcement missions in New England. In general, the Coast Guard will
continue to deploy one major cutter to New England for fisheries
enforcement patrol at all times. The annual hours allocated to smaller
cutters performing New England fisheries enforcement have been reduced
33 percent. Aircraft patrol hours in support of fisheries enforcement
have been reduced 18 percent for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Since the Coast Guard announced those reductions, the Congress
recently finished work on the FY 2001 Department of Defense Military
Construction Appropriations Bill, which included FY 2000 supplemental
funding for the Coast Guard. This additional funding will provide for
the most immediate requirements of the Coast Guard.
Coast Guard District One Operational Funding and Personnel Levels
Question. What funding and personnel levels are necessary to
return your district to a normal operational pace?
Answer. The Administration supports supplemental funding at $44
million for the Coast Guard to meet unanticipated additional costs in
fiscal year 2000.
National Standard 10 and Fisheries Management
Question. You testified that you closely monitor compliance with
National Standard 10 and attempt to ensure that fisheries regulations
do not encourage unsafe fishing practices.
Please describe how National Standard 10 and fisheries management
decisions are integrated into the Coast Guard's Operation SAFE CATCH.
Answer. While Operation SAFE CATCH supports the concern for the
safety of life at sea expressed in National Standard 10, National
Standard 10 and fishery management decisions are not integrated into
SAFE CATCH. National Standard 10 and SAFE CATCH have two different,
though related purposes. National Standard 10 addresses the impact
fishing regulations may have on the safe conduct of a fishery under the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and is
administered by fishery management councils. National Standard 10
requires that fishery management plans and any implementing
regulations, to the extent practicable, promote safety of human life at
sea. In our role as a non-voting member of fishery management councils,
the Coast Guard makes recommendations regarding the safety implications
of proposed fishery management plans. It is the councils' prerogative
to act on the Coast Guard's recommendations or not.
Operation SAFE CATCH addresses the safety requirements under the
Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Act, which the Coast Guard
administers. It is focused on fishing vessel material condition and
compliance with safety regulations. SAFE CATCH is designed to identify
those vessels with serious safety deficiencies, and to ensure that they
operate with the proper equipment at a minimum. The Coast Guard does
this by encouraging voluntary, non-punitive dockside examinations to
identify a vessel's safety discrepancies, and then educating the owner
or master on the compliance requirements for that vessel. This dockside
education is complemented by at-sea enforcement, where the Coast Guard
checks vessels for compliance, cites those in violation, and directs
unsafe vessels to port.
Trends in Fisheries Management
Question. What particular trends, if any, do you see in fisheries
management that you feel will encourage or discourage dangerous fishing
practices?
Answer. The primary issue in District One encouraging dangerous
fishing practices has been the closing of inshore fishing areas for
extended periods. Without access to customary near shore fishing
grounds, some small boat fishermen may feel compelled to take their
vessels further offshore than is safe or prudent. Similar concerns
arise regarding the proposed large pelagic longline closures in the
Southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.
The other general management measure of concern to the Coast Guard
is the use of short fishery openings, sometimes called ``derbies.''
Derby fisheries do not occur in District One. However, the Bluefin Tuna
Fisher last year suffered similar effects. Exceptionally good fishing
in late September and early October of 1999 enticed hundreds of
fishermen, many not properly equipped, fifty miles offshore to catch
the large fish. Three vessels capsized, two while trying to land 400+
pound fish, and two others were ordered to return to port because they
did not have required safety equipment. The National Marine Fishery
Service (NMFS) closed the fishery on October 3, almost three months
early, based on the large number of fish landed. In some derby
fisheries, strong economic incentives can entice fishermen to fish in
unsafe conditions, such as poor weather.
While these issues are of concern, the Coast Guard is hopeful that
the addition of National Standard 10 in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act will institutionalize safer fishing
practices.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Paul Parker
Question 1. In the 1999 fishing season, the groundfish regulations
changed five times. Changing the rules for a fishery five times in one
year appears to be a de facto disregard of National Standard 8, which
requires the consideration of socio-economic impacts of regulations on
fishing communities.
A. Do you have any recommendations to increase focus on such
factors?
Answer. Ironically, the precise reason why regulations changed five
times in 1999 was due to the New England Council's attempts to minimize
the socio-economic impacts of rebuilding Gulf of Maine cod. Rather than
follow the Magnuson-Stevens Act's guidance of precautionary management,
the Council has consistently erred in favor of less conservation and
more socio-economic consideration. Time and again, our failure to
conserve enough fish to rebuild our stocks has triggered the need to
generate stronger regulations in the future. An endless negative
feedback loop has been created. Too few fish leading to too little
regulation leading to fewer fish (albeit relative to ambitious ten year
rebuilding schedules) and so on and so on.
I only point out this feedback loop to illustrate the basis for my
testimony that the Regulatory Flexibility Act and National Standard 8
do not permit undermining fish conservation measures in order to
minimize the socio-economic impacts. In contrast, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and National Standard 8 prescribe that in an instance
where several alternatives are equally protective of marine fish, but
have varying degrees of adverse economic impacts to fishermen, then
NMFS should choose the alternative with the least economic impact. We
must save the fish first to save the fishermen.
