 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association January 2000 Newsletter)
by Gary Caputi
The rush to post bills aimed at curbing longlining reached a fever pitch with a total of three bills submitted in the last few weeks. They vary in their ability to reduce longlining effort, reduce bycatch and provide real conservation benefits. They also vary by who gets saddled with shouldering the financial burden for the actions they propose.
The Senate bill sponsored by Senator John Breaux (LA) and Olympia Snow (ME), both champions of commercial fishing, contains the controversial measures negotiated between the Coastal Conservation Association (CCA), the Billfish Foundation (TBF), the American Sportfishing Association (ASA) and the longliners lobbyists from the Blue Water Fisherman’s Association (BWFA). It includes extensive area closures in the Gulf of Mexico and the south Atlantic and a controversial "voluntary" buyout of longline vessels with the financial burden to be shouldered by taxpayers; seafood consumers in the form of a tariff on all swordfish sold; and recreational fishermen in the form of a new pelagic fishing permit for anyone venturing into the closed areas. It contains no reduction in quota or overall fishing effort on the longliners that remain in the fishery. The remaining boats, which comprise about 75% of the existing fleet if the buyout indeed removes 60 boats, will be the beneficiaries of greatly reduced competition and increased quota share as a result. It’s a great deal for them. The government is going to buy out a big chunk of their competition, have taxpayers, consumer and recreational fishermen foot the bill to do it, and they get a greater share of the existing quota which is not reduced by the legislation. In effect, the government and you and I are going to make the remaining boats in the longline industry more profitable and, not surprisingly, politically powerful. And the bill will put a four-year moratorium on any additional measures, should those in the bill fail to provide sufficient conservation benefits.
The second bill, sponsored by Congressman James Saxton (NJ), chairman of the House Committee on Sustainable Fisheries, Oceans and Wildlife, mirrors the Breaux/Snow bill, but it draws a correlation in quota reduction for each boat purchased through the buyout. However, the quota reduction only comes into play for boats fishing in the Mid-Atlantic Bight area. The concern is that the Breaux/Snow bill, while having some conservation benefits in the Gulf and South Atlantic, will create a massive shift in fishing effort from the closed areas to the canyons and Gulf Stream in the Mid-Atlantic and further north into New England. This effort shift is all but guaranteed by the legislation because the boats that will "volunteer" for the buyout money will most certainly be the least profitable and least mobile in the fleet - boats that are only marginally in business at this point in time, if not already sitting idly at the dock. The remaining 75% of the fleet will consist of larger, more modern vessels capable of traveling great distances or shifting their base of operations into the mid-Atlantic region. They will be increasing operations in an area of the greatest concentration of recreational fishing boats, the states between North Carolina and New York, where grounds conflicts are sure to arise. In addition, the effort shift will place far greater pressure in areas where seasonal concentrations of white marlin are still found in U.S. waters. White marlin is the most endangered and over-fished of the billfish species and is in that precarious state due to longline bycatch over the past twenty plus years.
The third bill, introduced by Congressman (SC) calls for the complete session of longlining in all U.S. EEZ waters. This is the strongest bill and offers the greatest conservation benefit, yet it is given little chance of advancing through the house with such powerhouse senior congressmen and senators promoting the far weaker bills. This is unfortunate.
With all these legislative efforts underway, the National Marine Fisheries Service, in an announcement this week, detailed specifications for a proposed rule that would institute major time and area closures in the south Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico through the regulatory power granted them by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The use of time and area closures to reduce bycatch of juvenile swordfish and billfish was the highlight of the Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan unveiled by NMFS last year after two years of development time. The time and area closures portion of the FMP was postponed while NMFS could further study longline logbooks to determine where such areas should be located to be effective. The time and area closure portion of the FMP was strongly supported by none other than the Billfish Foundation, which has now shifted it support to a legislative approach with a costly buyout instead of NMFS regulation.
After completeling their review, and with the added pressure of a lawsuit by the National Coalition for Marine Conservation holding their feet to the fire to implement the closures called for in the FMP, here is what NMFS included in their proposed rule. A total closure of the south Atlantic coastal region from South Carolina through the Straits of Florida year-round; and a seasonal closure of the entire western Gulf of Mexico from the Mexican border through Louisiana from March 1 through September 30. It would close these areas to all longlining including targeting dolphinfish and wahoo. NMFS is requesting public comment on the closure areas and timing and is scheduling public hearings for January and February. The comment deadline is February 11, 2000. Once comments are reviewed, the final rule will be developed and implementation could be in place for the 2001-fishing year.
