Coalition seeks to avoid fisheries management “train wreck”

[chicapesca]

Overwhelmed agency incapable of properly implementing law

Passage of the 2006 Magnuson-Stevens Act, the overarching law that manages America’s marine fisheries, revealed crippling deficiencies within the agency charged with implementing the law. Recently, a coalition of marine angling and industry groups launched an effort to improve the National Marine Fisheries Service’s efforts to manage the nation’s marine resources and the 13 million saltwater anglers who depend on healthy fisheries.

“We have the most conservation-oriented law we have ever had governing our marine resources, and the agency does not have the data, assessments, science or, frankly, the attitude, to adequately implement it,” said Chester Brewer, chairman of CCA’s National Government Relations Committee. “The result is that the agency has been reduced to managing fisheries by closure which was not the intent of the law when it was passed by Congress.”
In addition to requiring an end to all overfishing by 2011, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have a determination on the overfished status of every species under management, and have annual catch limits and accountability measures in place for them by a time certain as well.
“For far too many species, there is not any science at all to do that and to develop it will take one to three years for every single species,” said Brewer. “With its startling lack of data, there is no way NMFS can catch up on decades of work and the agency will be crushed by its lack of science. The entire federal management system will be forced to ignore real conservation and management issues, and simply manage by closure. The coalition is seeking a way to fulfill the conservation tenets of the law without driving the entire process into a train wreck.”
Current efforts to revise the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including the so-called “flexibility” legislation (H.R.1584 and S.1171) do not address the shortcomings of NMFS that are negatively impacting anglers and, in fact, jeopardize a number of the true conservation gains in the Act.
“H.R.1584 and S.1171 do not provide for better data-gathering or prevent the imposition of in-season closures when NMFS believes there is a danger of overfishing, nor do they improve recreational data and the way it is used. It just delays rebuilding,” said Brewer. “That is not where the problem lies.”
Among other administrative and appropriations requests, the coalition is urging the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to convene a blue ribbon panel to identify the long-term data, statistical, research and funding needs of the regional fishery science centers. The outcomes of this panel will help to inform the appropriation needs related to recreational fishing data and statistics for NMFS and coastal state fishery agencies.
“There is a great deal of frustration among recreational anglers, much of it attributable to an agency that doesn't have the ability to properly manage us,” said Pat Murray, president of CCA. “The shortcomings of NMFS have to be fixed, either administratively or by Congress. Recreational anglers deserve both a meaningful law, and an agency capably of implementing it.”

###

CCA is the largest marine resource conservation group of its kind in the nation. With almost 100,000 members in 17 state chapters, CCA has been active in state, national and international fisheries management issues since 1977. Visit www.JoinCCA.org for more information.

This is an action item, if you would like to comment on it, this is the link. http://www.joincca.org/media%20room/...tion_seeks.htm


Comments and questions will be taken until March 9th.

[hilton]

Liz,
It was interesting to see this coalition put out this press release on the very eve of the March on Washington - I believe it was timed to coincide with the flexibility movement's action. Too bad that all parties involved can't come together for the common goal of keeping our fisheries and our fishing infrastruture alive and well in one united action instead of competing for attention.

Regardless of what the coalition may think about the "so-called" flexibility legislation, the flexibility is needed NOW to keep our fishing communities and infrastructure from collapse. I believe that what the coalition is proposing is also much-needed, but the timeframe in which to accomplish the data collection is too far out there to be of any help to the communities and fishermen TODAY. By the time the data comes in, many of the fishing-related businesses will be non-existent and not likely to come back.

I believe that flexibility would give us the much-needed time to conduct the data information upgrades as suggested by the coalition.

Both initiatives have merit, and I hope that all parties at the table can find a way to work together for our mutual goals, as we are much stronger together than divided. Not only are we fighting a dysfunctional government agency, but we are fighting environmental.orgs such as EDF who are driving the bus at agency level.

Tom

[chicapesca]

Originally Posted by hilton

Liz,
Both initiatives have merit, and I hope that all parties at the table can find a way to work together for our mutual goals, as we are much stronger together than divided. Not only are we fighting a dysfunctional government agency, but we are fighting environmental.orgs such as EDF who are driving the bus at agency level.

Tom

I agree Tom.

[Mike Jennings]

Current efforts to revise the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including the so-called “flexibility” legislation (H.R.1584 and S.1171) do not address the shortcomings of NMFS that are negatively impacting anglers and, in fact, jeopardize a number of the true conservation gains in the Act.
“H.R.1584 and S.1171 do not provide for better data-gathering or prevent the imposition of in-season closures when NMFS believes there is a danger of overfishing, nor do they improve recreational data and the way it is used. It just delays rebuilding,” said Brewer. “That is not where the problem lies.”
.

Hmmm that sounds like some of that SOS Propaganda Tom , i think that was the comment when i said a few weeks ago that i had my doubts that the flexibility plan would do anything more than extend the deadlines .

To me ,The Million doller question would be . Who will pick this BLUE RIBBON panel ?

as far as the data goes , the sickening part about it is that the data NMFS claims they are missing or is most needed ,is " fisheries independent data " that is sadly something that is solely in there hands , i brought up in Mobile the idea of looking into asking the CFH operators to get there boats involved in the process of gathering some of the missing fishery independent data , I'm not holding my breath . but i will keep offering .

Basically the way i understood it was that we can implement all the log books we want on our end ( fisheries dependant data ) and it may not make much difference in our current state of affairs. Now that doesn't relieve us of the need for better data collection in the rec sector , but its just one more thing that makes you wonder how much any of us can effect a true change in this debacle.

thanks for posting that Liz , this will be interesting to watch unfold

[Swells]

Current efforts to revise the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including the so-called “flexibility” legislation (H.R.1584 and S.1171) do not address the shortcomings of NMFS that are negatively impacting anglers and, in fact, jeopardize a number of the true conservation gains in the Act.