Having clarified my position on the example that you provided in
your question, I do agree that the New England Fishery Management
Council is unprepared to focus on any socio-economic factors
whatsoever. This is primarily due to NMFS failure to collect socio-
economic data. I cannot remember a time when the New England Council
was ever considering multiple management options that would all satisfy
the conservation and rebuilding objectives necessary to warrant a
comparative socio-economic analysis. However, if a situation did arise
where several alternatives were equally protective of marine fish then
NMFS and the Council would have no basis by which to recommend one
option over another. The need for socio-economic data is a critical
priority.
B. What can be done to inject more flexibility into the Act?
Answer. Increased flexibility with regard to the consideration of
socio-economic factors would be detrimental to the fish, the fishermen
and our coastal communities. In order to protect our coastal
communities, the Act must remain clear that conservation of the
resource supercedes the consideration of socio-economic factors. The
long term viability of our commercial fishery depends on strong
conservation and unless we have strong language in the Act to guarantee
that our fish stocks rebuild then our coastal communities will continue
to reside on the brink of economic collapse.
Question 2. Please comment on whether you think that the Council
decision-making process involves an adequate level of public
participation and whether establishing standard operating procedures
for its advisory committees would improve the Council's work.
A. Are you aware of any instances when the Council has not
adequately considered an Advisory Committee recommendation? If so,
please explain.
Answer. The Advisory Panels have been held hostage by Council
Committees for the past two years. By forcing Advisory Panels to attend
only joint meetings with the Committees, we have essentially lost our
ability to formulate discrete policy recommendations on the record. Our
insights are wrapped up in the politics that hamper the Council's
ability to do good work. Over the past two years, I have witnessed
scores of fishermen quit the advisory process because it has become
such a farce.
The function of the advisory panels is to further develop the
potential for good grass-roots, bottom-up management development within
the Council process. When I began serving on advisory panels, we were
allowed to meet independently BUT only to respond to Committee
direction and direct questions. We had no autonomy over our agenda but
responded to the Committee and as a rule took harder stands than the
Committee or the full Council. I believe that if the advisory panels
are to succeed and provide meaningful input to the Committee and
Council that they must be allowed to meet independently and to direct
their own agenda to some degree.
Question 3. Your organization is a member of the Marine Fish
Conservation Network.
A. Do you support the Network's recommendation that the Magnuson-
Stevens Act should be amended to guarantee that more non-fishermen
(specifically members of environmental organizations) are appointed to
the regional fishery management councils?
Answer. The Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association
occupies a unique niche in the Marine Fish Conservation Network. We
believe that the sustainability of our coastal communities, our local
economies and our marine resources depends on careful examination of
serious problems such as high levels of bycatch, habitat degradation
and overfishing. We are working with the MFCN to uphold and strengthen
these components of the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act in the current
reauthorization process.
However, there are some aspects of the Network agenda that we do
not agree with 100 percent. Some compromise is inherent in such
widespread collaboration. Members of environmental organizations are by
definition not any better conservationists than some fishermen. In
fact, some of the best conservationists on the New England Council in
recent years have included fishermen such as Bill Amaru and Pat White.
The best way to ensure the long term sustainability of our fisheries
will be to maximize fishermen's input and try to maintain as many
conservation minded fishermen on the regional councils as possible.
B. During the next round of council appointments, do you believe
that fishermen who currently serve on the New England Council should
not be re-nominated in favor of the staff of environmental
organizations?
Answer. Definitely not.
C. Please describe in detail your involvement in the development of
the Network's recommendation to Congress to change the Magnuson-Stevens
Act.
Answer. The Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association has
been instrumental in the Marine Fish Conservation Network. However,
much of the current agenda had been developed prior to our admission to
the Network and we have expended tremendous effort to educate the non-
fishing members of the MFCN about critical issues in fisheries
management. By working closely with the Network, the CCCHFA hopes to
instill consideration of fishermen and fishing communities in the
Network agenda.
Fishing members of the CCCHFA have made presentations to members of
Congress regarding the critical nature of bycatch reduction and habitat
protection in New England. The CCCHFA has been on the Network Board of
Directors for the past year and I have been on the Executive Committee
for several months. I will not be serving the Executive Committee after
June 1, 2000.
Question 4. Please state whether or not Congress should extend the
moratorium on Individual Transferable Quotas and how such action would
affect fisheries in New England.
Answer. I wrote the following Op-eds which appeared in the Boston
Globe and Providence Journal. I would look forward to working with
Senator Snowe in any way possible to continue the moratorium on ITQs.
Attachments
let's not privatize our oceans
Boston Globe, May 5, 2000
A month ago, the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries
held field hearings in Boston over whether or not to privatize the
oceans.
A group of businessmen is trying to remove the moratorium on
``individual transferable quotas,'' which give the holder exclusive
rights to catch specific types of commercial fish. Before we foolishly
parcel out the ocean, we ought to consider the evidence from 70 years
of experience with another form of allotment.
