[Senate Hearing 115-433]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-433
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS
FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT:
OVERSIGHT OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES (PART 3)
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
34-305 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
TED CRUZ, Texas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DEAN HELLER, Nevada CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MIKE LEE, Utah GARY PETERS, Michigan
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
CORY GARDNER, Colorado MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
TODD YOUNG, Indiana CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
Nick Rossi, Staff Director
Adrian Arnakis, Deputy Staff Director
Jason Van Beek, General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Renae Black, Senior Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES,
AND COAST GUARD
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska, Chairman GARY PETERS, Michigan, Ranking
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
MIKE LEE, Utah EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
CORY GARDNER, Colorado TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
TODD YOUNG, Indiana
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 12, 2017............................... 1
Statement of Senator Sullivan.................................... 1
Letter dated September 25, 2017 to Hon. Daniel S. Sullivan
and Hon. Gary C. Peters from the Mid-Atlantic recreational
anglers, charter-for-hire owners, commercial fishermen and
seafood distributors....................................... 4
Letter dated September 25, 2017 to Hon. Daniel S. Sullivan
and Hon. Gary C. Peters from the recreational anglers and
guides..................................................... 9
Letter dated October 15, 2017 to U.S. Senate Committee
Members from Brett Tolley, Community Organizer, National
Atlantic Marine Alliance................................... 10
Statement of Senator Peters...................................... 2
Statement of Senator Inhofe...................................... 31
Statement of Senator Wicker...................................... 35
Statement of Senator Blumenthal.................................. 37
Witnesses
Phil Faulkner, Owner/Founder, NauticStar Boats................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 14
James A. Donofrio, Executive Director, Recreational Fishing
Alliance....................................................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Chris Horton, Fisheries Program Director, Congressional
Sportsmen's Foundation......................................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Anthony ``Tony'' Friedrich, Recreational Fisherman, Eastern
Shore, Maryland................................................ 25
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Lori Steele, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors
Association.................................................... 42
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Peter Andrew, Jr., Board Member, Bristol Bay Native Corporation.. 49
Prepared statement........................................... 51
Gregory P. DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State Seafood
Association.................................................... 72
Prepared statement........................................... 73
William ``Bubba'' Cochrane II, President, Gulf of Mexico Reef
Fish Shareholders' Alliance.................................... 78
Prepared statement........................................... 79
Appendix
Captain Robert F. Zales II, President, National Association of
Charterboat Operators, prepared statement...................... 89
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to:
Chris Horton................................................. 91
Response to written questions submitted to Anthony ``Tony''
Friedrich by:
Hon. Gary Peters............................................. 94
Hon. Edward Markey........................................... 100
Hon. Cory Booker............................................. 103
Response to written questions submitted to Lori Steele by:
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 105
Hon. Gary Peters............................................. 109
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to:
Peter Andrew, Jr............................................. 110
Gregory P. DiDomenico........................................ 111
William ``Bubba'' Cochrane II................................ 113
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MAGNUSON-
STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND
MANAGEMENT ACT: OVERSIGHT OF
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT SUCCESSES
AND CHALLENGES (PART 3)
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and
Coast Guard,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:44 p.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Dan Sullivan,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Sullivan [presiding], Peters, Inhofe,
Wicker, Blumenthal, Cantwell, Fischer, and Young.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Sullivan. The Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere,
Fisheries, and the Coast Guard will now come to order. Good
afternoon, everybody. Thank you for your patience. We had a
vote that we needed to get out of the way so we could keep this
hearing continuous.
But before we turn today's business, I would like to
acknowledge the impact of two recent hurricanes, Harvey and
Irma, and what they've done and had done to our Nation. Our
thoughts and prayers are with the families affected by the
devastation wrought by these storms. Two of our scheduled
witnesses are unable to join us today directly due to the
fallout from those hurricanes. We wish them and all touched by
the storms a speedy recovery.
In addition, as Chairman of this Subcommittee, which also
oversees the heroic work of the United States Coast Guard, I am
extremely proud of the work that they have done for so many
impacted by these hurricanes. I want to thank them for their
service as they continue to make all of us proud.
Today's hearing is the third in a series of hearings
dealing with the reauthorization of the landmark 1976 Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the MSA. Over
the past few months, this Committee has heard from dozens of
witnesses, including members of the Trump administration,
regional fishery management councils, regional stakeholders,
tribal representatives, and many, many others. Through these
hearings, we have tried to foster a robust consensus dialogue,
hearing from a broad range of witnesses with differing
experiences and perspectives, in an effort to best equip the
members of this Subcommittee as we proceed with the important
task of reauthorizing the MSA.
Last month, I had the privilege of holding a field hearing
in Alaska, commonly known as the ``superpower of seafood,''
where I heard from many Alaskans and others about their views
on the best way to move forward on the MSA reauthorization. In
Alaska, our coastal communities rely on a strong, sustainable
fishery. We have over 80,000 Alaskans in these communities, in
this industry, more than even the oil and gas industry, in our
state.
But, of course, it's not just Alaska where this industry
and the communities impacted by it are so important. There are
numerous other states and regions that also rely heavily on the
fishing industry, be they commercial, charter, or recreational.
And what works in one region of the country doesn't
necessarily work in other regions. To more fully examine that,
we have a diverse group of witnesses and experts here today to
testify on their experiences and offer perspectives on ways to
potentially improve on the successes we've achieved over the
past 40 years of fisheries management under the MSA.
As Chairman of this Committee, I view the advances achieved
during the previous reauthorizations as improvements. At the
same time, we've listened to many stakeholders and constituents
describe the need for updates and tweaks in the current law, as
written, to effectively continue that progress without rolling
back our conservation successes.
Additionally, ensuring that Congress supports the need for
proper data supported by reputable and consistent science is
critical to maintaining a sustainable, yet profitable, national
fishery. Technology needs to play a larger role in this, as it
has the potential to provide efficiencies, reduce
administrative burdens, and increase the accuracy of the data
used for stock assessments and catch accountability.
As a steward of the MSA, we are all committed to ensuring
that our Nation's fishery management system supports a stable
food supply, including subsistence opportunities, recreational
opportunities, and plentiful fishing and processing jobs that
provide vibrant coastal communities throughout America.
With that, I want to thank all the witnesses for being here
today. And I now recognize Ranking Member Peters for any
opening statement he may have.
STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN
Senator Peters. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks to our witnesses for being here this afternoon
for a third in a series of hearings to discuss the important
issue of reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, or MSA.
I want to first add to the comments made by Chairman
Sullivan and join him in saying that our thoughts are with the
people of Florida, who have now started the long process of
recovering from Hurricane Irma's devastation. Unfortunately,
the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Senator Nelson, can't
be with us this afternoon to talk about a subject that is of
great importance to him and to his constituents. Duty calls,
and he is back home in Florida helping with the recovery
efforts.
The storm has also kept two of our witnesses, Captain Gary
Jarvis and Captain Robert Zales, from being able to travel, and
we are thankful that Captain Bubba Cochrane and Mr. Peter
Andrew were able to come in their place on very short notice.
Thank you for being able to do that.
As I mentioned at our first MSA hearing in August,
sustainably managing our Nation's fisheries through science and
data-driven process is critically important, not only to
coastal states like Alaska, but also to inland and Great Lakes
states like Michigan. The science-driven process implemented
through the last two Magnuson-Stevens reauthorizations have
rebuilt over 40 different fish stocks. And as of 2015, it has
also reduced the number of overfished stocks from 88 to 40, and
the number of stocks undergoing overfishing from 78 down to 29,
both now at all-time lows.
Continuing to reduce overfishing and overfished stocks are
key to sustainably managing our fisheries and absolutely
critical to supporting the 1.6 million jobs and $207 billion
that our fisheries provide to the United States.
In Michigan, we know that fisheries are significant to the
United States' economy and that fishing is part of our way of
life in my state as well. Our anglers provide the State of
Michigan with $4.3 billion in economic output and support
nearly 38,000 jobs.
But in the Great Lakes, we also know that managing fish is
more important than just managing how many fish can be caught.
Other factors in the environment and the ecosystem in the
fisheries can have a profound effect. We have seen firsthand
the impact of these environmental factors.
In the early 20th century, sea lamprey found their way to
Lake Erie and then into the Upper Great Lakes. Within 50 years,
the Great Lakes would never be the same from this devastating
parasite. A booming lake trout fishery harvesting 15 million
pounds a year was very vulnerable, and by the 1960s, the sea
lamprey population would explode and reduce our most abundant
fishery to 300,000 pounds caught per year, or just 2 percent of
its prior production.
Lessons can be learned from the Great Lakes about the
importance of the whole ecosystem. The numbers can look good on
paper, but factors extraneous to population models, like the
introduction of invasive species, can affect this important
natural resource. That is why it is so important for fisheries
management to take into account a changing environment, impacts
to habitat, and the food web which different fish species rely
on. Ecosystem-based approaches that take into account the whole
system can help us foresee and be prepared for the
environmental factors that can significantly impact our
fisheries.
It is hard to know how to sustainably manage fisheries in
the face of climate change, changing ocean conditions, and
disasters, both natural and manmade, but by listening to the
scientists and collecting the necessary data, we can move
toward sustainably managing our fisheries for years to come.
Today, we will be taking another look at the Magnuson-
Stevens Act and our current Federal fisheries management
framework. It's important to periodically take a good long look
at how these programs are working and how they are being
managed. As we go through the process, though, I also think it
is important to remember and to acknowledge the success of MSA
as we examine the problems and the progress it has helped to
make toward sustainably managing our fisheries. We need to
focus on sustainability. Is our current framework sustainable
for the fishing industry? Is it sustainable for the communities
that rely on fishing? And is it sustainable for the fish
populations, the natural resource that we are extracting?
These hearings provide us with the opportunity to hear from
multiple perspectives and answer these questions. At the first
hearing, we heard from NOAA and the regional management
councils, and today we will hear from commercial, charter, and
recreational fisheries.
However, these are not all the voices and stakeholders who
care about fisheries. There are key groups that we have not
heard from. I think it would be remiss if we did not solicit
these very important perspectives.
So, Mr. Chairman, as we continue to work on MSA, I ask that
we engage with scientists, academics, and conservation
organizations and strongly consider their recommendations in
the legislative process. So in that spirit, I ask unanimous
consent that--we have a number of letters from these
organizations addressing that issue. I would ask that they
would be entered into the record without objection.
Senator Sullivan. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
September 25, 2017
Hon. Daniel S. Sullivan,
Chair, Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Gary C. Peters,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sullivan and Ranking Member Peters,
The Mid-Atlantic recreational anglers, charter-for-hire business
owners, commercial fishermen, and seafood distributors listed below
strongly oppose weakening the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and its conservation provisions,
as proposed in H.R. 200 and H.R. 2023. For years, the Magnuson-Stevens
Act has been working to build healthier fish populations through
science-based catch limits and rebuilding plans, leading to more stable
businesses and stronger coastal economies. We should not retreat from
the provisions that have worked for our region and our communities.
H.R. 200 and H.R. 2023 seek to undo years of progress in U.S.
fisheries management by undermining the successful conservation
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. These bills would increase the
risk of overfishing, and halt progress in rebuilding efforts for
depleted fish populations. For example, H.R. 2023 significantly
restricts the use of science-based annual catch limits designed to
prevent overfishing by making them optional for the vast majority of
managed stocks.
Mid-Atlantic black sea bass, bluefish, and scup are important
species that support thousands of regional jobs and generate millions
of dollars of broad economic benefits to coastal communities. Each one
was successfully rebuilt from depleted levels due to the Magnuson-
Stevens Act's conservation requirements. The legislative proposals
mentioned above could jeopardize those gains and limit progress in
rebuilding vulnerable fish populations, which would result in more
economic hardships for fishery-related businesses in our region.
We urge you to oppose any effort to undermine the conservation
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including the provisions
proposed in H.R. 200 and H.R. 2023. The conservation tools established
under the Act are critical to ongoing efforts to eliminate overfishing,
restore fish populations to healthy levels, and promote improved
stability for coastal communities that depend on commercial and
recreational fisheries.
cc: Subcommittee on Oceans
NY, NJ, DE, MD, PA, VA and NC Senators
Rich King, Ed Dobbins
Angler & Owner Angler
Delaware Surf Fishing Sussex County, DE
Millsboro, DE
Thomas J Littleton Steven Dalphon
New Castle County, DE Angler
New Castle County, DE
Theresa Futty Verity L. Watson
Angler Angler
Sussex County, DE Sussex County, DE
Brian Blackburn Dominic Prestipino
Angler Angler
New Castle County, DE Sussex County, DE
Dean Herfindahl Joey Furtak
Angler Angler
New Castle County, DE New Castle County, DE
Jerry Bellistri Toni Feldman
Angler Angler
Sussex County, DE Clayton, DE
Tyler O'Neal Susan Brennan
Sales Rep, Winter Equipment Angler
Smyrna, DE Sussex County, DE
Janell Kellogg Gordon M. Law
Angler Business Owner/Angler
Sussex County, DE Sussex County, DE
Kim Bowden William Buckworth
Angler Angler
Sussex County, DE Sussex County, DE
Ken Sharp Sean Erickson
Angler Angler
New Castle County, DE New Castle County, DE
Dan Duranko Glenn A. Taylor
Angler Angler
Sussex County, DE New Castle County, DE
Neil Guercio Raymond Provost
Angler Angler
Sussex County, DE Dover, DE
Francis Loretangeli Josh Dickson
Angler Angler
Greenwood, DE Sussex County, DE
Barry Matus Raymond Provost
Angler Angler
Delaware Surf Fishing Kent County, DE
Sussex County, DE
Brett Cavanaugh Linda Rosenberg
Angler Sussex County, DE
New Castle County, DE
Steve Johnson Sarah F Pierce
Angler New Castle County, DE
Sussex County, DE
Alex Tkachuk Michael Eckert
Angler Angler
Dover, DE Milford, DE
Tom Spence Ronald Bowman
Angler Angler
Delaware Mobile Surf Fisherman Lincoln, DE
New Castle County, DE
Jeffrey Thompson William Cubbage
Angler Angler
Kent County, DE Kent County, DE
Mike Swain Eugene Hansen
Angler Angler
Wilmington, DE Frankford, DE
Tom Deptula Roy Miller
Chef Angler
Sussex County, DE Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission
Sussex County, DE
John Coverly Jr John Lamar
Angler Angler
New Castle County, DE Sussex County, DE
Bonita MacLean Richard J Bennett
Angler Angler
Sussex County, DE Sussex County, DE
Frank Danner Keith Churchill
Fisherman Angler
Saltwater Fly Anglers of Delaware New Castle County, DE
Kent County, DE
Ron Dimaulo James Wersinger
Angler Fisherman
Sussex County, DE New Castle County, DE
Ed Matarese Mark Chaump
Recreational Angler Angler
New Castle County, DE New Castle County, DE
Jennifer Lee Bedell Kristie Thomas
COO, Total Outdoor Solutions, LLC Angler
Sussex County, DE New Castle County, DE
Robert W Bryan Guy W. Doron III
Angler Angler
Sussex County, DE Doron Contracting LLC
Smyrna, DE
Ron M Smith Bill Courtney
Angler Angler
Saltwater Fly Anglers of Delaware Ocean View, DE
Sussex County, DE
C Revak Jason Pennington
Sussex County, DE Angler
New Castle County, DE
Steve Selway Chris Shipp
Angler Sussex County, DE
Sussex County, DE
Pete Sullivan Delaware Wanda Kucek
Angler/Beach and Kayak Felton, DE
Sussex County, DE
Kathy Herlehy Douglass John Mc Falls
Angler Recreational Fisherman
New Castle County, DE Berlin, MD
Michael K. Towe Mark Eustis
Surf Fisherman Coastal Ecosystems Investigator
Delaware Mobile Surffishermen Davidsonville, MD
New Castle County, DE
Molly O'Brien Michael Vernick
Angler Angler
Brookeville, MD Ocean, NJ
Anthony Friedrich Michael MeGill
Saltwater Angler Angler
Eastern Shore, MD Little Silver, NJ
Krista Snyder Michael DeLamater
Angler Angler
Charlestown, MD Belmar, NJ
Stephen Sirochman Tom Pizzonia
Angler Angler/Chef
North East, MD Asbury Park, NJ
Trey Blackiston Don Simonds
Angler Angler
Chestertown, MD Harmony, NJ
Lew Armistead Jacob Bishop
Anlger Angler
Hollywood, MD Ocean, NJ
Jack Spruill Steve Clayton
Angler Angler
Spruill Farm Conservation Project Ocean, NJ
Roper, NC
Frank Yelverton Chris Siciliano
Executive Director Angler
Cape Fear River Watch Ocean, NJ
Wilmington, NC
Paul Dement Melissa Britton
Angler Angler
Middletown, NJ Burlington, NJ
John Tully Joe Newton
Angler Angler
Member Belmar Fishing Club Willingboro, NJ
Spring Lake Heights, NJ
Nick Williams Al Franchetta
Angler Angler
Deputy Mayor Neptune Millville, NJ
Neptune, NJ
Mehdi Bozorgmehy Dante Accurti, Jr.