• I tend to agree with that assessment. Congress really needs to tell to tell the NMFS what it intends to do, and call the leaders up on the witness stand if the agency fails in some regard.
• For too long, the NMFS has acted like its own Medieval fiefdom, issuing dictats as they please, and often ignoring mandates that were funded but never implemented for some reason.
• From what I understand, the NMFS couldn't even do its job without state and university grants such as to do surveys and research ... but when they get any data, they tend to "cherry pick" the studies they want; I am very concerned about further budget cuts.
• My biggest concern is that the current Administration wants to cut domestic program funding even further, which means less money for the NMFS. This means more policy with less data to me.

Recommendations for the Magnuson would include measures to ensure that that Federal Advisory Committee process is being carried out (i.e., preventing undue EDF influence), demanding accountability measures, enhancing habitat-related surveys (e.g., net trawls, fish traps, hook & line), and putting species on their own timelines as opposed to "one size fits all."

Of course I'm just a dummy here. I do appreciate the quick education from all you guys ... LOL, sometime I wish I had never used angry words but hey, this is a big deal, a "turning point" for fisheries management.

I hope it turns for the good.
sammie

[hilton]

Originally Posted by Mike Jennings

Hmmm that sounds like some of that SOS Propaganda Tom , i think that was the comment when i said a few weeks ago that i had my doubts that the flexibility plan would do anything more than extend the deadlines .

To me ,The Million doller question would be . Who will pick this BLUE RIBBON panel ?

as far as the data goes , the sickening part about it is that the data NMFS claims they are missing or is most needed ,is " fisheries independent data " that is sadly something that is solely in there hands , i brought up in Mobile the idea of looking into asking the CFH operators to get there boats involved in the process of gathering some of the missing fishery independent data , I'm not holding my breath . but i will keep offering .

Basically the way i understood it was that we can implement all the log books we want on our end ( fisheries dependant data ) and it may not make much difference in our current state of affairs. Now that doesn't relieve us of the need for better data collection in the rec sector , but its just one more thing that makes you wonder how much any of us can effect a true change in this debacle.

thanks for posting that Liz , this will be interesting to watch unfold

Cowboy,
Here's an inquiry I sent late December to a very well-respected scientist regarding the fishery-independent data collection process. Regretfully, I have been too busy to follow up, but will soon.
Tom

Is there a way to organize such a sampling survey where we could utilize
commercial and recreational vessels to perform visual surveys (via
underwater video/cameras) in addition to sample catch data? I know that
recreational anglers across the Gulf and East Coast, in addition to
numerous dive clubs would be excited to be able to participate in such a
data gathering program. The problem as I see it is how to do it in a
manner that would be credible.

Tom:

Yes, such a project could be organized and perhaps funded in part. The sampling problem though, is fairly complex covering several states and several sectors of the fishery, including the commercial side, and the visual survey portion would need some additional thought.

In June several groups at Stuart discussed this sort of cooperative effort with Dr. Ponwith, and at that time she indicated interest in possibly helping design a project/program. I suggest you contact her (address above) to see if she is still so inclined. If so, I think the Region could provide the general guidelines for the type of sampling needed in terms of area and temporal coverage and sample design and size. Again,the visual survey would need to be defined and designed to include deeper water work. I also suggest you contact the Southeast Fisheries Association East Coast Fishery Section to see if their people would be willing to participate, for without them and the headboat industry the sampling would be biased. Keep in touch.

[Mike Jennings]

Tom , most of my discussion thus far has been with Bonnie , 4 of the gulf council members and once with Crabtree i was unaware of the discussion in June ,she was open to the idea when we talked as well , and yes they would have to set all the guidelines within the program along with providing observers Etc. our boats would be nothing more that the mode of transportation . i think this is a glaring example of what we talk about when we discuss working together , your boat would be an excellent platform for this effort . Scott and i have been approached about funding , i really think thats a non issue at this point , we have to figure out how to get this off the ground ,

i dont mind contacting anyone we think can heip us push this project . shoot me a few more suggestions , we can both approach them , send it in a PM if you feel best, ill start on it again in the morning .

Also im not sure i understand your comment about the head boat data being needed , were not talking fisheries dependant data , i agree the more boats willing to participate the better , but not sure what head boat data your talking about.

[Mike Jennings]

Originally Posted by Swells

, demanding accountability measures, sammie

here is one thing , that i think most people don't fully understand or comprehend Sammie , please explain ,,, define ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES , and what you suggest that they be .

that is exactly what sector separation is , an accountability measure , that is why is is currently on the ACL/AM amendment .now wether we agree or disagree , the fact is ,, it is on the amendment as just that .

that is also what Bob Zales is working on with some of his pilot programs in Florida and Texas , and thankfully, he is making some much needed headway

the ACL/AM amendment is moving forward through the council process

now in not trying to argue the political aspects of any of this , or who's supposedly in bed with who, so lets please not stat that again ,but I am curious as to what you meant by demanding accountability measures.

[Swells]

your boat would be an excellent platform for this effort

Best quote in a long time, Captain!

Tom has the right machine for some major fishing research, in addition to reefing.

Y'all ought to write a grant proposal -- I'll be glad to help.
sammie

[Possession Limit Lures]

When CCA does a press release where and how is it distributed? Do heads of the mentioned agencies get sent copies before it's released? I'm just curious as to how far reaching this is. I don't see this as stealing anyones thunder, but instead maybe adding a lightning bolt or two to the growing storm. -Mike