The beauty of accomplishing the time and area closures through NMFS regulation, actually the correct venue for such management measures, is that no buyout is necessary and the taxpayer and recreational fishermen. They are not obligated to pay for the sins of the longline industry that has decimated these fisheries causing great disruptions to the recreational fisheries as well. Further, provisions in the Magnuson-Stevens Sustainable Fisheries Act allow the longline industry to buyout boats affected by the closure through a special, low interest government loan program that would not burden taxpayers and recreational fishermen and that would be paid back through the sale of fish products caught by the remaining boats. No legislative buyout is necessary, period!
The entire concept of boat buyouts to reduce fleet size, and, ostensibly, fishing effort is highly questionable when one looks at what has happened in New England in the past few years. The government has spent over $23 million to purchase 79 commercial trawlers, $7 million in so-called disaster relief for remaining fishermen who can’t still can’t fish, and now an additional $15 million is being spent on questionable scientific research to be conducted by idle commercial fishing vessels. With over 45 million in taxpayer dollars spent already, the fisheries off New England are still in terrible shape and little, if any, reduction in fishing effort has been realized. Who's to say the results of a longliner buyout, which is actually a subsidy for the remaining boats in the fleet as well, will have any better results.
The CCA just released comments condemning NMFS for doing its job by publishing the proposed rule for time and area closures. This was not unexpected. It appears that CCA is more concerned with taking credit for weak legislation than they are in seeing the fishery management system in place do its job and regulate the fisheries they were charged with conserving. We expect the next salvo will come from TBF, railing against the very fishery management plan they worked to help develop with NMFS. The bottom line is, the NMFS proposed rule accomplishes the time and area closures through the proper channels. It closes areas that longline industry representatives involved in the development of the HMS-FMP agreed had to be closed, but stops short of spending millions of dollars to compensate longliners for their economic loss, even though they are the cause of that loss in the first place. In the case of Senators Breaux and Snow, any legislation that gets commercial fishermen off the hook is fine by them and I am not surprised in the least that they volunteered to be the political champions of the "big deal". It’s a real win/win for the longline industry.
It’s time to take a step back and look at the motives of all the groups involved and the benefits and downside of each approach being put forward. Then we should put all our heads together and do what is best for the resource without taking punitive action against the recreational fisherman who is being used as a pawn in this entire process. The largest number of recreational groups have agreed that the proper venue for time and area closures is through the regulatory body charged by law with doing it...the National Marine Fisheries Service. The mechanism already exists in the law and in the HMS-FMP. While NMFS has a less than stellar track record in the past, the agency appears poised to do the right thing without congress getting in the way.
December 2, 1999
Penelope Dalton
Assistant Administrator
National Marine Fisheries Service
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
Dear Ms. Dalton:
I am writing in strong opposition to an increase in the federal tuna permit fee.
As you know, I opposed the current $18 permit fee when NMFS first implemented it in 1997. I was outraged to learn that NMFS will increase this fee to $25 for permits issued next year.
I firmly believe that the imposition of these fees led to a dramatic reduction of public participation in recreation tuna fishing, and I am seriously concerned that an even more burdensome $25 fee will further reduce the number of recreational tuna anglers. As you are aware, my district includes a very active recreational tuna angling community, and many within the community share my strong opposition these fees.
It is even more disturbing to me is that the fees imposed for tuna fishing do not directly fund the actual permitting process. Rather, I understand that these fees are paid directly into the general Treasury. Furthermore, the fees provide no direct benefits to recreational tuna fishermen, as there has been no indication from NMFS that fees collected to date have improved management of tuna fisheries.
Tuna is a valuable resource to the recreational community and should be made accessible to those who wish to enjoy angling. I therefore urge you to cancel plans to increase this burdensome and detrimental fee.
Thank you for your consideration of my concerns.
Sincerely,
Frank Pallone, Jr,
Member of Congress
Friday, December 03, 1999
Dr. Rebecca Lent,
Highly Migratory Species DivisionNMFS
Silver Spring, MD.