Angler Angler
New York, NY Mechanicsburg, PA
Kerry Heffernan Courtney Accurti
Angler/Chef Angler
New York, NY Wormleysburg, PA
Bryan Goulart Michael J.Ferko
Angler Angler
Easthampton, NY Sewickley, PA
Joel Filner Michael A. Ferko
Angler Angler
Salty Flyrodders of NY Venetia, PA
New York, NY
David Blinken Kurt Knaus
Angler Angler
Easthampton, NY Harrisburg, PA
Richard Ruggiero Zachary Bates
Angler Angler
New York, NY Levittown, PA
Ricky Davis Grae Buck
Angler Angler
Poughkeepsie, NY Harleysville, PA
Julius Morton Matt Becker
Angler Angler
West Chester, NY Finleyville, PA
Todd Pride Mike Topping
Lead Management & Training Coach Angler
Mid-Atlantic Youth Anglers & President, DE River Shad
Outdoors Prog Fishermen's Assoc
Nottingham, PA Bethlehem, PA
Elizabeth Stoner John Berry
Angler Angler
Pittsburgh, PA Brd Member, DE River Shad
Fishermen's Assoc
Bethlehem, PA
Dante Accurti, Sr. Shawn Carroll
Angler Angler
Wormleysburg, PA Chester County, PA
Patricia Morgan Grae Buck
Angler Angler
Delaware County, PA Harleysville, PA
Delos F Page Jessica Moldofsky
Recreational Angler Angler
Muncy, PA Harleysville, PA
Ryan Keown Maurice Hudson
Angler Angler
Berks County, PA Broomall, PA
Lee T Fulmer Rachel Roberts
Angler Angler
Bechtelsville, PA Nottingham, PA
Mike Rhodes Curt Ashburn
Surf Angler Angler
Delaware Surf Fishing Nottingham, PA
Chester County, PA
David Pcholinski Judy Ashburn
Carpenter/Surf Fisherman Angler
West Mifflin, PA Nottingham, PA
John Mumper Analyse Gaspich
Angler Angler
Union County, PA Palmyra, PA
Mike Anderson Tom Best
Angler Angler
Chester County, PA Philadelphia, PA
Henry Busby John Henning
Surf Fisherman Angler
Chester County, PA Lansdale, PA
Dan Duffy Curtis W. Tomlin
Surf Fisherman Angler & Vice President
State College, PA Virginia Saltwater Sportfishing
Association
Mechanicsville, VA
Paul S. Smith Thomas A. Miller
Angler Saltwater Fisherman, Brd Member,
Lebanon, PA Rivers of Virginia (FORVA),
Legislative Affairs
Roanoke, VA
Sharon June Benjamin R. Ferko
Angler Angler
Glen Mills, PA Fairfax, VA
John Bello
Angler
Asburn, VA
______
September 25, 2017
Hon. Daniel S. Sullivan,
Chair,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Gary C. Peters,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sullivan and Ranking Member Peters,
We the undersigned are recreational anglers and guides who share a
common objective; asking policy-makers and managers to put fish first
so that future generations of anglers will be able to enjoy the sport
fishing opportunities that we have enjoyed. We understand that
America's fisheries belong to all Americans, including those of future
generations, and we want to leave our fisheries to our children and
grandchildren in a better condition than we inherited.
On September 12, our friend and colleague Tony Friedrich presented
testimony \1\ to the Senate Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Oceans,
Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, at the hearing titled
``Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act: Oversight of Fisheries Management Successes and
Challenges.'' \2\ The message in Tony's testimony is important.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/94908d51-
21ee-49db-a8b4-7f1d
93e214ad/C6CE9C72DE498101BDF51DD7CF86F5CF.9.12.17-friedrich-
testimony.pdf
\2\ https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/
hearings?ID=FA788A8C-2F71-4B09-AFC6-1FE2B120B828
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we recognize that no law is perfect, the Magnuson-Stevens Act
has been the keystone of the recovery of America's marine fisheries. At
the time of the passage of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (1996), 86
species were overfished. In the twenty years since, thanks to MSA, SFA,
and the Magnusson-Stevens Conservation and Management Reauthorization
Act of 2007, only 30 stocks now remain on the overfished list. This is
a testament to the fact that the MSA process is working.
The existing provisions of MSA offer flexible access to our
fisheries, while codifying our duty to rebuild depleted stocks. In
particular, annual catch limits and accountability measures offer
managers critical tools that have led to the recovery of stocks like
red snapper to levels of abundance not seen since the 1960s.
We believe that the elimination or weakening of management tools,
such as annual catch limits and accountability measures, will hamstring
the efforts of our Nation's fishery managers and start us down the dark
road to overfishing and depleted stocks. We have been there before and
we do not wish to return.
At the same time, we believe that the MSA process can be improved.
In particular, we call on policy makers to allocate more funding to
fisheries science. The economic impact of recreational fishing in our
Nation is measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Federal
funding for fisheries science ought more accurately to reflect this.
Likewise, the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) could be
improved by leveraging technological innovations that have proliferated
since MRIP began, like the widespread use of smartphones and associated
technology.
We are firmly committed to the principal that the best way to
support recreational anglers and associated industries is to build
healthy, sustainable, robust fisheries. We have made enormous progress
since the passage of MSA over forty years ago. The MSA process should
not be degraded by the elimination of accountability measures, annual
catch limits, and other proven management tools.
We ask that you review Tony's testimony and carefully consider the
recommendations when you are considering votes and actions during the
reauthorization process.
Please don't hesitate to contact any of us if we can answer any
questions or provide additional information.
Respectfully,
Lucas Bissett/[email protected]/225-718-9532/New Orleans, Louisiana
Will Brown/[email protected]/757-535-8431/Dallas, Texas
Jim Dietz/[email protected]/908-752-5890/Naples, Florida
Lise Lozelle/[email protected]/512-879-8907/Austin, Texas
Dennis Mckay/[email protected]/256-375-8604/Dallas, Texas
John Royall/[email protected]/713-853-5742/Houston, Texas
Tom Sadler/[email protected]/202-957-4748/Verona, Virginia
Brandon Shuler/[email protected]/832-603-3787/St.
Petersburg, Florida
Bruce Shuler/[email protected]/281-380-0708/Salado, Texas
______
Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance
Gloucester, MA, October 15, 2017
U.S. Senate Committee Members,
On behalf of the Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance I would like to
raise critical issues and offer solutions in regards to the
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act.
As an organization that supports fishing families and values-based
seafood businesses around the country in order to advance healthier
marine ecosystems and fishermen's livelihoods, we have engaged in the
fisheries policy making process for over 20 years.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is now
under discussion for revision. Commonly referred to as the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, we refer to it as the Fish Bill because of its central
purpose to protect fish in a manner that ensures the greatest benefit
to the Nation.
The Fish Bill was originally enacted in 1976 to govern marine
fisheries in Federal waters. In its most recent reauthorizations in
1996 and 2006, attempts were made to shift the focus toward an
ecosystem-based approach. The Fish Bill also adopted, however, a
``Catch Share'' system--a fishing quota scheme that relies on private
ownership of fishing rights--that could make ecosystem-based approaches
difficult if not impossible to implement.
While its supporters tout the benefits of privatizing fishing
rights through Catch Shares, this approach has been highly contested.
Evidence from NAMA's own community outreach and other independent
research has indicated that:
Privatization of fishing rights has grave human, economic,
and environmental consequences
The ocean and rights to its fisheries do not need to be
privatized in order to prevent overexploitation
Once fisheries are privatized, public input is limited, if
not discouraged, and oversight is trusted to those who own the
quota and permits
In reality, the current Fish Bill causes harm to marine ecosystems,
fishermen, and their communities across the U.S. due to its over-
reliance on Catch Shares as the panacea for fixing what ails fisheries
management.
To overcome these challenges, the Fish Bill needs sensible,
productive revisions that protect both fisheries and fishermen. This
Policy Brief outlines key evidence and recommendations for members of
Congress to utilize throughout this Fish Bill reauthorization in order
to preserve marine environments, communities that depend on them, and
ensure the ``greatest overall benefit to the Nation.''
Evidence
Under Catch Share policy, the allocation of fishing rights has
sweeping negative consequences for:
Marine Ecosystems
Consolidation of fishing quota can increase negative
ecological impacts of fishing.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Tolley, B, Gregory, R, Marten, G. (2015) Promoting resilience
in a regional seafood system: New England and the Fish Locally
Collaborative. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences. Volume 5,
Issue 4. 593-607.
Habitat, migratory patterns, and trophic relationships have
been disrupted by Catch Shares.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Brewer, J. (2011). Paper fish and policy conflict: catch shares
and ecosystem-based management in Maine's groundfishery. Ecology and
Society, 16(1)
Catch Shares can cause ``anti-conservation incentive'' among
fishermen, either in ``high-grading'' (selecting fish with the
highest value per pound, and dumping the lower-value fish) or
in the case where a quota does not yet exist, they might aim
for larger catch histories to ensure a greater percentage of
future quota allocation.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Copes, P., & Charles, A. (2004). Socioeconomics of individual
transferable quotas and community-based fishery management.
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 33(2), 171-181.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democracy
The current Fish Bill lacks sufficient accountability
measures for regional fishery management councils. At regional
fishery management meeting meetings, NAMA has witnessed a
breakdown of the democratic process in which some fishermen's
voices were silenced and/or intentionally excluded \4\ from
public record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance letter to NOAA Fisheries.
2017. http://www.namanet
.org/sites/default/files/field_file/
NAMA%20Comments%20on%20Participatory%20Democracy_
0.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local Economies
Catch Shares can lead to the creation of an absentee owner
class that does not fish, but only leases fishing rights, which
can reduce fishermen's economic benefit.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Pinkerton, E., & Edwards, D. N. (2009). The elephant in the
room: the hidden costs of leasing individual transferable fishing
quotas. Marine Policy, 33(4), 707-713.
Under Catch Shares, quota and permit values create capital
barriers to entry for new fishermen.\3\
Communities
The current Fish Bill has not provided sufficient support
for small and medium scale fishing operations, causing a
decline in both.
Catch Shares are leading to mass-consolidation of fisheries
and fishing business with little restriction.
Consolidation of fisheries access causes the loss of working
waterfront infrastructure which has a disproportionate impact
on rural coastal communities.
Food System
The current Fish Bill does not address or promote access to
healthy, economically accessible, and local seafood for all.
Why Is Revising The Fish Bill Important?
The current Fish Bill neglects its duty to manage not only
environmental but also social and economic impacts on fishing
communities. This occurs to the detriment of the fisheries and those
community-based fishermen who have the smallest ecological footprint.
The opportunity to avoid further damage is shrinking as the deleterious
Catch Shares system is further ingrained in fisheries across the
country.
Recommendations
NAMA has developed five initial recommendations to ensure that
fisheries are indeed managed for the greatest benefit to the Nation.
Doing so will directly improve the marine environment, the democratic
processes of fisheries management, the livelihoods of fishermen, and
the health of local economies, as well as the provisioning of quality
seafood to all in the Nation.
It is NAMA's strong belief that Congress must:
Improve marine environments
No entity should control more than 2 percent of any quota
managed species. Congress must institute limits on the
consolidation of fishing quota to avoid the negative ecological
impacts of large, vertically integrated enterprises.
Fish Bill requirements should specifically address non-
fishing impacts to the marine environment, such as climate
change, pollution, deforestation, mining, and oil and gas
exploration.
Safeguard democracy
Reform the Regional Council process with internal mechanisms
that decentralize authority and create authentic participatory
roles for fishermen and all other interested parties.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Frontani, H. & Simonitsch, M. (2005) New England Fisheries and
Participatory Management: Rhetoric and Realities. Studies in New
England Geography. Book 7.
Redesign meetings and provide more time on the agenda for
collaborative working sessions that promote active
participation and dialogue not only among council members and
fishermen, but with the public as well.
Transparency and accountability
Catch Shares are leading to more and more data and
information to be labeled as ``proprietary information''
keeping the public in the dark about what's really happening to
the ocean commons.
The Council process must be reformed to better represent the
wide range of concerns of fishing communities and of the
national interest, and more information needs to remain in the
public domain.
Support communities and local economies
Incentivize diversification of fishing methods and species
harvested by vessels.