The grasslands of Arizona may seem a long way from Cape Cod, but
the West bears the scars of a wrongheaded attempt to protect a
similarly precious and threatened resource. Established in 1934,
grazing allotments were intended to end overgrazing by giving farmers
the right to graze their livestock on sections of publicly owned land.
The number of cattle permitted per area depended on how many the
government thought the land could support. This was determined by the
variety and quantity of edible plants growing on the range. Allotments
were intended to make ranchers better stewards of the land through
ownership.
By all accounts, grazing allotments have been a dismal failure. At
the last official survey of rangeland in 1980, only 15 percent of the
land could be classified as good. The overwhelming majority was fair to
very poor, meaning that of all potential plant species once present, up
to four-fifths had vanished.
And so it will be with New England fisheries if transferable quotas
become a management tool. Like grazing allotments, quotas would divide
up the fish in the ocean among a handful of commercial operators.
They--or their agents--will have exclusive rights, forever, to take a
share of the ocean's resources.
This privatization scheme would only hasten the decline of fish
stocks. Many species are vanishing because habitat is being degraded by
heavy equipment dragged across the seabed. By permitting this gear, we
are preventing breeding areas from recovering, and fish stocks will
never rebuild to plentiful levels. Privately held quotas will not
correct this problem or restore habitat.
Fish stocks in coastal waters are also declining as a result of
bycatch--fish caught indiscriminately along with the intended species.
New England fisheries lack an effective force of paid observers who
keep track of everything caught aboard each fishing vessel. Instead,
landings are counted to estimate fishing mortality. The absurdity of
this approach was highlighted last May when the limit for cod in the
Gulf of Maine was reduced to 30 pounds per trip. This Draconian measure
did not help reduce mortality; it only generated more dead and wasted
discards as operators culled their nets for the most marketable cod.
Transferable quotas would make the problem of bycatch worse. In
other fisheries, operators often ``high grade'' their landings. This is
the practice of discarding all but the largest fish. Faced with
scarcity of their allotted species, quota holders in the Northeast
could take months, even a year, to reach their limit by keeping only
the choicest specimens, leaving in their wake tons of dead and dying
fish.
Transferable quotas also spell doom for fishing communities. In
recent times of uncertainty, fishermen have been advised to shift their
focus from groundfish, like cod or halibut, to dogfish. We have been
told to sell back our boats. Today, many inshore fishermen can't make a
living pursuing groundfish, because the stocks have moved too far off
shore.
While we wait for species to recover, we support ourselves as
painters or construction workers. When the quotas are handed out, the
fish in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank will be divided among
corporate fleets. Many of the quotas will go to foreign companies
operating through domestic fronts. Private investors will grab the
others, hoping to make a quick buck.
Individual transferable quotas would no more save New England's
fishing industry than the grazing allocations saved Western grasslands.
Besides, the Sustainable Fisheries Act already provides the basic tools
we need to rebuild sustainable resources. By enforcing the act's
provisions, we can protect habitats for spawning, feeding, and shelter.
Furthermore, the law enables us to establish and enforce limits on
bycatch by forcing owners to acknowledge their impact on species other
than their target fish. Both of these measures will work, but not
overnight.
Now is the time for New England's fishermen to renew their
commitment to restraint as nature does its work. Above all, we must not
allow impatience to force us into making mistakes. That is the surest
way to condemn our livelihoods to extinction.
should we give away the oceans?
Providence Journal, April 22, 2000
TODAY, EARTH DAY, as communities pitch in to clean up beaches, harbors
and estuaries, a group of businessmen will be hard at work trying to
privatize the oceans. They want to lift the moratorium on Individual
Transferable Quotas, which give the holder exclusive rights to catch
specific types of commercially valuable fish.
But before we foolishly parcel out the oceans, we ought to consider
the evidence from 70 years of experience with another form of
allotment. The grasslands of Arizona may seem a long way from the blue
waters of Cape Cod, but the West bears the scars of a wrong- headed
attempt to protect a similarly precious and threatened resource.
Established in 1934, grazing allotments were intended to end over-
grazing of the range by giving farmers the right to graze livestock on
sections of publicly owned land. The number of cattle permitted per
area depended on how many the government thought the land could
support. This, in turn, was determined by the variety and quantity of
edible plants growing on the range.
Allotments were intended to make ranchers better stewards of the
land through ownership. By all accounts, grazing allotments have been a
dismal failure. At the last official survey of rangeland in 1980, only
15 percent of the land could be classified as good. The overwhelming
majority was fair to very poor, meaning that of all potential plant
species once present, up to four-fifths of them had vanished.
And so it will be with New England fisheries if Individual
Transferable Quotas become a management tool. Like grazing allotments,
quotas will effectively divide up the fish in the ocean among a handful
of commercial operators. They or their agents will have exclusive
rights, forever, to take their share of the ocean's resources. This
privatization scheme will only hasten the decline of fish stocks. Many
species are vanishing because habitat is being degraded by heavy
equipment dragged across the seabed. By permitting this gear, we are
preventing breeding areas from recovering, and fish stocks will never
rebuild to plentiful levels.