Subject: Exempted Fishing Permits
Dear Rebecca,
Jersey Coast Anglers Association strongly objects to the issuance of Exempted Fishing Permits for the coastal driftnet fishery. NMFS full observer coverage of this gear type found major interaction with mammals, endangered turtles and other marine life. The interaction level was unacceptable and permanently closed the use of driftnet's as a gear type. The law in other regulations required this. There are no studies that indicate this interaction would be any less for this gear type in coastal waters. It is clear this gear must be totally banned and no exemptions allowed.
Further, we request you close the Atlantic Bonito fishery that uses this gear type. Atlantic Bonito are one of the HMS species listed in the HMS management plan. This gear type is non-selective and it catches many species that are not targeted. NMFS would follow their own regulations by totally closing the Atlantic Bonito fishery using drift net gear.
Thomas P. Fote
Legislative Chairman JCAA & NJSFSC
22 Cruiser Court, Toms River NJ, 08753
732-270-9102 Fax 732-506-6409
Email <tfote@jcaa.org>
BY John Koegler
We look back over the past hundred years that produced amazing changes in all fields of human endeavor. As we enter a brand new Millennium, the outlook is very questionable for billfish, tuna and sharks. Fishery Management Plans for HMS are mostly failures. All are glaring examples of good intended laws gone bad. This New Year the Magnuson-Stevens SUSTAINABLE Fishery Act is SCHEDULED for it's next 4-year renewal. This is the time and place to change the law and write laws that force fishery managers to create, write and apply the law as Congress intended it.
In 1996 the Magnuson-Stevens Sustainable Fisheries and Conservation Act was revised with the federal lawmakers intent of correcting past system abuses and fixing specific fishery issues that were preventing a recovery in most fisheries. Guidelines for NMFS were outlined by the National Standards. All fishery management plans must comply with these standards. The problem is NMFS just ignored many parts of the law. If not corrected in the 2000 reauthorization most fisheries will sink lower. Fixing NMFS is critical to the recovery of any fishery
Two National Standards that were bypassed(1)- "Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving on a continuing basis the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry".
This was a change from previous rules, which used Maximum Sustainable Yield as the management guide. In application NMFS management ignored this change stating that Optimum yield is a proxy for MSY! Tougher guidelines for determining "overfishing" had an impact.
(9)- Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize bycatch and (B) to the extent bycatch can not be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch." The term to the extent practicable was used to ignore this section entirely.
(A)- Recovery time-- Ten years was the new mandated time period. Recovery of the species to a sustainable level must happen within ten years. Lip service was given this issue but it very doubtful that any currently managed species can achieve the sustainable levels specified.
Over the last four years, the list of overfished species has been added to each year. This not what the Magnuson act was intended to accomplish. Overfishing and massive bycatch discards continue without new rules to reduce them, as the law mandates. NMFS ignoring the law has hurt a vast number of little people and destroyed commercial and recreational businesses alike. Avoiding the law has not helped the commercial fishers, despite many actions that diverted more fish to commercial fishers.
The politicians who created this aberration called fish management must correct not only the act itself but also the management system that clearly is not working. These failures are occurring despite major increases in NMFS yearly budgets. The 2000 version of this act must not repeat and create a new law full of ambiguity and vague terms open to NMFS misguided interpretation. In the past loosely written laws have allowed commercial fishers to overexploit the public's natural resources until they crash. As one commercial fishery after another crashes, the recreational fishing industry is the first to be regulated. In most cases they are so strapped with seasons, bag limits and size limits that recreational participation is dropping and the charterboat business dying.
Your ability to partake in the fishing and eating of fish you enjoy so much is under attack. Fish managers and the conservationists strongly supported by politicians have ignored the huge economic contribution of anglers to State and local economies.
Managers are deliberately confusing people by over reporting the actual real dollar value of the commercial FISH-ing industry! They include the dollar value of clams, squid, scallops and crabs as part of the reported commercial fishing industry dollars. NON-FISH species account for 75% of the commercial SEAFOOD dollars in New Jersey. SEAFOOD IS NOT FISH. The commercial finfish industry is now a minor industry that is destroying the ocean. In truth they have fished themselves out of business by decimating the ocean's resources.
The New Jersey commercial FISH-industry is a perfect example. NJ 1996 dockside SEAFOOD sales were $96,000,000.+, BUT FISH sales represented only $22,675,957. of that total. During 1996, New Jersey recreational spending totaled a gigantic $746,904,429. for a limited number of FISH species. How can the politician, managers and federal lawmakers continue to ignore the economic contribution of the recreational sector when the dollars are 40 to 1?