Promote and support independent, small and medium scale
fishing businesses.
Increase access to seafood
Create an initiative that ensures healthy and local seafood
is provided to all people regardless of economic status.
Community-supported fisheries and fish-to-institution programs
could be incentivized and directly supported by the Fish Bill
to achieve gains in the seafood supply chain.
Conclusion
Your attention to this matter is important because of the harm
posed to our local economies and marine environments. If these issues
are not addressed in the Fish Bill, Congress runs the risk of
overexploiting our marine environment, losing certain fish stocks for
generations, eroding the potential for young and beginning fishermen to
move into the industry, and disrupting longstanding fishing knowledge
and traditions in favor of consolidation across the industry.
NAMA and its collaborators believe that by advocating for these
five recommendations there can be tangible improvements to the Fish
Bill that may help us to avoid these risks. Incorporating these
recommendations into the future reauthorization of the Fish Bill will
benefit the environment, community-based fishermen, and the
provisioning of quality seafood for the public.
Sincerely,
Brett Tolley,
Community Organizer.
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, thank
you for pulling this hearing together. I look forward to the
testimony of our witnesses.
Senator Sullivan. Great. And thank you, Senator Peters.
We have, as usual, on this topic a panel--two panels today
of numerous distinguished witnesses. The first panel consists
of Mr. Phillip Faulkner, the President of NauticStar Boats,
from the great state of Mississippi; Mr. James Donofrio,
Executive Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance; Mr.
Christopher Horton, Senior Director, Congressional Sportsmen's
Foundation; and Mr. Anthony Friedrich, a saltwater angler from
the Eastern Shore of Maryland.
Gentlemen, thank you for being here.
Mr. Faulkner, we will start with you. You will have 5
minutes to deliver an oral statement, and a longer written
statement may be included in the record if you so wish.
STATEMENT OF PHIL FAULKNER, OWNER/FOUNDER, NAUTICSTAR BOATS
Mr. Faulkner. Good afternoon, Chairman Sullivan, Ranking
Member Peters, Senator Wicker, and members of the Subcommittee.
I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you today about
challenges facing the marine recreational anglers and the
marine recreational fishing industry. My name is Phil Faulkner,
and I'm a recreational fisherman.
In my spare time, I like to fish for recreation like
millions of my fellow Americans. For my day job, I own a
company in Amory, Mississippi, NauticStar Boats. With more than
25 years of boat-building experience, we produce family boats
ranging from 18 feet to 28 feet in length, with at least 85
percent of these boats built for recreational fishing. Our
dealer network consists of 75 dealers in 28 states.
Let me tell you a little bit about my business and the
industry I am so blessed to be a part of. I work in a uniquely
American business, the boat-building business. Ninety-five
percent of boats sold in the United States are made in the
United States. And here is why: We make the finest quality
boats right here in America. According to NOAA's latest
economic report, the marine recreational fishing industry
contributes $63 billion a year to the U.S. economy from coast
to coast and every state in between.
More than 70 percent of the boats purchased in the U.S. are
bought for fishing. It's a common misconception that the
saltwater fishing economy resides only in the coastal
communities. I'm here to report otherwise. And many of my
suppliers throughout the U.S. are situated far from the coast,
and many of them are in the landlocked states. I live in a
coastal state, but I'm 300 miles away from the coast.
At NauticStar, I employ 300 hardworking Americans in Amory,
Mississippi, in Senator Wicker's home state. We take pride in
producing the highest quality boats on the market, and we are
dedicated to our customers. That's why I am here today, to be
the face and the voice for the 440,000 Americans employed in
the industry and the 11 million Americans who enjoy
recreational fishing on America's public waters.
As I sit here today, I could not be more proud of what
recreational fishermen and recreational boaters contribute to
conservation. We outdoorsmen are the original conservationists.
Through license sales and excise taxes paid on fishing
equipment and boat motor fuel, anglers and boaters contribute
$1.3 billion annually for sport fish conservation and
management. An additional $400 million is donated to the
conservation and fishing organizations who do so much to
support our passion each year.
But in recent years, the Federal Government has been
focused on denying public access to America's public resources.
This problem has found a solution thanks to Senator Wicker. I
would like to thank my Senator for sponsoring Senate Bill 1520,
the Modern Fish Act. The Modern Fish Act would bring much
needed modernization to the way recreational fishing is managed
in Federal waters. And this is important because the marine
recreational fishermen have felt like an afterthought of the
Federal Government for decades.
Federal fishery policies do not reflect the depth and
breadth of the recreational fishing industry and the need for
more public access for anglers. Furthermore, current Federal
fishery management is limiting the true economic potential of
the recreational fishing industry.
With unreasonably short seasons, abrupt fishing closures,
and inconsistencies in setting seasons from year to year,
recreational anglers and the businesses they support are not
fully confident they will have access to America's public
marine resources under the current system. Without the
confidence of access, anglers don't buy boats and families
don't go fishing.
The way marine fisheries are managed affects me, it affects
my business, and it affects my family. Congress can address
these problems by passing the Modern Fish Act.
I'm happy to answer questions. And thank you for having me.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Faulkner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Phil Faulkner, Owner/Founder, NauticStar Boats
Good afternoon, Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters, Senator
Wicker and Members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to
speak with you today about the challenges facing marine recreational
anglers and the recreational fishing industry. My name is Phil
Faulkner, and I am a recreational fisherman.
In my spare time, I like to fish for recreation like millions of my
fellow Americans. For my day job, I own a company in Amory,
Mississippi--NauticStar Boats. With more than 25 years of boat
manufacturing experience, we produce family boats ranging from 18 feet
to 28 feet in length--with at least 85 percent of these boats built for
recreational fishing. Our dealer network consists of 75 dealers in 28
states, and we are honored to manufacture the number one selling center
console boat in Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas.
Let me tell you a little bit more about my business and the
industry I am so blessed to be a part of. I work in a uniquely American
business--the boat-building business. Ninety-five percent of boats sold
in the United States are made in the United States. And here's why: we
make the finest quality boats right here in America, and boats do not
ship well in containers from China.
More than 70 percent of boats purchased in the U.S. are bought so
owners can fish from them. And they buy boats when they have consistent
access to America's public resources.
Uncertainty about access, uncertainty about consistent fishing
seasons, uncertainty about fisheries management will often discourage a
potential angler from justifying an investment in purchasing a boat.
Therefore, the market never reaches its potential.
The marine recreational fishing industry contributes $63 billion a
year to the U.S. economy from coast to coast and every state in
between. (Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2015) It is a
common misconception that the saltwater fishing economy resides only in
coastal communities. I'm here to report otherwise. I may come from a
coastal state, but I live 300 miles from the coast. And many of my
suppliers and other businesses in the industry are situated far from
the coast in interior states. Additionally, many of my vendors conduct
their business in interior, land-locked states.
At NauticStar, I employ 300 hard-working Americans in Amory,
Mississippi--in Senator Wicker's home state. They are fine workers. I
pay good wages and health benefits. We take pride in producing the
highest quality boats on the market, and we are dedicated to our
customers. That is why I am here today--to be a face and a voice for
the 440,000 Americans employed in the industry and the 11 million
Americans who enjoy recreational fishing on America's public waters.
(Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2015)
Our business affects more than me and my 300 employees. We do
business with suppliers from many parts of the country who contribute
to every boat we make. They include companies like Composites One,
based in Arlington Heights, Ill., that provides us with fiberglass and
catalysts to make hulls of boats. AOC Resins, in Collierville, Tenn.,
provides us with resins that we mix with fiberglass. Ashland Chemicals
which supplies us with gelcoat is based in Fort Smith, Ark. SeaStar
Solutions supplies us with steering systems and control cables from
their locations in Litchfield, Ill., and Limerick, Penn. As I
mentioned, the saltwater recreational fishing economy reaches far
beyond the U.S. coastline.
When I have spare time, I get down to the coast and get out on the
water with my kids and grandkids, and we enjoy family time together
with the hope of catching a few fish.
As I sit here today, I could not be more proud of what recreational
fishermen and recreational boaters contribute to conservation. We,
outdoorsmen, are the original conservationists. Through license sales
and excise taxes paid on fishing equipment and boat motor fuel, anglers
and boaters contribute $1.3 billion annually to sportfish conservation
and management, boating safety and infrastructure, and habitat
restoration. An additional $400 million is donated to conservation and
fishing organizations who do so much to support our passion each year.
Recreational anglers and boaters are generous with our time and our
resources because we care deeply about the culture and memories born
from time spent on America's public waters.
But in recent years, the Federal Government has been focused on
denying public access to America's public resources. This problem has
found a solution thanks to Senator Wicker.
I would like to thank my Senator for sponsoring Senate Bill 1520,
the Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2017. The
Modern Fish Act would bring much needed modernization to the way
recreational fishing is managed in Federal waters. And this is
important because marine recreational fishermen have felt like an
afterthought of the Federal Government for decades. Federal fisheries
policies do not reflect the depth and breadth of the recreational
fishing industry and the need for more public access for anglers.
Furthermore, current Federal fisheries management is limiting the true
economic potential of the recreational fishing industry. With
unreasonably short seasons, abrupt fishing closures and inconsistency
in setting seasons from year to year, recreational anglers, and the
businesses they support, are not fully confident they will have access
to America's public marine resources under the current system. Without
the confidence of access and confidence in Federal fisheries
management, anglers don't buy boats. Families don't go fishing.
The way marine fisheries are managed affects me. It affects my
business. And it affects my family.
Congress can provide balance and consistency to the long-ignored
recreational fishing sector by modernizing recreational fisheries
management by passing the Modern Fish Act.
I am happy to answer questions. Thank you for having me.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Faulkner.
Mr. Donofrio.
STATEMENT OF JAMES A. DONOFRIO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
RECREATIONAL FISHING ALLIANCE
Mr. Donofrio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Peters, and
members of the Committee. My name is Jim Donofrio. I'm the
Executive Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance.
The RFA is a 501(c)4 political action organization whose
mission is to fight for the rights of saltwater anglers,
support jobs in the recreational marine industry, and support
sustainable fisheries. Currently, under the Magnuson Act, our
job to fight for anglers' rights and support jobs in our
industry is getting harder. Rebuilt sustainable fisheries is
not the problem; it is access to those fisheries that is
causing loss of angler participation, keeping charter and party
boats tied to the dock, and putting tackle and boat sales and
service jobs in jeopardy.
Right now, because of an over-precautionary Magnuson Act,
our sector cannot access many robust fisheries, including red
snapper, black sea bass, summer flounder, cod, haddock, and a
list of others. Keep in mind, because of the current law, no
state, and not even the administration, can give us more fish
to catch because it would be a violation of Federal law.
Mr. Chairman, we need the amendments in the bipartisan
Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act, S. 1520, to
be put into law. These amendments, if passed, would allow for
conservation, continued sustainability, and better access for
those robust stocks that we cannot access at this time. We view
these changes as improvements, not rollbacks.
Please remember the RFA is supported by the National Marine
Manufacturers Association, Viking Yacht Company, Yamaha,
Contender Boats, Maverick Boat Group, and many other boat and
motor companies as well as many tackle companies.
And contrary to what our opposition may tell you, Mr.
Chairman, the business models for these companies do not allow
us to catch the last fish. The Modern Fish Act, if passed,
would address specific needs of the recreational fishing
industry. Historically, MSA has focused on commercial fishing
and has mandated a commercial style management approach. It is
undeniable that this approach is the cause of many important
fish stocks being rebuilt to historic levels of abundance.
However, the consequences of this approach, particularly
the use of annual catch limits, in our sector, has had a
negative impact on the recreational fishing industry.
Recreational fishermen played a significant role in rebuilding,
yet we do not enjoy the benefits of the rebuilding on an
equitable level. We believe S. 1520 takes a step in the right
direction by allowing recreational anglers to be managed
different from the commercial fishermen, and so they can enjoy
the benefits of rebuilt stocks.
Specifically, the Modern Fish Act allows Federal fisheries
managers to use alternative management approaches for
recreational fishing, similar to state management, through
interstate commissions that better align with the nature of
recreational fishing and available data to manage and monitor
our sector.
It also provides limited exemptions for application of the
annual catch limits. The open access characteristics and
limitations with regards to data collection associated with the
recreational sector are simply not compatible with annual catch
limits. This is not to imply that the recreational anglers want
no accountability or they don't want to--or they want to fish
without restrictions. In many recreational fisheries, there are
far better ways of monitoring the recreational sector, and
they're more practical and fair than the annual catch limits.
It also provides limited flexibility with rebuilding fish
stocks and allows managers to take into consideration
international fishery treaties and ecosystem interaction. It
temporarily limits the expansion of limited access privilege
programs and catch shares, and calls for the National Academy
of Science to study the impacts of this management approach.
And, finally, it calls for improvements to the recreational
fishing data collection by allowing consideration and inclusion
of information from fishermen, universities, and other third
parties, as well as fostering Federal-state partnerships to
improve data collection.
Mr. Chairman, it has been over 10 years since Magnuson was
revisited. And as you know, fisheries are in a dynamic, ever-
changing environment. Fisheries change, science change, and we
can't get the help from the bureaucracy we need. We need
Congress to modernize the law now with the Modern Fish Act and
put this all together for us.
Mr. Chairman, thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Donofrio follows:]
Prepared Statement of James A. Donofrio, Executive Director,
Recreational Fishing Alliance
Introduction
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Peters and Members of
the Committee. It is an honor to appear before you today and a
privilege to speak to the Committee. My name is Jim Donofrio and I am
the Executive Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA). It
is my intention today to discuss the management challenges facing the
recreational fishing industry and to offer suggestions for the
Committee's consideration to address these challenges. These
suggestions will be directed toward amendments that should be made to
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) with
the goal of spurring growth and prosperity in our industry while
ensuring long-term conservation and sustainability of our Nation's
marine resources.
We have been talking about the need for MSA reform since the ink
dried on the 2007 MSA reauthorization. There have been numerous
congressional hearings on the topic, more than I care to count. Two
national rallies were held in the Capitol and attended by fishermen,
both commercial and recreational, from across the country. The theme of
both rallies was MSA reform. I will not bore the Committee with
statistics and specific examples of problem fisheries. The problems in
red snapper, cod, summer flounder, black sea bass, amberjack, and many
other species are all well documented and have been discussed and
analyzed in great detail. The limitations of recreational data
collection and lack of confidence in the stock assessments for many
fisheries are also well known. The problem has been identified through
some brilliant testimony given by witnesses, particularly Mr. Nick
Wiley and Mr. Ben Speciale, at the two previous field hearings held by
the Committee. What our industry and the recreational fishing community
needs now is action.