Privately held quotas will not restore habitat. The stocks in
coastal waters are also declining from bycatch, which are fish caught
indiscriminately along with the intended species. New England fisheries
lack an effective program of paid observers who keep track of
everything caught aboard each fishing vessel. So instead, landings are
used to estimate fishing mortality.
The absurdity of this approach was highlighted last May, when the
limit for cod in the Gulf of Maine was reduced to 30 pounds a trip.
Such a draconian measure did not help reduce mortality; it only
generated more dead and wasted discards, as operators culled their nets
for the most marketable cod. Transferable quotas will actually make the
problem of bycatch worse.
In other fisheries, operators often high-grade their landings. This
is the practice of discarding all but the largest fish. Faced with
scarcity of their allotted species, individual quota holders in the
Northeast could take months, even a year, to reach their limit by
keeping only the choicest specimens, leaving in their wake tons of dead
and dying fish.
Individual Transferable Quotas also spell doom for our fishing
communities. In recent times of uncertainty, fishermen have been
advised to shift their focus from groundfish, like cod or halibut, to
dogfish, a type of shark. We have been told to sell back our boats.
Today, many inshore fishermen can't make a living pursuing
groundfish because the stocks have moved too far off shore. So while we
wait for species to recover, we support ourselves as painters or
construction workers. But when the quotas are handed out, the fishes in
the Gulf of Maine and on Georges Bank will be divided up among
corporation-based fleets.
Many of the quotas will go to foreign-based companies operating
through domestic fronts. Others will be bought by private investors,
hoping to make a quick buck by exploiting a scarce commodity.
Individual Transferable Quotas will no more save New England's
fishing industry than the grazing allocations saved western grasslands.
Besides, the present Sustainable Fisheries Act provides the basic tools
we need to rebuild sustainable resources. By enforcing its provisions,
we can protect habitats for spawning, feeding, and shelter.
Furthermore, this law enables us to establish and enforce limits on
bycatch by forcing owners to acknowledge their impact on species other
than their target fish.
Both of these measures will work, but not overnight. This Earth
Day, then, is a good time to renew our commitment to restraint, as
nature does her work. Above all, in our impatience, we must not repeat
the mistakes of grazing allotments and condemn our livelihoods to
extinction.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Dr. Brian Rothschild
Question 1. Several of the witnesses testified that Maximum
Sustainable Yield is an outdated concept.
A. In the absence of Maximum Sustainable Yield, what would you
advocate as a responsible benchmark to achieve sustainable fisheries?
Answer. Maximum Sustainable Yield is a well-defined concept. It is
based upon a simple well-known theory. It's utility is somewhat narrow
when compared to the needs of fishery management. In other words, the
concept in its simplest form does not take into account more than one
species at a time. In addition, the simplest Maximum Sustainable Yield
theory is based on populations that have a balanced age structure or
are in equilibrium, while most actual populations are not in
equilibrium. More importantly, the magnitude of Maximum Sustained Yield
for any stock is calculated based upon an average of many years of
data. This means that if there was a downturn in environmental
conditions, then the Maximum Sustainable Yield would generate fishing
mortality that was too high and vice versa.
The main point of all this is that Maximum Sustainable Yield is a
useful index, but it requires a lot of interpretation. Because
different analysts can arrive at different estimates of Maximum
Sustainable Yield for the same data and because different analysts can
ascribe different degrees of certainty to an estimate of Maximum
Sustainable Yield, a degree of seeming arbitrariness is inevitable.
The point is not so much to change the Maximum Sustainable Yield
criteria, but to point out for each stock its many qualifications so
that the decision-makers (i.e. the Council members and the Secretary)
can take these into account when setting targets.
Other important benchmarks include the yield-per-recruit index and
the level of recruitment.
My main point, then, is that scientists should calculate Maximum
Sustainable Yields and present them with the various pros and cons, and
decision-makers should take these into account when setting
regulations. Because of the nature of the index, the rule of common
sense and flexibility needs to prevail.
B. What further data would be required to quantify this benchmark?
Answer. Much of the data used to compute Maximum Sustainable Yield
and other indices is based upon scientific surveys, which are highly
criticized by fishermen. Actually, improved estimates would be obtained
if data directly from the fishing boats could be folded into the
analysis. The criticism would be muted.
Question 2. It has been suggested that the regional councils should
switch from single or multi-species Fishery Management Plans to Fishery
Ecosystem Plans.
A. Please assess the amount of work this would create for regional
councils?
Answer. We know what single species management is. We know what
multiple-species management is. We do not know what ecosystem
management is in the sense that it can be defined in almost an infinite
number of ways. This, again, raises the issue of arbitrariness. At this
point in time, we need to focus on multispecies management not
ecosystem management. I actually think that the amount of work might be
less rather than more in the sense that each fishery could be managed
as a coherent unit. We should change the modality of management
carefully because of unintended consequences. The rebuilding strategy
in the present form of the Act is a good example as it is
scientifically questionable.
B. Is there currently enough life history and environmental data to
create such an ecosystem plan?
Answer. The collection of life history and environmental data needs
to be expanded and focused, particularly in regard to the needs of
fishery management. This is true for single or multiple species
management. I would put priorities on 1) data from the fishing fleet,
2) environmental data, and 3) life history data.