A new study by the U.S. Congressional Research Service documented that recreational FISH and commercial seafood landings (including clams, squid, crabs & scallops plus Alaska) made an equal $25 Billion dollar contribution to the national economy in 1997. However, anglers landed ONLY 234 million pounds of FISH to create their $25 billion of economic activity. Commercial fishermen landed 9.8 BILLION pounds of SEAFOOD to earn their $25 Billion of income.
A pound of fish caught by rod and reel represents well over 40 times the economic benefit of a pound of commercially caught seafood.
Isn't it amazing the same 40 to 1 ratio in either dollars or pounds is the same nationally and in the State of New Jersey. Can they both be wrong? Why are the anglers being economically ignored?
What currently passes as fishery management must be changed? It must be replaced with specific Congressional mandates in the 2000-year reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens. The lawmakers must be tough enough to get the job done. More of the same old, same old will not do. You must inform your congressman and Senators that you will not stand for it. P.S. - No one is going to do it for you for free. Either write the letters or contribute to the organizations that will do the work.
Our point you have heard many times from the JCAA newsletter is that NMFS has lost its way.
Consider just a few Items NMFS has proposed or passed during 1999:
Yellowfin Tuna rules for a 3 tuna bag limit applied to recreational ONLY.
A recreational only rule is illegal under Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS forced us to court
New Shark size rules and one per boat bag apply to recreational ONLY
A recreational only rule is illegal under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS forced us to court.
The Billfish Plan-Reduces angler landing of white Marlin by 25% or 3/4 of ONE tone of marlin. Meanwhile nothing was specified to reduce or eliminate the average 80 Metric Tons of DEAD longline White Marlin discards. This does not include the live releases.
Longline buyout of 78 vessels for $20 MILLION dollars includes no conservation.
In one of the more shocking deals ever, the Longline industry cut a deal with three recreational organizations to support a longline buyout that included no conservation. To make the idea totally absurd the buyout is for the same areas NMFS was being forced by the Magnuson law to close anyway! Why reward the longline destroyers with a buyout when NMFS MUST and WILL put them out of business for FREE! Why the Coastal Conservation Association, The Billfish Foundation and American Sportfishing Association would want to support a clear give away is very difficult to understand.
We are at a loss to explain their action because we do not know what these groups received for their support of this poorly written plan. Anglers fishing in the closed areas of their states must contribute $5,000,000 to pay for part of the plan. The plan says angler boats will have to pay $25.00 per boat to fish the closed areas per year. The Math on the angler $5,000,000 payment based on the current tuna permit owners is $400 per year per boat times (X) the 4 years allowed. I wonder if NMFS will close Florida sail fishing if the state does not pay up?
5- Tuna permit fees were increased from $18 to $25.00 with no reason given for the increase. This now the same amount as the $25. HMS (tuna) permits. I wonder?
Same idea other species:We all know that stripers are a fully recovered species! New year 2000 rules will require recreational's to reduce their striper landings of 8 year old and older adult fish! Small fish under 28" which anglers throw back alive in ever increasing numbers, NEVER come back in these large numbers as legal sized fish! What happened to the hundreds of thousands of stripers we release alive and well EACH AND EVERY YEAR? Did they vanish into UFO's to feed the space gods!
Last month you read NMFS explanation why anglers must not be allowed to harvest their bluefish quota by increasing the angler bag limit to 15 fish. Instead NMFS PERMITS the commercial sector to steal an extra 3 million pounds from the UNCAUGHT recreational quota.
Commercials get OUR bluefish from OUR uncaught QUOTA, which we are not allowed to catch
Do you think NMFS has lost their way? If NOT, check NMFS reasoning on Sargassum weed!
NMFS recently returned to the South Atlantic Council a management plan that ended the commercial harvest of Sargassum Seaweed, long considered essential fish habitat by all involved.
In the letter rejecting the councils' plan, NMFS wrote that Sargassum is not essential fish habitat but FISH?? NMFS informed the council that they could not justify prohibiting Sargassum harvest, when this weed is considered by NMFS to be Fish. The council must establish a sustainable catch(?) level for commercial Sargassum weed fishing(?) to get the plan approved!
|
|
|
|
|