In simple terms, we need your help. We have been asking for your
help since MSA was reauthorized in 2007 when amendments were made to
the law that created a systemic management problem on a national scale
and which is most acutely felt in the recreational sector. Looking back
at original intent of MSA (public law 94-265) signed into law on April
13, 1976, one objective of the law was to promote domestic commercial
and recreational fishing under sound conservation and management
principles. This objective seeks to strike a balance between sound
conservation and the needs of the fishing industry for our federally
managed species which RFA very much supports. Unfortunately, this noble
objective was altered in the 1996 and 2007 reauthorizations and
currently, management can only be described as a failure, a total
imbalance with recreational fishermen and the recreational fishing
industry losing out. The needs of fish have been put at an inordinate
level of priority while the needs of the fishing community and industry
have been made an afterthought. This is not sound resource management
and this approach is not in line with the original intent of MSA. We
are asking that the Senate, along with the House, pass MSA
reauthorization bills as soon as possible to bring back a balance to
management of our Nation's marine resources.
I think it is important to impress upon the Committee three key
points; urgency, jobs and fragility. First, our industry has been
losing businesses and jobs at an alarming rate as a direct result of
failed management measures forced upon the recreational sector due to
MSA. These are businesses that once lost do not come back and our
community permanently losses necessary recreational fishing
infrastructure. For this reason, it is imperative that Congress make
reauthorizing MSA a top legislative priority. Our industry expects and
requires a bill to be passed and sent to President Trump's desk before
the mid-term elections in 2018 at the absolute latest. Second, I ask
that you look at the recreational fishing sector as an industry where
access to fisheries afforded to individual anglers supports a $60
billion industry comprised of thousands of businesses, large and small.
Recreational fishing businesses are not confined to coastal regions but
span nearly all 50 states. Those businesses and jobs can be protected
by giving anglers access to fisheries which in turn spur economic
activity. Finally, our industry is extremely fragile. History has
clearly proven that the recreational fishing industry is far more
fragile than many of the stocks of fish that anglers pursue and MSA is
charged with managing. The businesses in the recreational fishing
industry cannot simply close their doors and wait until managers allow
anglers to fish on rebuilt stocks again. Greater consideration must be
given to the fragility of our industry when working to achieve
conservation goals.
What we are talking here is a political problem, not a conservation
problem. The solution will only come from political action. There are
currently two bills that have been introduced in the Senate and seek to
amend MSA; S. 1520 and S. 1748. Notwithstanding some refinement, RFA
supports S. 1520 and S. 1748, with S. 1520 being our preferred bill of
the two. RFA offers the Committee comments on S. 1520 and has included
them below. RFA supports S. 1520 over S. 1748 due to its broader
geographic scope and issues it addresses and it being the bill with the
best likelihood of moving through the Senate at this time. We look
forward to seeing this bill move through the Senate in an expeditious
manner.
As written and if passed, S. 1520 would address specific needs of
the recreational fishing industry. Historically, MSA has focused on
commercial fishing and has mandated a commercial style management
approach for the management of the Nation's marine fisheries. It is
undeniable that this approach is the cause of many important fish
stocks being rebuilt to historic levels of abundance. However, the
consequence of this approach, particularly the use of annual catch
limits, has had a deleterious impact to the recreational fishing
industry. We believe S. 1520 takes a step in right direction by
allowing recreational anglers to be managed different from the
commercial fisheries so they too can enjoy the benefits of rebuilt fish
stocks.
The RFA offers the following comments to specific sections of S.
1520. We would ask that these comments be taken into consideration and
incorporated into S. 1520 during markup. In addition, RFA would support
the language of S. 1520 being included in a larger MSA reauthorization
bill if one is introduced.
Section 101. RFA would not oppose any modification to section
101(a) which would expand the geographic range to include the Mid-
Atlantic and New England regions. This section would charge the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to provide guidance to the regional
fishery management councils with regards to allocating fishing
privileges which would be beneficial for the regional councils since
they are the regulatory bodies that set allocations for federally
managed species. This section merely advises that guidance be developed
for allocation; it does not mandate allocation changes. While the Mid-
Atlantic and New England regions would benefit from their inclusion in
this section, the RFA does not support amending the section if such
changes would slow or derail the passage of the bill. Allocation of
fish stocks between the commercial and recreation sectors is often a
contentious issue. Guidance on allocation decisions is desperately
needed due to recent judgments that ruled that National Marine
Fisheries Service has a legal obligation to enforce allocations just as
it does annual catch limits.
Section 102. RFA supports section 102 as written. If implemented,
this language would allow for alternative management measures in the
recreational component of a fishery while the commercial sector would
continue with traditional management approaches. Having access to such
an approach would allow for a management style that would better
accommodate the nature of the recreational fishery while taking into
consideration and addressing the limitations of the recreational data
collection programs. A very successful example of this type of
management approach can be seen in the Atlantic Striped Bass fishery
which utilizes annual quota based management for the commercial
component of the fishery while utilizing fishing mortality targets for
the recreational component.
Section 103. RFA supports section 103 and provides the following
justification. LAPPS, IFQ or catch shares have undeniable impacts on
the resources and recreational fishing opportunities in mixed
fisheries. RFA supports a temporary moratorium on new LAPPS in mixed
fisheries and a thorough review to be conducted by the NAS on the
comprehensive and long-term impacts of LAPPS on the resource, the
fishing communities and any sectors or individuals not assigned quota.
Section 104. RFA supports minor revisions to section 104 of S.
1520. At a minimum, RFA supports amending (A)(i) by changing possible
to practicable. Such a change is consistent with the findings of the
NAS which recently published a report which found that rebuilding fish
stocks as quickly as possible based on arbitrary time frames provided
no additional long-term conservation benefits and results in
unnecessary lost opportunities and negative socioeconomic impacts to
fishing communities. This group of experts found rebuilding timeframes
should incorporate some flexibility to accommodate the needs of the
fishing industry. For this reason, we believe that the language in H.R.
200 section 4 represents our preferred language with regards to
rebuilding fish stocks. If such language cannot be included in S. 1520
or another senate bill, RFA would support having language similar to
that in H.R. 200 Section 4 be the preferred language rendered during
conference.
Section 105. Annual catch limits are particularly problematic in
the recreational sector for two key reasons. First, when scientific
information is poor or unreliable for a stock, setting the annual catch
limiting is done with a considerable amount of uncertainty. Uncertainty
leads to precaution which can result in a significant downward
adjustment to an annual catch limit. Section 105 (a) addresses this
issue. The second issue is the lack of an accurate and precise
recreational data collection program that can monitor recreational
harvest relative to an annual catch limit. As written, this issue is
not addressed in section 105. The NAS recently conducted a multi-year
investigation on the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP),
the primary Federal data collection system used to estimate
recreational landings. This report did not determine if MRIP was
adequate for the implementation of annual catch limits in the
recreational sector. MRIP was simply not designed for year to year
catch data but for long-term, broad geographic scale trends on effort,
participation and catch. Therefore, RFA believes it is essential that
the recreational fisheries be granted some exemptions from the annual
catch limit requirements. As cited above in the striped bass fishery,
the recreational sector can operate in the absence of an annual catch
limit, even in an extremely popular species like striped bass, and the
stock can still meet and exceed long-term conservation goals. RFA
supports the inclusion of an addition subsection (C) in 105 to read;
105(a)(m)(2)(C) an annual catch limit that based on a range of
Allowable Biological Catch on an annual or multiyear basis
consistent with the confidence intervals of the primary data
collection programs and assessments used to monitor the sector
of a fishery that is measured by a survey-based data collection
system not designed to monitor annual catch limits or provide
guidance on in-season adjustments;
To eliminate any legal inconsistencies, MSA 302 (h)(6) will also
need to be amended and RFA offers the following suggestions to be
included in S. 1520;
(6) develop annual catch limits or a range of catch for each of
its managed fisheries that have an acceptable probability that
such limits will not result in overfishing the fishing level
recommendations of its scientific and statistical committee or
the peer review process established under subsection (g);
Section 106. RFA supports the language in this section which would
give states and state conservation agencies greater input on the
issuance of exempted fishing permits. Exempted fishing permits can
serve as a valuable tool to gather necessary information and advance
management decisions. However, they should not be used to circumvent
existing fishery management plans or the regional council decisions. In
recent years, exempted fishing permits have been used as loopholes to
advance unpopular agendas and allow commercial exploitation in areas
closed for conservation purposes. Greater oversight and state level
input is needed over the issuance of exempted fishing permits and we
believe language in section 106 achieves that necessary oversight.
Section 201. RFA supports the intent and language of this section.
This section of the bill would improve cooperative data collection
efforts and allow the greater use of non-governmental sources of
information such as fishermen, fishing communities, universities and
research institutions. Fishermen are often the first ones to observe
changes in the marine resources and if enacted, this section of S. 1520
would afford fishermen greater opportunities to contribute their
information and data which could be useful for the assessment and
management important fisheries. Under a careful review process, RFA
believes greater sources of data will provide a more comprehensive view
of the fishery resources and increase our capabilities to identify and
respond to changes with the fisheries.
Section 202. RFA would like offer a suggestion with regards to a(E)
which deals with funding for the development of state partnerships to
improve recreational data collection programs. RFA suggests adding and
The Sportfish Restoration Fund after (15-U.S.C. 713c-3). The Sportfish
Restoration Fund is a federally managed account that is funding by an
excise tax on recreational fishing related products and a percentage of
marine fuel. Using this money to improve recreational data collection
through the advancement of federal-state partnerships is a productive
and appropriate use of these funds.
Conclusion
In closing, I would like to express my appreciation for the
opportunity to discuss the importance and urgency of amending MSA.
There has been roughly 10 years of debate on the issue and the problems
have all been laid on the table. The recreational fishing industry is
in a precarious situation and it cannot wait any longer. S. 1520 has
been introduced in the Senate and represents a bill, notwithstanding a
few modifications, which would address many of the issues negatively
impacting the recreational fishing industry. I use this opportunity
today to urge you to make MSA a priority, to take into consideration
RFA's suggestions to refine S. 1520 and pass a MSA bill. Thank you.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you, Mr. Donofrio.
Mr. Horton, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS HORTON, FISHERIES PROGRAM DIRECTOR,
CONGRESSIONAL SPORTSMEN'S FOUNDATION
Mr. Horton. Thank you, Chairman Sullivan, Senator Peters,
and members of the Subcommittee.
My name is Chris Horton, and I'm the Senior Fisheries
Program Director for the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation.
Established in 1989, CSF works with the bipartisan Members of
the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the 48 state legislative
sportsmen's caucuses, and the Governors Sportsmen's Caucus on
recreational angling and other sportsmen-related issues.
I began my career as a fisheries biologist for a state
natural resource agency. Prior to joining CSF in 2010, I was
the conservation director for B.A.S.S., the largest angling
organization in the world. I currently serve on the MPA Federal
Advisory Committee, and I previously served on the Sport
Fishing and Boating Partnership Council and the Board of the
National Fish Habitat Partnership.
I'm an avid angler who has been blessed with the
opportunity to fish all around this great nation, including
making the annual family pilgrimage to the Gulf of Mexico to
fish for red snapper.
I sincerely thank the members of this Subcommittee for the
opportunity to speak to you today regarding the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. Recreational saltwater anglers are an important
and significant component of our nation's marine fisheries.
According to NOAA, there are 9 million saltwater anglers who
take nearly 61 million fishing-related trips and who contribute
$63 billion in sales impacts to our economy.
However, as important as those numbers are, the role that
anglers play as conservationists and our dedication to ensuring
sustainable fisheries is often misunderstood or overlooked. It
is important that this Committee understand that managing for
better recreational fishing opportunities is not counter to the
conservation goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, but, rather,
complementary.
During the 1940s, realizing that fishing license fees alone
were not enough to restore fisheries resources, anglers in the
sport fishing community lobbied Congress to impose an excise
tax similar to the Pittman-Robertson Act for wildlife, to
benefit fisheries and aquatic habitat restoration.
The Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act, or better
known as the Dingell-Johnson Act, was finally passed in 1950,
which implemented a new 10 percent excise tax on rods, reels,
and fishing tackle.
In 1984, the Wallop-Breaux amendment to the Act, again led
by anglers and sport fishing and boating industries, expanded
that list of taxable items, and included a tax on motorboat
fuels.
Since 1951, these taxes generated more than $8.6 billion
for our fisheries. When combined with recreational fishing
licenses, the total funds anglers have willingly paid for both
freshwater and marine fish conservation is around $27.3
billion. This ``user pays-public benefits'' model is largely
responsible for the abundant fisheries that we have today.
However, even beyond their license fees and excise taxes,
angling organizations, like the Coastal Conservation
Association and countless others, often donate additional money
and volunteer time to ensure healthy fisheries.
Since its original passage in 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens
Act has made significant progress in ending overfishing and
rebuilding depleted fish stocks. However, it remains primarily
a model for commercial fisheries, and fails to adequately
address the significant socioeconomic, cultural, and
conservation values of recreational fishing.
For this reason, we support making a few minor adjustments
to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, found in the bipartisan Modern
Fish Act, or S. 1520, that facilitates better management of the
recreational sector while still ensuring sustainability of our
fisheries resources.
For instance, we need workable management options.
Currently, Federal recreational fisheries are primarily managed
the same as commercial fisheries, with ACLs based on hard-pound
quotas. This simply doesn't work well for the recreational
sector. We need other tools in the toolbox that are more
appropriate for the recreational component of the fishery.
Whereas in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, most
allocation decisions were made in the 1980s and 1990s based on
catch data from that time. Things have changed in 30 years,
though nearly all allocations have remained the same.
Unfortunately, there is no good mechanism nor incentive to
prompt a review of allocations by the councils.
Finally, we need to incorporate more non-Federal data and
data collection approaches into fishery management decisions.
As good as MRIP may be for long-term trends over multiple
species, it was never intended to be used for in-season
management of individual species, especially in very short
seasons. We need new approaches that allow the states,
universities, and anglers to provide the solutions.
In summary, recreational anglers were among the Nation's
original conservationists and continue to be. We have always
readily and personally invested in the long-term sustainability
of our fisheries' resources. We need the changes to MSA found
in S. 1520. They will not weaken the conservation principles of
the law, but they would provide the necessary tools to manage
recreational fisheries more appropriately and with the same
level of emphasis as commercial fisheries.
Thank you for your time, and I'll be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Horton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chris Horton, Fisheries Program Director,
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation
Thank you Chairman Sullivan, Senator Peters and members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Chris Horton, and I'm the Fisheries Program
Director for the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation (CSF).
Established in 1989, CSF works with the bipartisan Congressional
Sportsmen's Caucus (CSC), the largest, most active caucus on Capitol
Hill. With nearly 300 Members of Congress from both the House and
Senate, current Senate CSC Co-Chairs are Senators Jim Risch (R-ID) and
Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Vice-Chairs are Senators Deb Fischer (R-NE) and
Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND).