Question 3. Please state whether or not Congress should extend the
moratorium on Individual Transferable Quotas and how such action would
affect fisheries in New England.
Answer. The idea of ownership is important. I would lease a stock
or mix of stocks to the industry given that they maintained production
and conservation standards. My concern with Individual Transferable
Quotas is that they may be more costly than other forms of management.
Question 4. Does the term ``overfishing'' need to be changed? If
so, please describe.
Answer. ``Overfishing'' should not be used since it can only be
defined in special cases. We should target an ``optimal management,''
which is the flexible application (as implied in National Standard 8)
and interpretation of the various criteria that are presently used but
placed in a multiple-species management context.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Angela Sanfilippo
The Massachusetts Fishermen's Partnership (MFP) established a
standing committee to respond to questions from Congress on the
Magnuson-Stevens Act Reauthorization. The MFP Magnuson Committee met to
develop the following answers that reflect the MFP consensus.
Question 1. In the 1999 fishing season, the groundfish regulations
changed five times. Changing the rules for a fishery five times in one
year appears to be a de facto disregard of National Standard 8, which
requires the consideration of socio-economic impacts of regulations on
fishing communities.
A. Do you have any recommendations to increase the focus on such
factors?
Answer. Systematic collection and use of socio-economic data should
become an integral part of the management design process. This requires
that necessary and sufficient funding be appropriated to employ
specialized and experienced personnel to collect scientifically valid
and timely information from fishery users and manage a socio-economic
database that is routinely updated. The best available socio-economic
data from all sources should be collected in a comprehensive and
demonstrably useful framework that can be applied to measure and
understand social and economic impacts of proposed regulations on
fishing-reliant populations. As such this information should be
incorporated and considered in the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) for
each proposed regulation, and Fishery Management Plan (FMP) framework
adjustments should not be exempt from this requirement as presently
occurs. A policy level position should be created in each region that
is filled by a social science professional who is trained in socio-
cultural analysis and who has the same influence in the agency as the
senior natural science authority.
B. What can be done to inject more flexibility into the Act?
Answer.
Flexibility can be injected into the Act by providing
necessary and sufficient funding to institute community-based
advisory panels of fishing stakeholders. Panels will be
designed to be representative of all fishery stakeholders in
the community, including those of lower social and economic
levels and who may not be as vocal in their demands for
consideration or as vigorous in their attendance of public
regulatory hearings. These panels will regularly comment on and
describe potential real-time impacts from proposed regulations,
including those, which go through multiple changes within a
calendar year. Panel input would be routinely collected and
channeled through social science advisory committees as
proactive information that would be available before regulatory
options are finalized for review. It will also insure feedback
on impact and adaptations to regulations as they arise from
specific management actions in state and federal waters. The
present system does not allow for timely feedback on socio-
economic responses to regulations, with one assessment running
into the other without being informed by what has previously
occurred as communities try to adapt to regulatory change.
Rebuilding fish stocks to their maximum levels in less than
10 years is usually not necessary biologically and causes
inefficient and unjust displacement of fishermen and related
businesses. Our fishermen realize that fish stocks must be
rebuilt and socio-economic impacts need to be mitigated through
various avenues to rebuild stocks within 10 years. But when a
determination is made that fish stocks need to be rebuilt in
less than 10 years, then a socio-economic cost/benefit analysis
should be mandatory before the regulations go into effect.
Question 2. Please comment on whether you think that the Council
decision-making process involves an adequate level of public
participation and whether establishing standard operating procedures
for its advisory committees would improve the Council's work.
Answer. Please see our answer to section 1B above for our proposal
to improve the Council decision-making process.
A. Are you aware of any instances when the Council has not
adequately considered an Advisory Committee recommendation? If so,
please explain.
Answer.
Some vital recommendations of the New England Fishery
Management Council Scallop Advisory Committee and the Scallop
Oversight Committee were removed from the public hearing
document for Amendment 14 to the Scallop Fishery Management
Plan.
The Groundfish Advisory Committee recommended the use of the
running clock as a strategy to reduce discards and fishing
pressure. The recommendation was rejected.
Question 3. Do you support the Marine Fish Conservation Network
recommendation that the Magnuson-Stevens Act should be amended to
guarantee that more non-fishermen (specifically members of
environmental organizations) are appointed to the regional fishery
management councils?
Answer. No, there is already representation of the environmental
community on the regional councils. For example, representatives of
environmental organizations are members of the New England Fishery
Management Council (NEFMC) and chair certain key NEFMC committees and
advisory committees, including the Habitat Committee, Groundfish
Oversight Committee, and Social Science Advisory Committee. Other NEFMC
committee chairs were endorsed by environmental organizations including
the chair of the Scallop Oversight Committee and the Research Steering
Committee. Some of the best conservationists on the NEFMC in recent
years have included fishermen. The best way to ensure the long term
sustainability of our fisheries will be to maximize fishermen's input
and try to maintain as many conservation minded fishermen on the
regional councils as possible. Since environmentalists already have
access to council seats and process, there is no need to further
guarantee in the statute the allocation of council seats to certain
sectors.
Question 4. Please state whether or not Congress should extend the
moratorium on Individual Transferable Quotas and how such action would
affect fisheries in New England.
Answer. Magnuson-Stevens Act Reauthorization should extend the
moratorium on ITQs. The MFP consensus calls for shifting fisheries
management towards an ecosystem-based approach. An ecosystem-based
management system will eventually rely on more effective management
tools than quotas. Individual quotas (IQs) in our multispecies
fisheries would be incompatible with our vision for fisheries
management in New England.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Russell Sherman
Question 1. In the 1999 fishing season, the groundfish regulations
changed five times. Changing the rules for a fishery five times in one
year appears to be a de facto disregard of National Standard 8, which
requires the consideration of socio-economic impacts of regulations on
fishing communities.
A. Do you have any recommendations to increase the focus on such
factors?
B. What can be done to inject more flexibility into the Act?
Answer. I agree that the ever-changing regulations are improper and
violate the National Standards. Frequent rule changes disrupt the
fishery and fishermen's lives, and guarantee that we will never know
what aspects of the rules actually bring about improvements to fish
stocks We can't make a business plan or plans for our future.
I think that the Councils should be limited to the degree of change
permitted in the middle of a year. Very often, we spend time preparing
management alternatives, only to be told that goals have changed
without notice. Even in preparation for annual adjustments, the reports
and analyses are made available only days before the meetings where
annual adjustments are planned. We need to limit the Councils to at
most one adjustment per year, with some flexibility for emergencies--
but no longer major changes through the ``Framework Process.''
With regard to the issues of flexibility, managers should be
permitted to look at total biomass, not just management on a species by
species basis. Where a reduction is needed in one fishery, all other
opportunity to target other species should not be lost where it will
only provide a marginal reduction on the species of concern.
Managers should be allowed to extend rebuilding deadlines to allow
for continued economic participation of fishermen and communities.
More reliance should be placed on real time data, through use of
computerized logbooks and observer data. This would permit more
flexible area closures and adjustment of other measures. High priority
should be given to flexibility in allowing short-term openings of
inshore areas closed for cod conservation, whenever cod stocks have
migrated through, and opportunity exists to target other species.
Question 2. Please comment on whether you think that the Council
decision-making process involves an adequate level of public
participation and whether establishing standard operating procedures
for its advisory committees would improve the Council's work.
A. Are you aware of any instances when the Council has not
adequately considered an Advisory Committee recommendation? If so,
please explain.
Answer. I do not think that the present Council structure in the
Northeast permits adequate public comment. Recent pronouncements from
the Council office limit the public's ability to participate by
essentially mandating participation through industry spokespeople. Even
the advisory groups are being run by non-fishermen, often lobbyists,
who further limit opportunity for input. Much of this is due to the
lengthy process requiring attendance at numerous meetings. As
conservation turns to an allocation fight, marginal groups can not keep
up, and find themselves frozen out.
With regard to the failure of the Council to follow industry
advisors, the most glaring example are the inshore closures in the Gulf
of Maine. The advisors stood firmly against these, as it was believed
that these posed a significant threat to the inshore fleet. Subsequent
to the development of the inshore closure alternatives and adoption by
the council, the advisors were proven right by the NMFS report
generated by Peter Fricke, and the figures produced by the New England
Fishery Management Council showing that while offshore fleets
maintained or increased landings, inshore vessels landings were reduced
overall by about 68 percent. Attachments A and B * hereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Attachments have been retained in the Subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As early as Amendment V, industry advisors recommended the Council
take steps to prevent displacement of effort into inshore areas.
Although the Groundfish Committee indicated this would not be allowed,
the Council completely failed to take this industry concern into
account, resulting in displacement of effort into inshore waters, and
caused the Gulf of Maine cod stock to collapse.
Recently, NEFMC subcommittee and advisory committee meetings were
scheduled in May, just when inshore fishing grounds opened for the
first time after months. Many of us were required to choose between our
first paycheck in months, and attending endless meetings to make sure
lobbyists for other elements of the fleet didn't merely stab us in the
back to get a bigger piece of the pie. We need to bring management back
to a level where industry works together.
Question 3. Do you support the Marine Fish Conservation Network
recommendation that the Magnuson-Stevens Act should be amended to
guarantee that more non-fishermen (specifically members of
environmental organizations) are appointed to the regional fishery
management councils?
Answer. I do not think that we need more members of environmental
organizations on the Councils. There is sufficient representation of
``environmental'' interests in the government science. The Council
process lets industry decide how to take the medicine the government
requires in the form of reductions in catch. Environmental
organizations have little to offer to determine how a sectors gear
should be modified or when areas need to be closed to protect
individual stocks. The Council process supposedly exists to allow
individuals affected by conservation guidelines or mandates to make
adjustments to their activities, not to set conservation goals.
I am concerned that individuals are appointed to the Council with
an ``Environmental'' agenda, such as elimination of commercial fishing,
and are paid by their organizations dependent upon how they vote. This
completely undermines confidence in a process which is supposed to
maximize return from the resource. I do not believe that
representatives of environmental organizations give any consideration
to industry concerns. In general, I am opposed to any paid lobbyists
sitting on the Councils.