Thirteen years ago, CSF extended the legislative network from
Washington, DC to states across the country, establishing the
bipartisan National Assembly of Sportsmen's Caucuses, which today is
made up of 48 state legislative caucuses, and includes over 2,000
legislators. Eight years ago, CSF established a bipartisan Governors
Sportsmen's Caucus, which today includes 34 Governors and one
Lieutenant Governor. Together, this collective force of bipartisan
elected officials works to protect and advance hunting, angling,
recreational shooting and trapping for the nearly 40 million sportsmen
and women who spend $90 billion annually on our outdoor pursuits.
An avid angler myself, I began my career as fisheries research
biologist for a state natural resource agency. Prior to joining CSF in
2010, I held the position of conservation director for B.A.S.S., the
largest angling organization in the world. I currently serve on the
Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee, and I have
previously served on the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council
for the Secretary of Interior and on the board of the National Fish
Habitat Partnership. Though perhaps most importantly relative to this
hearing today, I'm an avid angler. In fact, my earliest memory as a
child was fishing with my grandmother sometime around the age of 5.
I've had the good fortune of fishing all around this great nation, from
salmon and halibut in Alaska to mahi and sailfish off the coast of
Florida. Of course, being from the south, our family makes an annual
pilgrimage to the Gulf of Mexico to spend a week fishing for the
infamous red snapper.
As a recreational angler, I sincerely thank the members of this
Subcommittee for the opportunity to speak with you today about the
success and challenges of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act as you work to reauthorize the Nation's premier
fisheries law. Recreational saltwater anglers are an important and
significant component of our Nation's marine fisheries. According to
the 2015 NOAA survey, there were 9-million saltwater anglers who took
nearly 61-million fishing related trips and who contributed $63 billion
in sales impacts to our economy--resulting in 440,000 jobs (both full
and part time) in that year alone.
However, as impressive and important as those numbers are to the
nation, the role that anglers play as conservationists and our
dedication to having sustainable fisheries for the future is often
misunderstood or even ignored. It is important that the Committee
understand and appreciate that managing for better recreational fishing
opportunities is not counterproductive to the conservation goals of
MSA, as some may lead you to believe, but rather complimentary to the
goal of sustainability and conservation of our marine resources.
Around the turn of the last century, our relatively young nation
was beginning to realize that our once plentiful natural resources were
not unlimited, and in fact were being overharvested, especially fish
and wildlife populations. States began establishing natural resource
agencies to help recover and manage fish and game populations for the
benefit of the public. However, it soon became clear that license fees
alone were not enough to adequately fund habitat restoration and
management efforts. The hunting and firearms community stepped up, and
with the help of Senator Key Pittman (NV) and Congressman Absalom
Willis Robertson (VA), passed the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration
Act in 1937. The Pittman-Robertson Act diverted an 11 percent excise
tax on firearms and ammunition into a separate account, managed by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, that is then administered back to the
states for funding wildlife and habitat restoration efforts. Soon
thereafter, anglers and the sportfishing industry began a campaign to
have Congress implement a similar model for fish and aquatic habitat
restoration. In 1950, the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act,
led by Senator Edwin Johnson (CO) and Representative John Dingell (MI),
was passed and signed into law. The Dingell-Johnson Act implemented a
new 10 percent excise tax on fishing rods, reels, related components
and fishing tackle. In 1984, the Wallop-Breaux amendment to the Act,
again led by anglers and the sportfishing and boating industries,
expanded the list of taxable items to include marine electronics,
trolling motors, import duties on fishing tackle, yachts and pleasure
boats, and also added a motor boat fuels tax, significantly expanding
the revenues apportioned back to the states for fisheries and aquatic
conservation.
From 1951 to 2016, these angler-supported taxes have generated more
than $8.6 billion for fisheries and aquatic conservation. When combined
with fishing license sales, the total funds anglers have willingly paid
to ensure conservation of both freshwater and marine fish species is an
astounding $27.3 billion. Known as the American System of Conservation
Funding, this ``user pays--public benefits'' model is the lifeblood of
the North American Wildlife Conservation Model, which is unique to the
rest of the world and responsible to the abundant fisheries resources
we have today. Again, all proudly paid for by recreational anglers.
In addition to providing funding for state fisheries management,
these funds support a vital component of fisheries conservation--
habitat restoration and enhancement. For example, the Alabama
Department of Conservation and Natural Resource's Marine Resources
Division used a portion of these funds to create the largest artificial
reef system, primarily in Federal waters, in the United States. More
than just fish aggregators, these artificial reefs, placed in the
predominantly featureless landscape of sand and muddy substrates, can
be extremely effective at increasing the biomass of reef fish
populations.
However, even beyond the license fees and excise taxes anglers have
gladly supported, many will donate additional money and time to ensure
our fisheries are healthy today and for future generations. A good
example can be found with volunteers from the Coastal Conservation
Association, the largest membership-based coastal fishing organization
in the nation, who have donated countless hours on projects like
building artificial reefs off Mississippi's Cat Island, planting
seagrass in Florida's Indian River Lagoon or restoring marsh habitat in
the Louisiana Delta. From a national perspective, CCA's Building
Conservation Trust Fund has successfully leveraged member donations to
put an additional $14 million towards nearly 40 projects to benefit
fisheries sustainability. This is one of countless examples from
throughout the country of anglers leading volunteer efforts to restore
fisheries habitat and fish populations.
Recreational anglers have long recognized that to have healthy fish
populations to afford numerous encounters with fish and an enjoyable
day on the water with family in friends, it is essential to properly
manage and conserve the resource, not just for sustainability, but for
abundance. That is why we have willingly invested, both money and time,
in fisheries conservation for nearly a century. Concurrently, the more
opportunities there are to access an abundant fishery, the more anglers
will buy licenses, equipment, boats and fuel and perpetuate this vital
funding mechanism for the long-term health of our fisheries resources.
Since its original passage in 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (MSA) has made progress in ending
overfishing, rebuilding depleted fish stocks, protecting essential fish
habitat and a variety of other improvements to the Nation's marine
resources. No doubt, the health and abundance of our Nation's fisheries
resources are much better now than they would have been without MSA.
However, it remains primarily a model for commercial fisheries
management and fails to adequately address the significant
socioeconomic, cultural and conservation values of recreational
fishing, as well as recognize that these are two distinct activities.
Federal fisheries management under MSA is focused on treating
fisheries resources as commodities, where the value of a fishery is
predominantly tied to a price per pound. In contrast, state fisheries
management is based more on the Public Trust Doctrine, where everyone
owns the resource and should have an equal opportunity to enjoy that
resource. Unlike the states, Federal managers are required by law to
manage a fishery, in part, on the concept of maximum sustained yield
(MSY), which by its very definition causes managers to decrease the
abundance of a population and squeeze the most pounds out of a fishery
while trying not to collapse it. Because of the inherent variability in
their assessments that rely heavily on harvest estimates, they must
include conservative buffers to keep from exceeding the overfishing
limit. The fewer the fishermen in the fishery, the easier it is to
achieve this goal. Conversely, states manage for a healthy population
and a robust fishery in order to optimize access for fishermen, both
commercial and recreational. From a species conservation, harvest
sustainability, and overall public satisfaction perspective, the state
approach is simply a better methodology for many fisheries.
For this reason, we support making a few simple adjustments to MSA
that allow our Nation's primary Federal fisheries law to truly
recognize the value and significance of recreational fisheries, provide
more tools for optimizing recreational fisheries management, while
still maintaining and supporting the conservation goals of the Act. We
believe the Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act (S. 1520)
or Modern Fish Act, provides the necessary adjustments to achieve these
goals. A few examples include:
Alternative Management--For most mixed-use fisheries, NOAA and
the Regional Fishery Management Councils (RFMC's) manage both
the recreational and commercial sectors using ACL's based on
hard-poundage quotas enforced in near real time. While this
management approach seems to work well with the relatively few
number of commercial fishermen whose catch can be accurately
counted and weighed, this approach does not work well for the
much larger number of recreational anglers whose catch is
estimated based on an often very small sample size and
extrapolated to another estimate of overall effort over a
longer period of time. This data uncertainty in the
recreational sector often leads to unnecessarily large buffers
and reduced opportunity for anglers. States successfully manage
recreational fisheries using a variety of methods that control
the rate of harvest, though very rarely do they use poundage-
based quotas to manage angling effort. This provision of the
Modern Fish Act would clarify that NOAA and the RFMC's could
use management approaches more suited to the recreational
component of the fishery, while still adhering to the
conservation goals of MSA.
Allocation Review--This provision of the Modern Fish Act would
establish a mechanism for periodic review of fishery
allocations in mixed use sectors in the South Atlantic and Gulf
of Mexico, as well as provide clear guidance on how allocation
decisions are made. Most allocation decisions were made in the
1980s and based on recent catch data at the time. Despite the
numerous other changes that have occurred within the fishing
industries and the fisheries management world in the decades
since, nearly all allocations have remained the same. This is
particularly problematic in the southeastern U.S., where
population growth and interest in offshore recreational fishing
have grown substantially in the last several decades.
Unfortunately, there currently is no mechanism to prompt
allocation reviews, and because reallocations are often
contentious, there is no incentive for Councils to adequately
evaluate whether an allocation shift is warranted based on the
current social, economic or environmental conditions.
Better Data--While ``better data'' has been a universal request
for both the recreational and commercial sectors each time MSA
has been reauthorized, it has generally been to direct NOAA to
allocate more resources to the problem. However, the Modern
Fish Act looks to incorporate more cooperative, non-federal
data and data collection approaches into fishery assessments
and management decisions. For example, the Marine Recreation
Information Program (MRIP) is the only estimate of recreational
harvest used for stock assessments and determining if ACL's
have been exceeded. While MRIP is generally a good program for
evaluating trends over a relatively long period of time and
across a broad geographic area, it was never intended to be
used for in-season management of individual species, and
particularly not for determining in season closures for
recreational fisheries with extremely short seasons, as in the
case of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. For this reason,
each of the Gulf States have developed their own data
collection system to get better, more timely estimates of
angler harvest. Louisiana's LA Creel program is a prime example
of how a state agency, with the help of recreational anglers
who went to their state legislature and secured the necessary
funds, solved the problem. Unfortunately, neither the LA Creel
data, nor those of any of the other Gulf states, have been
certified by NOAA to be used in stock assessments. In addition,
there is an increasing level of interest and use among anglers
of angler logbook smartphone apps, such as iAngler. While
states like Florida have worked with the recreational fishing
community to incorporate data from these programs into their
management decisions, NOAA Fisheries has been resistant to
considering this emerging technology.
In summary, recreational angles were among the Nation's original
conservationists and continue to be so. Healthy, abundant fish
populations have always been our goal, and we have been more than
willing to personally invest in the long-term sustainability of our
fisheries resources. The much-needed changes to the Magnuson-Stevens
Act found in S. 1520 will not weaken the conservation principals of the
law, nor does it pit recreational anglers against commercial fishermen.
It would simply allow the law governing fisheries management in the
United States to provide Federal managers and regional councils with
the necessary tools to manage marine recreational fisheries more
appropriately and with the same level of emphasis as commercial
fisheries.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you, Mr. Horton.
Mr. Friedrich, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF ANTHONY ``TONY'' FRIEDRICH, RECREATIONAL
FISHERMAN, EASTERN SHORE, MARYLAND
Mr. Friedrich. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
be here today. My name is Tony Friedrich. I am a lifelong
recreational fisherman currently residing on the Eastern Shore
of Maryland. There has never been a single moment in my life
where my heart wasn't firmly planted in the outdoors.
I've sat on countless councils, advisory boards, and
committees over the last 20 years. For almost 8 years, I was
the Executive Director for the Coastal Conservation Association
of Maryland. The fishermen I know care about conservation. I
work tirelessly with them on habitat issues, forage species
conservation, and improving scientific methods and practices.
I've seen good and bad fisheries management decisions, and
I've seen fish populations either recover or crash as a result.
In my experience, those failures always stem from one problem:
a failure to put the resource first. The task of reauthorizing
Magnuson-Stevens is an incredibly noble endeavor. As we
proceed, I just ask we remember these words: We don't inherit
the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
Prior to 1996, the passage of the Sustainable Fisheries
Act, New England groundfish, red snapper, summer flounder were
just a few of the 86 overfished species that were on the verge
of disaster, but thanks to the law and the subsequent
reauthorization in 2007, things started to slowly get better.
Measures were put in place that set up annual catch limits on
science-based initiatives that prevented overfishing, depleted
stocks had rebuilding plans, and it restored them to
sustainable levels.
June 30, 2017, only 30 stocks were still on that list. It's
really hard for me to think of another law that had that much
impact in such a short period of time, yet legislative
flexibility and recent decisions by the Secretary of Commerce
on red snapper and summer flounder will likely allow
overfishing and are a very serious concern.
If you want to see the results of this kind of flexibility
in action, you have to look no further than the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission. Its management is not held to the
same standards as MSA. They can ignore overfishing and are not
required to rebuild overfished stocks, because striped bass
right now are hovering just above the threshold where they'll
be overfished, the spawning stock biomass.
And striped bass on the Atlantic coast, which again are not
managed under MSA, are a great example why sustainable limits
are needed. In 1986, the stock was collapsing. East Coast
anglers only made 300,000 trips. Rather than address the issue
in a timely manner, ASMFC waited till the situation became very
extreme and a moratorium was necessary. The stock did not get
declared rebuilt until 1995. At that juncture, there were 5
million trips by anglers. Fast forward to 2007, there were 10.5
million trips by anglers. During that entire timeframe, the
creel limit did not change. We don't need to kill more fish, we
need access to abundant populations.
Annual catch limits leave striped--the lack of annual catch
limits, rather, leave striped bass very susceptible to
overfishing. Annual catch limits allow managers to respond in a
timely manner to changes in the fishery. Striped bass are
managed by mortality rates, which is an alternative management
measure many tout today as the way forward, but what it means
is we can't compare our catch to a sustainable limit at the end
of each year, we have to wait years for stock assessments to
tell us how things are going. While we're waiting, we're still
fishing at the same rates, leave striped bass in a situation
where it takes years to acknowledge overfishing, and even
longer to address it.
If we want to support the $115 billion recreational
industry and the 800,000 jobs it supports, we have to focus on
stable and abundant fish populations that are managed by
science-based catch limits for the benefit of the general
public. It's not just striped bass that are in decline with
ASMFC. American eel, American shad, horseshoe crab, tautog, all
in trouble. Weakfish populations, they're so low that there may
not be enough genetic diversity left in the stock to support a
recovery. As a father, that kills me. I'll never sit on the
beach on a full moon and wait for those tide runners to come in
with my son. I'll never show him the fangs on those fish. I'll
never show him the beautiful yellow color on the inside of
their mouth. I'll never show him the purple hues on their back.