Question 4. Please state whether or not Congress should extend the
moratorium on Individual Transferable Quotas and how such action would
affect fisheries in New England.
Answer. I oppose ITQ's and recommend that the ban on them be
continued. ITQ's will permit a very few to profit at the expense of the
owner operator fleet, which is the vital social fabric of the fishing
ports of New England.
I have heard a lot of discussion attempting to compare the
Northeast to the West coasts. The two fisheries can not be compared,
because of the number of small owner-operators and the multispecies
nature of our fishery. It would be impossible to set individual quotas
in this region. The last few years have witnessed such a disruption in
fishing patterns and disparity in landings between gear and regional
sectors of the fleet, that fair allocation would be impossible.
The scenarios for allocating quota threaten to reward those who
have historically had the greatest impact on the resource. Conversely,
those who had spread their effort over a number of species now find
themselves frozen out of fisheries that constituted smaller parts of
their catch. Having lost those species, such as lobster for inshore
groundfishermen, their allocation of groundfish will be substantially
lower than their overall historical catch. The multispecies fishery is
not easily adapted to ITQs unless they are given equally to each
vessel.
I believe the easiest solution is to avoid ITQs altogether, as the
only result will be disparity between the winners and losers, and
ultimate concentration of title to the resource in a few large private
entities.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to comment on these
important matters. Please feel free to call upon me should you have any
additional questions or concerns.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Dr. Patrick Sullivan
Question 1. Several of the witnesses testified that Maximum
Sustainable Yield is an outdated concept.
A. In the absence of Maximum Sustainable Yield, what would you
advocate as a responsible benchmark to achieve sustainable fisheries?
Answer. The witness did not provide a response.
B. What further data would be required to quantify this benchmark?
Answer. The witness did not provide a response.
Question 2. It has been suggested that the regional councils should
switch from single or multispecies Fishery Management Plans to Fishery
Ecosystem Plans.
A. Please assess the amount of work this would create for the
regional councils?
Answer. The witness did not provide a response.
B. Is there currently enough life history and environmental data to
create such an ecosystem plan?
Answer. The witness did not provide a response.
Question 3. Please state whether or not Congress should extend the
moratorium on Individual Transferable Quotas and how such action would
affect fisheries in New England.
Answer. The witness did not provide a response.
Question 4. Does the term ``overfishing'' need to be change? If so,
please describe.
Answer. The witness did not provide a response.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Peter Weiss
Question 1. The Marine Fish Conservation Network (Network) has
recommended that language requiring the United States to implement the
management and conservation measures adopted by the International
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) be repealed.
This would allow the United States to implement management and
conservation measures that would be inconsistent with measures agreed
to by the United States for fisheries managed under ICCAT. Do you
support this recommendation? Please explain.
Answer. We are absolutely, totally opposed to the changes suggested
by the Marine Fish Conservation Network to drop the statutory
references in Magnuson and ATCA protecting all U.S. Highly Migratory
fishermen against unilateral restrictions requiring higher conservation
standards for only U.S. fishermen. The language prohibiting regulations
that solely disadvantage U.S. fishermen in relation to our foreign
counterparts simply recognizes that U.S. fishermen are not second class
citizens of the world and are entitled to our historical share of
international fish resources. The Magnuson Act recognizes that U.S.
fishermen must be provided a reasonable opportunity to catch quotas
agreed to by ICCAT and this is not some kind of luxury but rather a
basic right inherent to all partners participating in management and
conservation of our shared Highly Migratory resources.
The Marine Fish Network folks simply do not get it--in the long
run, unilateral measures and efforts by the U.S. to conserve highly
migratory fish cannot and will not work. For nearly every highly
migratory fish under ICCAT, we catch an almost insignificant amount
(i.e. <5%) of the species and are responsible for but a small fraction
of fishing mortality on these species.
I emphatically remind the Staff that it was Senator Kerry who
championed the cause of equal treatment for U.S. HMS fishermen during
the 1990 Magnuson Act and ATCA amendments. I have attached his eloquent
justifications at the time and note that they are even more true and
necessary for the new Millennium.
Question 2. As a member of the Highly Migratory Species Advisory
Panel to the Secretary, do you have any suggestions on how the process
can be made more responsive to recommendations, especially consensus
recommendations, of the Advisory Panels?
Answer. My suggestion is that serious consideration should be given
to making consensus recommendations of the A.P. binding on NMFS and
that a statutory time limit of 180 days for implementation of these
regulations be imposed. At the same time, I think there needs to be
more structure provided for the appointment process and balance on the
A.P. The primary function of the A.P. is to provide advice on matters
pertaining to regulating the fisheries.
I also suggest that changes be made to provide the A.P. a measure
of independence from NMFS. Longer terms of appointment, mandating the
election of non-NMFS Chairman, authorizing calling of meetings and
establishment of agenda items would all contribute to a more effective
and relevant A.P.
Question 3. Please state whether or not Congress should extend the
moratorium on Individual Transferable Quotas and how such action would
affect fisheries in New England.