They won't come back because of inaction. We knew what to do to
save them, but we just kept catching them.
Rather than pursuing a misguided flexibility,
reauthorization presents all of us with an incredible
opportunity. Fishermen I know want to improve protections for
essential habitat, maintain adequate forage bases. They're
interested in--they're not interested in removing annual catch
limits. They know that ``flexibility'' is a euphemism for
``overharvest.'' They're keenly aware that transferring
management to states removes many of the safeguards from
Magnuson-Stevens and opens the door to overfishing.
We have a great--we have much great work that we can
accomplish. Why do we want to break the things that are
working? As fisheries collapse around the world, 89 percent of
our domestic fisheries are not overfished. The Magnuson-Stevens
Act is working. We can make it better. Managers need a funding
source for better and more frequent stock assessments. We
should look to improve data collection methods for the
recreational sector. Data collection and overall performance of
MRIP is being called into question. Anyone who calls that into
question never had to deal with MRFSS. MRIP--MRIP is working.
My solemn prayer is that I can convince you all that
recreational fishermen are true conservationists. Our number
one desire is to watch our children and grandchildren embrace
the outdoor heritage that makes this country so unique.
Thank you so much for letting me participate in this. I'm
very grateful for the opportunity. And I look forward to any
questions that you all have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Friedrich follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anthony ``Tony'' Friedrich, Recreational
Fisherman,
Eastern Shore, Maryland
My name is Tony Friedrich. I am a life-long recreational fisherman
currently residing on the Eastern Shore of Maryland's portion of the
Chesapeake Bay. From 2009 to 2016, I was the Executive Director of CCA-
Maryland. We advocated for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL from the EPA. We
protected forage species because 70 percent of resident striped bass
had mycobacteriosis from malnutrition. We were leaders for striped bass
conservation and also lead the charge of reasonable speckled trout
regulations. I've seen good and bad fisheries management decisions, and
I've seen fish populations either recover or crash as a result. In my
experience, those failures always stemmed from one problem--a failure
to put the resource first. Often, these bad decisions were possible
because of a lack of strong rules, or because political pressure
prioritized more fishing now instead of the health of the fish stock.
Recently, there's been more and more pressure to make it even easier
for those bad decisions to happen. Decision-makers should resist these
calls to weaken the Magnuson-Stevens Act, since their goal--your goal--
should be the same as mine: to make sure I leave this country's natural
resources in better shape than I got them, so that my children and
grandchildren can love the outdoors like I do. I've dedicated over 20
years of my life to that.
Background
My family came to this country and thrived because its abundant
natural resources gave us food, freedom, and opportunity. In the mid
1700s, my decedents sought refuge from the Seven Years War, and carved
out a life in the marshes of Louisiana. The natural resources provided
them a chance to live free and make a better life. You will never find
people who care more for the natural resources of America. The land and
sea gave them an opportunity to prosper.
My first memories are fishing with a cane pole for bluegills at a
farm pond in rural Tennessee. Since then, there has never been a single
moment when my heart wasn't firmly planted in the outdoors. I tell time
by the tide and understand the habits and needs of fish far more than I
ever will understand humans.
I am incredibly fortunate to have spent so much of my life working
with fishermen to protect the natural resources we care about. I've sat
on countless councils, advisory boards, and committees over the last
twenty years and for almost eight years while I was the Executive
Director of CCA-Maryland. Through CCA, I worked with large groups of
recreational fishermen, listening to their concerns and acting on them
through grassroots advocacy. From the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, I used my
influence to better the resource with the help of a small army of
dedicated volunteers that believed in me and putting the resource
first.
The fishermen I know care about conservation. We worked tirelessly
on habitat issues, forage species conservation, and improving
scientific methods and practices. We broke ``the rules'' by working
hand in hand with environmental groups. My philosophy was simple: if
you put the fish first, everything else works out. Too often, you see
people fighting over their slice of the pie, always wanting a bigger
slice even it means taking it from someone else, hurting the resource,
and ignoring, or worse, defaming, the best available science. I tried
to help folks understand that if you make the pie bigger, we'd all get
along. It's only through working together, bringing recreational and
commercial fishermen, scientists and managers to the table, and making
decisions that consider the long-term health of the resource, that we
can all win.
The National Marine Fisheries Service released a survey in 2013.
The survey looked at the attitude and preferences of saltwater
recreational anglers from every coast. Almost ninety percent of the
anglers valued spending time with family and friends more than any
other aspect of the sport. Eighty percent of those surveyed just wanted
to catch fish. Importantly, less than forty percent wanted to fill
their limits every time out. This falls directly in line with my
experience with the recreational sector. The bulk of fishermen want to
encounter fish during their trips. Harvesting these fish is far less
important. We fish for the experience.
So now you know who we really are. But, I sit here today to speak
for the resource because it needs a voice. It needs a voice to remind
decision-makers that things were far worse in the not so distant past.
It needs a voice that says there are so many people in coastal
communities that rely on a healthy resource. Frankly, there needs to be
a voice of reason.
We've made progress towards sustainable fisheries, but that's now in
jeopardy
Prior to 1996, and the passage of the Sustainable Fisheries Act
(SFA), New England groundfish, red snapper, and summer flounder were on
the verge of disaster. Pursuant to standards established by SFA, 86
different species were declared overfished. But thanks to that law and
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Reauthorization Act passed in 2007 (Magnuson-Stevens Act, or MSA),
things started to slowly get better. Measures were put in place to set
up annual catch limits (ACL) based on science that prevent overfishing.
Depleted stocks were put into rebuilding plans to restore them to
sustainable levels. As of June 30, 2017, only 30 of stocks are still on
the overfished list, and most of those are either highly migratory
species or part of the New England groundfish stock.
It is hard to think of another a law that has such a positive
impact in such a short time frame. When you dig a little deeper, you
begin to understand that MSA's robust system of standards and
stakeholder participation empower decision-makers to make the right
decisions. All too often lately, we hear complaints about how catch
limits negatively impact the economy, and are unfair to recreational
fishermen. But when stocks decline because of overfishing, businesses
fail, communities suffer and there's less fishing for everyone.
Gulf of Mexico red snapper and Mid-Atlantic summer flounder are
somehow now the rallying cries for those who seek to weaken the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. But the irony is, neither species would be
available to catch if not for the catch limits and rebuilding plans
required by the MSA.
It is an accurate statement when people say that they have never
seen more red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. Red snapper stocks crashed
in the 90s. It has been more than 50 years since the stock was truly
healthy. The stock has recovered well in the past decade, but it still
has a long way to go. And yes, the Federal red snapper season in the
Gulf of Mexico is short, but that's not the fault of MSA. The
recreational sector has consistently overfished red snapper. The
average size of the fish is growing. State seasons take 70-80 percent
of the recreational quota, leaving very little for the Federal season.
As an example, Texas has a 365 day season with a four fish limit. Then,
the states and some Gulf anglers get upset when the season in Federal
waters is shortened. Instead of solving the problems of overfishing and
long state seasons, people are attacking the National Marine Fisheries
Service and MSA. In reality, everyone should be thanking them from the
return of the iconic fish. The numbers tell the story.
In 1990, red snapper landings were just slightly over 4 million
pounds. By 2000, the landings increased to almost 10 million pounds. In
2014, the landings were just short of 16 million pounds. We are
watching a success story in the making. Red snapper spawning potential
hasn't been this high since 1968. However, red snapper can live to be
50 years old. The oldest fish are the most valuable to the resource. A
5 year old red snapper produces 8x the eggs of a three year old and a
10 year old produces 33x the eggs of a 3 year old. Since red snapper
stocks are managed on spawning potential and snapper are long lived,
rebuilding will take a while. Right now, the bulk of the population is
about 10 years old. The numbers are rising but we have to be patient
because that is what the biology of the fish demands.
Likewise, summer flounder was chronically overfished at the end of
the 20th century. I've seen that population ebb and flow over the last
twenty years. Every single time we've taken cuts, we've seen
improvement. In 2016, stock assessment updates indicate that fishing
mortality exceeded the threshold by 26 percent. The spawning stock
biomass is only 58 percent of the target and sits only 16 percent above
the threshold. The overall biomass has been trending downward since
2010. This has been driven by low recruitment and also illegally
harvested flounder that may have resulted in large overages of the
fisheries annual catch limit. New York and New Jersey caught 88 percent
of the total quota in 2016. The two states totaled 4.771 million pounds
while the coast wide quota is 5.42 million pounds. Science told us that
drastic reductions in harvest are needed. New Jersey just went out of
compliance with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's
summer flounder management plan. New Jersey fishermen created a
narrative that reductions would destroy the industry. So, we have a
state that has the lion's share of the fish and may now be
overharvesting, too.
More flexible systems fail to manage sustainably
We hear an awful lot from those who claim to represent the
recreational sector about the need for ``flexibility.'' If you want to
see flexibility in action, look no further than the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). ASMFC isn't held to the same
standards as the eight regional councils established through MSA. ASMFC
can ignore overfishing and is not required to rebuild overfished
stocks. The results of this ``flexibility'' are much less impressive
than fisheries regulated with annual catch limits and accountability
measures.
Striped bass on the Atlantic coast, which is not managed under MSA,
is a good example for why sustainable limits are needed. In 1986, the
stock was collapsing. East Coast anglers made only 300,000 trips.
Rather than address the issue when the first signs of decline became
apparent, ASMFC bowed to political pressures to do nothing, and waited
until severe measures were necessary. A full moratorium was put in
place in Federal waters, and several states closed their seasons as
well. The stock started to recover, and was declared rebuilt in 1995.
Immediately, the number of striped bass trips jumped to 5,000,000. By
2007, the number of trips was a staggering 10,500,000. During that
timeframe, the coast wide creel limit stayed at two fish at a 28,
minimum size limit; the creel limit never changed. The lack of an
annual catch limits leaves striped bass very vulnerable to overfishing.
Annual catch limits allow the managers to respond more quickly to
changes in the fishery. However, striped bass is managed by mortality
rates, an ``alternative'' management measure many tout today as the way
forward. But what it means is we can't compare our catch to a
sustainable limit at the end of each season--we have to wait years for
stock assessments to tell us how the stock is doing. While we are
waiting, we are still fishing at the same rates. This leaves striped
bass in a situation where it takes years to acknowledge overfishing and
even longer to address it. Currently, striped bass numbers are
declining again. The spawning stock biomass is hovering just above the
threshold to be declared overfished. Trips have fallen to just over 6
million. If we want to support the $115 billion recreational industry
and the 800,000 jobs it supports, we should focus on stable and
abundant fish populations that are managed by science-based annual
catch limits and for the benefit of the general population.
And it's not just striped bass that is in decline under ASMFC's
more flexible management system. Weakfish populations are so low that
there might not be enough genetic diversity left to support a viable
stock.
Weakfish were once a staple of the Chesapeake Bay. Every tackle
shop had rows and rows of local lures called ``trout bombs'' lining the
aisle. You could go out and have a reasonable expectation that you
would catch weakfish from the mouth of the Potomac to north of the Bay
Bridge. In 2002, the weakfish population dropped below the spawning
stock biomass threshold. In 2009, a stock assessment was completed that
showed weakfish population at 3 percent of an unfished stock. It took
seven years to begin to address the plummeting population of weakfish
under ASMFC. We kept the same creel and size limits in place during
that time period knowing all the while that the population was in
serious trouble. The years of inaction decimated the population to a
point where draconian measures had to be implemented to save the stock.
I'd much rather make minor adjustments to harvest on an annual basis
rather than see a stock collapse. After all this, ASMFC still refused
to take the advice of scientists and close the fishery. If they had
taken this action, the stock might have recovered by 2020. Now, we
don't know if it ever will.
The case of spot is no different. Spot are managed on abundance and
harvest metrics know as a TLA, not annual catch limits. The TLA
(Traffic Light Analysis) is a precautionary management tool that
identifies trends and suggests management options. It is not as
effective as annual catch limits. Spot abundance is on the decline. The
first ever coast wide stock assessment is currently under review. In
the meantime, spot have become the number one bait for striped bass in
the Chesapeake Bay. It is not uncommon for anglers to go out with
hundreds of spot in their live wells. The TLA and stock assessment
process lacks the regulatory strength and timely response necessary to
account for trends in increased effort.
Please, take it from me and the rest of the recreational anglers of
the Chesapeake Bay, you don't want to use ASMFC as a model. American
eel, American shad, horseshoe crabs, and tautog are also on the
decline. ASMFC staff and scientists are top notch, but ASMFC as a
governance body is not bound by MSA. There are no ACL's or
accountability measures. They have plenty of flexibility. There is no
legal authority to follow science even for setting rebuilding
timelines. It doesn't work.
The science is sound and better than it has ever been, but there's room
for improvement
Accurate and timely catch information is critical to making
effective fisheries management decisions. For the recreational sector,
that catch and effort data is provided by MRIP (Marine Recreational
Information Program), a national program overseen by NMFS but in nearly
all cases is implemented by states. While MRIP isn't perfect, it was
recently reaffirmed as both legitimate and accurate by the National
Academy of Sciences. Yet MRIP is being called into question by the same
people asking for more flexibility. Anyone who remembers MRFSS (Marine
Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey) should embrace MRIP. Under
MRFSS, phone numbers were taken from a phone book. The first question
in the survey was ``Do you fish?'' Currently, under MRIP, every angler
is issued a FIN (Fishery Identification Number) thus supplying managers
with a database of actual fishermen.
Gathering recreational data is hard. Recreational fishing involves
large numbers of individuals fishing from many different locations,
making it very difficult to estimate the number of fish caught. But
MRIP is doing a decent job, according to the National Academy of
Science: ``MRIP has made significant improvements in gathering
information through redesigned surveys, strengthening the quality of
data. Although many of the major recommendations from the 2006 report,
``National Research Council. 2006. Review of Recreational Fisheries
Survey Methods. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. https:/
/doi.org/10.17226/11616.'' have been addressed, some challenges remain,
such as incorporating technological advances for data collection and
enhancing communication with anglers and some other stakeholders.''
We've come a long way from cold calls, and both the catch and effort
data from MRIP has vastly improved. The system becomes more accurate as
the number of surveys grows.
With that said one of the key problems in getting more in-season
data is that the state survey programs use vastly different
methodologies and send their data to MRIP at inconsistent times. There
is a significant calibration effort needed to make sure we aren't
comparing apples to oranges, and this means the data coming out of MRIP
is delayed. The one exception is the LA Creel program out of Louisiana,
which uses the same design as MRIP but can survey with greater
frequency. It is odd that critics of MRIP are broadly supportive of the
LA Creel program. To improve MRIP, we should follow the advice of the
National Academy of Sciences and improve communication, technology, and
survey rates. In addition, state surveys could be improved and designed
to better fit with MRIP, and all our data programs could be better
funded. If recreational fishing is worth $115 billion and supports
800,000 jobs annually, shouldn't we be funding it properly?
This is a chance to make things better for fisheries
We have an incredible opportunity in front of us with a
reauthorization effort. We have a chance to secure healthy marine
environments for generations to come. The fishermen I know want MSA to
be more robust. They aren't interested in removing annual catch limits
and they know that ``flexibility'' is a euphemism for overharvest. They
are also keenly aware that state management would remove many of the
safeguards in MSA and open the door to overfishing; just look at New
Jersey and summer flounder under ASMFC. We should embrace the
opportunity to further protect our future. As fisheries around the
world collapse, 89 percent of our domestic Federal fisheries are not
overfished. The Magnuson-Stevens Act is working. But we can make it
even better.
Keep annual catch limits in place, don't allow for more
flexibility, support angler-led innovation, and work within the system
to improve and fund scientific research:
Keep annual catch limits and accountability measures--it is
the single most effective tool that fishery managers have had
over the last ten years. Ignore the rhetoric and look at the
numbers.
Managers and scientists need more funding, not less, for
better and more frequent stock assessments.
Implement better catch and effort data collection methods
for the recreational sector. Innovative, angler-led electronic
tools, like smartphone apps, show a great deal of promise.
Have an honest discussion about how to best protect critical
habitat areas like the Louisiana marsh, the Chesapeake Bay, and
the Everglades.
Let's take a page out of Theodore Roosevelt's conservation ethos
and do the hard things now so we can reap the benefits for generations
to come. Let's not focus on next quarter's results, let's focus
enabling the next generation to enjoy our natural resources. My solemn
prayer is that I can convince all of you that recreational fishermen
are true conservationists. Our number one desire is to watch our
children and grandchildren embrace the outdoor heritage that makes our
country so unique. In the end, we just want to watch them smile from
ear to ear as they are reeling in a fish.
Thank you for allowing me to participate in this process. I am
forever grateful for this opportunity and look forward to ensuring my
heritage for generations to come.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Friedrich.
And thank you, gentlemen, for your outstanding testimony.
I am going to yield my time at the outset here, as I know
Senator Inhofe has a time commitment. So I'm going to yield my
time, and I'll come back with questions at a later round.
But, Senator Inhofe.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that's very nice
of you, and the Ranking Member, too.
Something you just said kind of sparked me a little bit
when you talked about the people who are most concerned are
those users. There's somehow this mentality in Washington that
the government, the Federal Government, has to make these
things happen. We feel very strongly that people who are
farmers or own their own land are more concerned about the
conservation and the quality than government.
Mr. Faulkner, years ago, back when I enjoyed life----
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe.--I was a builder/developer in South Padre
Island, Texas. Now, I know Mr. Horton knows where that is, but
you're probably somewhat familiar with that.
Mr. Faulkner. Sure.
Senator Inhofe. And, you know, there's this thought that if
you're not from a coastal state, that somehow you don't have
that close connection, but that's not true. Of course, I worked
down there and I was down there virtually every week anyway,
but also many companies. HydroHoist, in Oklahoma, is one of the
largest in the world along the line of those products. And I
know that Mick Webber started that thing from just almost
nothing. So we have a lot of activity and a lot of interest in
what happens down there on the coast.
Now, this year, it took a cooperative agreement negotiated
by multiple stakeholders, and I was here at the hearing, to
lengthen the red snapper season for private recreational
anglers in the Federal Gulf Coast waters. Well, the problem was
that we went through a period of time up until about 2005 when
we had a real problem with the number of snapper that are out
there.
Now, when that changed, it took--I'd like to have you
succinctly highlight for this committee how punitive
recreational fishing regulations and the uncertainty as to the
length of a Federal fishing season negatively impact your
business and what we're all here for?
Mr. Faulkner. Thank you, Senator. Well, my answer is two
parts. As a recreational fisherman myself, I think at times the
uncertainty, certainly 3-day seasons or 9-day seasons, and it
storms for 5 of those, is very limited, and it's unpredictable,
and it just so much compacts your time out there that it's a
mad race to go out there sometimes when it's not even safe seas
to be out fishing. And I'm speaking predominantly on the red
snapper. I think that's what you were referring to.
Senator Inhofe. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Faulkner. But I think the uncertainty also from the
manufacturing side of it is our customers making a large
investment in time for their family, and certainly financially,
the uncertainty just isn't worth the risk if they're not going
to be guaranteed some fair time to be out there to participate.
And I think the word ``uncertainty'' is what's been the biggest
problem over the last 10 years.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, that is a problem.
And, Mr. Horton, you commented your activity down in the
area that you and I are both familiar with. And I think a key
component of the Modern Fish Act is adapting Federal fisheries
management and embrace recreational fishing as well as
commercial fishing, something we've heard a lot about.
I would ask you, do you think it's--have the states done a
better job than the Federal Government?
Mr. Horton. Yes, sir, I think so, and there are a number of
reasons for that. Number one, the states tend to manage--states
manage differently than the Federal Government in the fact that
the states manage for population abundance and health because
they're trying to manage for maximum access for the people. I
mean, recreational anglers are essentially their customers, and
so they want to make sure that we have access to healthy,
abundant fisheries, whereas the Federal management tends to
manage Federal fisheries more as really a commodity, and it's
not--they don't manage it quite like a public trust resource.
So access isn't necessarily--maximum access isn't the
ultimate goal, maximum sustainable yield is the ultimate goal
essentially, or optimal yield. So I feel like the states, from
a recreational angler's perspective, and the models that they
use to maximize access is more effective.
Senator Inhofe. What I'd like to have all of you do is give
some thought to how the Federal Government, if we're talking
about making changes, not just in this Act, but in other Acts,
to try to enhance what this is all about today. But give some
thoughts to, what specifically is it that the Federal
Government could learn from the states so that we can treat
this not just as a one-shot thing, but come back here for other
improvements in the future?
Mr. Horton. Sure.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. Hey, thank you very much for putting
me in.
Senator Sullivan. Senator Peters.
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to each of our witnesses for your testimony
today. I certainly appreciated hearing from each of you.
Mr. Horton, I appreciated when you mentioned you have
fished all across the United States. I hope the Great Lakes was
part of that fishing expedition across the United States.
Mr. Horton. Lake St. Clair is my favorite bass lake in the
country.
Senator Peters. All right. Good to hear that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sullivan. And I'm assuming Alaska was in there,
too.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Horton. Halibut fishing in the Kenai River. Yes, sir.
[Laughter.]
Senator Peters. Well, I'm very pleased that you were in
Lake Michigan or in one of the Great Lakes. And St. Clair is
not really one of the Great Lakes, but you can get to the other
bigger lakes, too, as you continue to travel around. We are a
coastal state as well in the fact that we have more miles of
coastline than any other state except Alaska, but, of course,
it's all fresh water.
And also, Mr. Faulkner, I appreciated your comments on the
boat industry. We have more boat registrations than any state
in the country in the state of Michigan. So we are a state of
boaters. We are a state of anglers. We love fishing.
And I certainly appreciate all the comments of all of you
that folks who enjoy fishing are also great conservationists.
They realize that it's something to cherish. It is a sport that
passes down to generation to generation. But you need fish in
order to go fishing, which is a key aspect of it, and they full
recognize that.
However, over the last several years, the question is, you
know, it seems like some of the larger membership groups that
focus on fish conservation have stopped talking about ensuring
abundance of fishery resources as a goal, a goal that seems to
me, at least, to benefit everybody--the more fish you have, the
better--and are now more focused on things like expanding a
perceived lack of access to fish resources. And in many cases,
it seems to me the lack of access grows directly out of a lack
of abundance. You've got to have abundance first.
Mr. Friedrich, I want to ask the question, why do you think
this shift has occurred? Has it occurred? And why do you think
that is occurring? And does it make more sense to be focusing
on abundance?
Mr. Friedrich. Thank you. Thank you very much for the
question. You know, shifts occur for a lot of different
reasons. The numbers that I quoted in my testimony are very
real. From 1986, when striped bass populations were collapsing
and there were only 300,000 trips, and then they hit a peak in
population, and there were 10.5 million trips, and the creel
limit never changed.
As recreational fishermen, we're in it for the experience.
I enjoy seeing, you know, dolphins go by my boat, or to see a
bald eagle, and I really like catching fish. I really like it
when I'm out there catching fish. If there are no fish to
catch, I'm not going to go fishing, and that is true of all
recreational fishermen. I have not measured my day on how many
fish I can kill in so long I can't remember. We're more about
the experience. And I think the numbers that you'll see: when
fish populations are abundant, the economy benefits; when fish
populations are not abundant, the economy does not benefit.
We absolutely have to manage fish for abundance. We have to
make sure that they have the habitat and the forage species
necessary to increase the carrying capacity in any system to
support that abundance. And, again, I think we have an
incredible opportunity when we're taking a look at Magnuson to
really make it stronger to support fisheries 50 years from now
or 100 years from now.
And, again, the only thing that we really want is to see
our kids and grandkids smile when they're reeling a fish in. I
don't want to tell my son that we can't go fishing because we
can't catch those species until they recover. We all rely on
this for our lives, our recreation, the boat builders, all the
organizations that rely on healthy fisheries, that should be
our focus, not weakening Magnuson, strengthening Magnuson.
Senator Peters. And part of that focus that you reference
in your testimony that we just heard, you also reference in
your written testimony that we need to ensure adequate forage
fish population?
Mr. Friedrich. Yes, sir.
Senator Peters. And I think you touched on some of the
negative consequences when populations get too low. Why do you
think forage conservation is so important? And do you think the
kinds of policies that you have advocated for in the Mid-
Atlantic would be effective nationwide, something we should be
considering?
Mr. Friedrich. Yes, absolutely, and that's not a personal
bias either. There's a little oily fish called the menhaden
that pretty much lives from Maine to Florida. Several years
ago, menhaden were at the lowest level of their abundance,
about 8 percent of a virgin stock. It affected everything.
Striped bass contracted mycobacteriosis, which is a wasting
disease, 100 percent fatal, in aquaculture. We're still trying
to figure out how many of them died from that. But they were
malnourished. Ospreys had the lowest chick recruitments since
DDT was taken off the market. Everything suffered.
Weakfish, I mentioned weakfish, they're a soft grade fish.
The natural mortality skyrocketed on weakfish because they're
like little Snickers Bars to striped bass. So we are growing
them to 11 inches, and they are disappearing because that
biomass that comes down the coast is waiting at the mouth of
Hudson Bay, Delaware Bay, Chesapeake Bay, for those young-of-
the-year menhaden to leave the estuaries when the water gets
colder.
It's very similar to the migration of the Serengeti, it's
just underwater, so you all can't see it. But it's a very real
thing. And when forage species are absent, other species become
the forage. It takes 1,000 bay anchovies to equal one adult
menhaden. OK?
When we brought those menhaden back, it was just a 20
percent reduction that we got. Mycobacteriosis was a thing of
the past. Osprey recruitment recovered immediately. There's a
slight uptick in the weakfish population, but we may have
knocked them down so low that, like I said, they're never
coming back. But you can't remove the keystone species of an
ecosystem and expect everything to be OK. It's not going to be
OK. It's probably the thing that I'm the most proud of, that
one victory. In all the conservation victories that I did, it's
the one thing that made the most difference.
And living on the Eastern Shore, when I drove over here
today, there were--I counted half a dozen schools of menhaden
when I was driving over the Bay bridge, and I was watching
birds feed on them, I was watching juvenile striped bass feed
of them, everything, and it makes you feel good inside when you
know you did something decent for the world.
Senator Peters. Great. We appreciate that. Thank you.
Senator Sullivan. Senator Wicker.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER F. WICKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Wicker. Mr. Horton, how long have you been having
this annual pilgrimage to fish red snapper?
Mr. Horton. Prior to joining CSF in 2010, I worked for
B.A.S.S., and we were based out of Orlando, Florida, at the
time. So when we first moved there in 2005, I bought a bay
boat. You take a boy from the hills of Arkansas and give him a
saltwater environment to fish in, I went crazy and wanted to
try to learn to catch everything.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Horton. So I started catching red snapper then. And
since coming to work for CSF in 2010, 2011, I missed that year,
but I've been down there every year since----
Senator Wicker. What did you think when you heard about a
72-hour season?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Horton. I knew--I had a suspicion that it was coming.
Senator Wicker. We don't know what the season is going to
be next year, do we?
Mr. Horton. That's true. The variability is in question. I
think a lot of folks may be surprised that we don't exceed the
quota quite as much as what was originally thought, but----
Senator Wicker. You know, I think if there was a little
more certainty, Mr. Faulkner might be able to sell a few more
boats.
You know, I didn't ask this, Mr. Faulkner, but a couple of
generations back, you've got to be somehow kin to William
Faulkner, aren't you?
Mr. Faulkner. You know, I'm not sure. I haven't reached any
inheritance from it, so I don't guess I can claim much of that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Wicker. Not that close of kin.
Mr. Faulkner. We lived in the same neck of the woods,
though.
Senator Wicker. That's absolutely true. And Mr. Faulkner
wrote a book called ``Go Down, Moses,'' it had a bunch of short
stories in it, and this was about hunting, not fishing, but
young Isaac McCaslin sort of came of age during these short
stories, and in one story entitled, ``The Old People,'' his
cousin, McCaslin Edmonds is quoted as saying this, ``The earth
don't want to just keep things, hoard them, it wants to use
them again.'' And I think that's what you're saying and the
other witnesses are saying about how recreational fishermen are
conservationists because we know, along with Mother Earth, that
we don't want to keep these things, we want to use them over
and over. And so I appreciate what you and your fellow
witnesses have done for conservation.
You provide directly 300 jobs in Amory, Mississippi.
Mr. Faulkner. Correct.
Senator Wicker. Are you an Amory Panther?
Mr. Faulkner. I am.
Senator Wicker. OK, well, I was a Pontotoc Warrior back in
the day.
Mr. Faulkner. I know, up the road.
Senator Wicker. I wasn't much of one, but I was there.
Mr. Faulkner. Just up the road.
Senator Wicker. But in addition to that, every dealership
in these 28 states provides jobs, where they sell your boats.
And congratulations on having such a wide range of buyers who
like your product.
Also, when you make a boat, there are folks making a living
in Arlington Heights, Illinois; Collierville, Tennessee; Fort
Smith, Arkansas, Mr. Horton; Litchfield, Illinois; and
Limerick, Pennsylvania. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Faulkner. That's correct.