Answer. Congress should not extend the moratorium on ITQ's and
Congress should end this needless micromanagement of the fisheries.
Today, fish managers across this country need to have and consider
every possible tool to manage all of our challenging fisheries,
especially those with unique characteristics. ITQ's can be utilized in
a manner where the benefits extend beyond those originally possessing
the allocation.
Attachment
International efforts to manage Highly Migratory Species are absolutely
imperative. U.S. fishermen should not have to endure severe
restrictions while other nations continue to harvest the very same
stock of fish. These are international stocks and all nations must bear
responsibility for conservation. We are trying to avoid a situation in
which, once again, a U.S. industry is asked to adhere to greater
standards than our competitors abroad, a consequence of which U.S.
workers, fishermen and others who work as a result of the fishing
industry, wind up out of jobs or being hurt in their income. That is
obviously not fair, and it is important that we fight for those rights
. . . . The United States ought to take the lead to establish strong
international quotas that will promote recovery and conservation of
stocks. Once agreement is reached by the international community, U.S.
fishermen ought to be allowed a reasonable opportunity to fish for the
[agreed upon] quota . . . . (136 Cong. Rec. S14,963 (daily ed. Oct. 11,
1990) (statement of Sen. Kerry debating S. 1025, the Fishery
Conservation Amendments of 1990)).
[Regarding] Highly Migratory Species . . . U.S. fishermen are willing
to do their fair share to rebuild these stocks. But it is Congress'
intention that all nations that harvest these stocks participate and
that our fishermen are not unduly burdened with the full responsibility
for this effort. Therefore, this bill asks the Secretary [of Commerce]
to negotiate a strong international quota and provide fishermen a
reasonable opportunity to catch that quota. (136 Cong. Rec. S17,469
(daily ed. Oct. 27, 1990) (statement of Sen. Kerry debating H.R. 2061,
the Fishery Conservation Amendments of 1990)).
[T]he [International] Commission [for the Conservation of Atlantic
Tunas] adopted a two-stock hypothesis, using a line drawn at 45 degrees
west longitude to divide Atlantic bluefin tuna into western and eastern
stocks. Little conclusive data has been collected to support the two
stock hypothesis . . . . I raise this issue because while western
Atlantic harvests have been reduced by 65 percent, catches in the east
are reported to have increased by 31 percent. If further investigation
reveals that mixing rates between the two stocks are greater than
current data indicate, then overfishing in the eastern Atlantic is
having a greater impact on the western stock than is currently
acknowledged. In order to rebuild the fishery in the western Atlantic,
it would then become critical to reduce fishing effort in the eastern
Atlantic. Additional reductions for the western Atlantic would be of
questionable value from a conservation standpoint. (139 Cong. Rec.
S14,839 (daily ed. Nov. 2, 1993) (statement of Sen. Kerry introducing
S. 1611, the Atlantic Tunas Convention Authorization Act of 1993)).
Other countries' lack of compliance with ICCAT recommendations also may
be linked to problems in the U.S. Bluefin Tuna Fisher. [H]arvests in
the eastern fisheries have greatly exceeded the 15 percent allowance of
bluefin tuna under 6.4 kilograms. In addition, the catch of bluefin
tuna by fishing vessels of non-ICCAT member countries and the
reflagging of vessels to avoid ICCAT restrictions may inhibit the
stock's ability to recover. The result is that the effectiveness of
U.S. conservation efforts is dissipated by the failure of other nations
to take complementary action. [Thus], participation by all fishing
parties in concerted action to implement and enforce management
measures is long overdue. Such participation is essential if we are to
have any hope of rebuilding these stocks and ensuring sustainable
fisheries harvests. (139 Cong. Rec. S14,839 (daily ed. Nov. 2, 1993)
(statement of Sen. Kerry introducing S. 1611, the Atlantic Tunas
Convention Authorization Act of 1993)).
The Atlantic bluefin resource supports valuable commercial and
recreational fisheries in the United States. A general national
estimate is that the commercial industry generates $22 to $32 million
in direct sales of bluefin tuna. Of course, this figure does not begin
to take into consideration the supporting industry and businesses for
which the bluefin tuna industry generates revenue. Nationally, there
are approximately 11,600 permits issued to commercial vessels to fish
for bluefin tuna, of which over one third are held by vessels from my
State of Massachusetts. Numerous families in small coastal communities
from Maine to Louisiana depend upon this fishery for their livelihood--
in commercial fisheries, charter boat operations, or in assorted
supply, maintenance, and processing operations. (139 Cong. Rec. S14,839
(daily ed. Nov. 2, 1993) (statement of Sen. Kerry introducing S. 1611,
the Atlantic Tunas Convention Authorization Act of 1993)).
We need better information to properly assess and manage Atlantic
bluefin tuna and other highly migratory species. In addition, we must
encourage other countries in the eastern and western Atlantic and the
Mediterranean to do their fair share. The benefits of coordinated
action and shared responsibility for these stocks will be enjoyed by
all. (139 Cong. Rec. S14,839 (daily ed. Nov. 2, 1993) (statement of
Sen. Kerry introducing S. 1611, the Atlantic Tunas Convention
Authorization Act of 1993)).