Senator Wicker. And so it's a part of this, that what we're
talking about today is not only recreation and using our God-
given resources, but also providing jobs for Americans across
this great land and not just in the coastal area.
Mr. Faulkner, you mentioned uncertainty about access,
uncertainty about fishing seasons, and we mentioned the
notorious example of the 72-hour season. Now, that was expanded
then to 39 weekend days, but we really don't know what that
season is going to be next year, do we?
Mr. Faulkner. No, sir.
Senator Wicker. So if somebody is looking to buy a boat,
and if red snapper is their thing, it's hard for them to
decide, ``I want to fork over a considerable amount of money,''
if they don't know how much fishing they're going to be able to
do. Is that correct?
Mr. Faulkner. That's correct. And it's such a commitment, I
mean, from the family side of it. Are we going to go to, you
know, ballgames this year or are we going to make the
commitment to that boat? We're going to go out and we're going
to use that boat, and we're going to make a huge investment of
our hard-earned money. And if we don't know if there's going to
be a 3-day season or a 7-day season or a 37-weekend season,
then there's a real good chance that that purchase isn't going
to happen. And it certainly affects--affects us.
Senator Wicker. Let me--Mr. Chairman, let me take that
extra 60 seconds that Senator Peters took.
Mr. Donofrio, you and Mr. Friedrich have a difference of
opinion about the 2007 changes to the Act. You think it was a
disaster, and he thinks it was quite the thing. So where is he
wrong?
Mr. Donofrio. Thank you, Senator. Well, the last
reauthorization, with the terrible data system that we have in
place, and as you probably realize, the House years ago when
Chairman Saxton was on board and Chairman Gilchrest, they
demanded that the ASMFC look into the data collection system.
They were--they had like 2 or 3 years to fix it after the
National Academy of Science came out with their report. I think
it took them 10 years before they came out with another
program.
So they changed the MRFSS program to the MRIP, and all it
is, is a crossdresser, it's the same program. They're not
doing--they're not doing real-time intercepts. They're getting
terrible data. It's meant for, as Chris said, it's just meant
for trends. And so the ACLs, when they butt up against the bad
data, it creates an overfishing definition that's not
biological, it's statutory.
So right now, for instance, we're tripping over certain
species of fish. You're walking on them. It's unsafe for your
dog to go swimming in the water. And yet we're overfishing on
these fish, there are so many of them, because it's statutory
in nature, not biological. That's what has to be fixed.
And as I pointed in my testimony, Senator, the models for
Mr. Faulkner's company, for Yamaha, for Viking, the companies
we represent, their models won't allow us to catch the last
fish. They'll be out of business. We'll have no employees
anywhere.
So we want conservation and long-term sustainability. We
have to modernize the Act. It has to change with the times and
the amount of fish that are available.
Senator Wicker. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sullivan. Senator Blumenthal.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
having this hearing. Everybody I think knows that climate
change is having an effect on our fish populations,
particularly where the fish live, not only their numbers, but
where they can be found. And some of the effects of climate
change have been to drive fish that once were a mainstay for
Connecticut fishermen north, but Connecticut's fishermen are
still governed by the same quotas and rules as if climate
change and that migration of fish had never happened.
We're dealing with a system that essentially is broken.
Stocks of black sea bass, summer flounder, and scup have quotas
that are outdated based on where the fish are. Essentially,
Connecticut fishermen have been barred from catching
economically sustainable quantities of fish in or near our
state's waters.
When fishermen haul a larger catch than their permissible
quota, which happens often, the fishermen have to throw their
excess overboard. That benefits nobody. It wastes food, it
doesn't bring the fish back to life. By that point, the bycatch
are often dead or near dead, and they're left to rot in the
water. The dead discards are voluminous. I've heard and spoken
to the fishermen. I don't know how many of you in your parts of
the country are familiar with this phenomenon, but I suspect
it's more than just Connecticut or New England, really New
England.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act, which is the relevant law here,
requires the Department of Commerce to ensure fishery
management plans adhere to national standards, including,
``best scientific information available,'' to decide catch
limits. And any management plan, ``shall not discriminate
between residents of different states,'' and must allow quotas
that are, ``fair and equitable.''
So I have a very simple question: Do you think that the
Councils currently use the best information available? To all
of you. Yes, sir.
Mr. Donofrio. No, Senator. And as you know, that NOAA is
very protective of their science, called the best available
science. And I'll give you a perfect example. There is a group
in New Jersey, Save the Summer Flounder Foundation. They hired
some of the best Ph.D.'s in the country, non-biased Ph.D.'s, to
get a science on summer flounder. And if we did not go to
Members of Congress to help get that through, NOAA didn't want
to accept it. We had to actually fight them. We had to fight
NOAA because if we got our--we had to get our Congressmen to
actually do it. We had to get Senator Schumer, we had to get a
bunch of people to actually--Members of Congress to actually
tell NOAA to move that science forward because it's real
science. And they hide under their science, and they're very
protective of it, and that has to change.
Senator Blumenthal. Any others of you have an opinion on
this issue?
Mr. Horton. Well, Senator, to your question about, Do you
think the Councils use the best available science? And the
Councils and NOAA fisheries in general, I would have to say, at
least in the Gulf of Mexico's perspective, again, when it comes
to the Marine Recreational Information Program in a season like
red snapper, that's just literally days or weeks where the MRIP
data collection process is basically 2 months at best before
you can get the estimate back. There's no way to do in-season
closures there.
So the states, many of the sates, have developed their own
data collection programs. Yet, unfortunately, MRIP is the only
one still used in stock assessments right now. But the states
are able, at least the Gulf states are able, to get much more
timely information today.
Senator Blumenthal. States have better information?
Mr. Horton. When it comes to angler harvest data in the
Gulf of Mexico, yes, sir.
Senator Blumenthal. Which is not used because they're
limited or limiting themselves to Federal information?
Mr. Horton. Because NOAA Fisheries has yet to certify the
state data collection programs to be used in stock assessments.
Senator Blumenthal. I want to make one other point, which
may not be of direct concern to this panel, but I think it's
important to note. During a recent hearing, in fact, his
confirmation hearing, Wilbur Ross was asked by me before his
confirmation as Secretary of Commerce, about the serious trade
imbalance between our country and foreign competitors on
seafood.
For all the seafood consumed in this country, only 10
percent comes from the United States. Think of it for a moment.
All the seafood that we eat, and we're eating more and more of
it because it's touted as being healthful, only 10 percent of
it comes from the United States. The other 90 percent comes
from other countries. Those numbers are going in the wrong
direction, not the right one, as the percentage of foreign
seafood consumed in this country has been increasing over time.
I raised this issue of fishing quotas with Wilbur Ross at
his confirmation hearing, and he stressed his commitment to
ensure that quotas, ``are allocated properly.''
We're at the eight-month mark of this administration. We've
heard nothing from the administration about this issue. I could
ask you rhetorically if you want to comment on whether the
administration is doing enough on this issue? I'm opening it to
your comment if you have any.
Mr. Friedrich. Can I take one step back before we take a
step forward and just the previous question, if we feel that
the Councils are privy to the best science in our states and
doing a better job?
Senator Blumenthal. Well, if the Chairman--I'm already over
my time, so the Chairman has a right to cut both of us off at
any time. So with his permission----
Mr. Friedrich. I'm new here. Whatever anyone wants to do,
I'll follow.
Senator Sullivan. So if you can keep it brief, I think that
would be fine.
Mr. Friedrich. Thank you very much, sir. What you'll find
is people tout LA Creel, which is Louisiana's answer to
catching--to keeping count of how many red snapper they're
catching. LA Creel is MRIP with more funding. They have more
intercepts and more phone calls.
So, again, if this is truly worth $115 billion a year and
800,000 jobs, we ought to fund the heck out of MRIP because you
can't--you can't say LA Creel is good and criticize MRIP. You
can't do it. It's the same thing with more intercepts.
That--to hop right into your second question, as far as the
seafood, you know, there are trends, success stories, in
Virginia with oyster aquaculture. It is a zero-carbon emission
proposition. They are filtering the water as the oyster
watermen are harvesting them. They are harvesting them either
from floats. Cages are on the bottom. They are not using power
dredges and damaging natural habitat.
So we have answers sitting right in front of us. This is
not salmon aquaculture where 400,000 of them swim out of a pen
and infect all the native salmon and it's the end of the world.
These are native Maryland and Virginia oysters, Chesapeake Bay
oysters, that are being essentially farmed in their native
habitat. And if you--I'll point to examples on St. Jerome's
Creek in Maryland where the creek has actually changed. From
them filtering the water where they're being harvested via
aquaculture, it's not muck, it's now a sand bottom. And I have
pictures of juvenile Nassau grouper in the Chesapeake Bay in
the oyster cages. They're bringing life back. So it's kind of a
win-win-win. We can get there.
Senator Blumenthal. Yes, we're doing aquaculture in
Connecticut as well.
Mr. Friedrich. And you all have the opportunity to do
seafood, you know, seaweed, everything. It's incredible what
you all have in the ocean and what you all are able to do. We
can get there.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
I'm going to turn to a couple questions of my own here.
First for all the panelists, you know, there has been,
particularly the first three, but all of you really talking
about recreational fishing and commercial fishing and the
difference from one another in terms of their management needs.
Can you--any of you want to speak to that issue? I know it's an
important issue to a number of you, and it raised in each of
your testimonies.
Yes, sir, Mr. Donofrio.
Mr. Donofrio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you know, you know, NOAA manages us through the Councils
in pounds. And for the commercial sector, that works well. You
know, they have boxes of fish, they get to the dock, they count
the boxes, and off they go. And we're managed in pounds. So
what happens is let's say they do a stock assessment and they
tell us we need to cut back a little bit. So in order to cut
back a little bit, they go up in size. When you go up in size,
what do you do? You go up in pounds. So it's a counterintuitive
program that's in place for us. And this is why we have, you
know, asked Senator Nelson and Senator Wicker to incorporate
the alternative management in the Modern Fish Act because the
Councils need other tools to manage us. And what works for the
commercials don't necessarily work for us. And that's a good
example of how counterintuitive that program is.
Senator Sullivan. Yes. Any other thoughts on that issue,
just the commercial-recreational management tools that, from
your perspective, you see are different that we would need to
address?
Mr. Friedrich. There's never been a greater opportunity, as
modern day, where recreational fishermen can step up to the
plate and do their part. We can't sit on these panels and tell
you all how bad things and how tough things are for us and then
complain about the science and not step up and say, ``I've got
a smartphone in my pocket, I'm going to put a little bit of the
responsibility on my shoulders, and we're going to figure out a
way where I can report more accurate numbers to the managers
and the scientists.''
The scientists are just doing their job. They're doing
exactly what we tell them to do. And they're smart people. They
deserve to be better funded, and they certainly don't deserve
to be criticized. We have to step up to the plate.
As Executive Director, CCA Maryland, we ran a trial program
called Chesapeake Catch where--it was not successful, but the
few times the first time you try something, it's successful.
But it was a smartphone app where anglers could track the fish
that they caught, and it would go directly to the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources with the information that their
biologists found most valuable.
So, you know, I was taught from a very young age, sir, that
you don't complain about something unless you have a solution
for it. So my solution is, as a group, we step up to the plate
and provide better data because those scientists are probably
some of the best people you'll ever meet.
Senator Sullivan. OK. Thanks, Mr. Friedrich. I want to make
sure I get to some of the other witnesses here.
Mr. Friedrich. Sure.
Senator Sullivan. Mr. Faulkner, your point on the broader
impacts to all the states I actually thought was a really
powerful one, and it's not well recognized. Can you elaborate a
little bit more on your supply network even beyond Mississippi
and how the MSA legislation does or does not impact that?
Mr. Faulkner. Sure. Well, again, the state of Michigan,
Attwood Products, huge source of all types of marine supplies,
and thousands of employees there are employed because of
fishing boats, and particularly at this point in time, center
console boats seem to be the growing--more growth, more
percentage of growth, in the last 5 or 6 years. And these boats
are now used more for family than just serious even
recreational fishermen or tournament type fishermen. They're
family boats that they will go out and they love to go and
catch their two, you know, which is a pretty limited amount,
but good that it is, red snapper. Then they use their boat for,
you know, other recreational purposes. But that gives them the
ability to go out and use their boat for other things.
And then we just have a lot of suppliers. I would say there
are hundreds of parts in a boat that are manufactured in so
many states across the Union----
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. Faulkner.--and it's just huge for us to be able to have
that access and to still conserve. If we don't have fish,
obviously we won't have a need for a boat. So we are very
conservation-minded, but a little more access and the local--
not local, more so the state governments and the state
biologists are so in touch with that because it varies from
even the--in the Gulf from the Florida coast to Louisiana.
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. Faulkner. And each one of those need different
governance and limits.
Senator Sullivan. Let me ask one final question.
Mr. Horton, I'll ask you to respond, and if others want to
touch on it.
I touched on it in my opening statement. A lot of you have
been focused on it. And that is the data management issues that
exist today, how they impact recreational fisheries and how we
can look at improving those, again relative to, you know, how
we use that data management processes on the commercial side.
Do you have a view on that, Mr. Horton?
Mr. Horton. Well, certainly from the recreational
perspective side.
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. Horton. Like I said in my testimony, MRIP, it's
actually a really good model to estimate long-term trends over
multiple species, but it's really--it doesn't provide the
finite data for management for in-season closures to
allocations and quotas, which is why it's very difficult to
manage the recreational sector to a hard-poundage ACL because
the estimates we get are months from the time that the fishing
actually occurs. We don't know if we're overfishing or not, so
we have to put conservative buffers.
And, again, that goes back to the point that we need to
look at other management alternatives where we're not
necessarily looking at hard-pound quotas, but there are other
things, the harvest rates, that so many states use for inland
species. I mean, Florida uses a 35 percent SPR for spotted sea
trout, and they've been able to maintain just with seasons and
bag limits, they've been able to maintain above that threshold.
And even sometimes the populations are going to fluctuate,
sometimes they're going to go back up, and angling effort
typically follows that cycle.
But one of the things that--it's not just fishing pressure
that puts pressure on populations. There are natural variances
to recruitment in any given year, class coming into the
fishery. So it's not always fishermen. So you will see
variations up and down, but we can't count every fish that the
recreational anglers fish. So we need a management model that's
not a hard-pound quota that allows for some of that
variability, still having a solid conservation threshold,
because if it drops below 35 percent, Florida will take some
action with their anglers. Their anglers all support it, that,
yes, our population is in trouble. Whatever we need to do, shut
the season down for 6 months, reduce our bag, increase the
size, whatever it takes.
Senator Sullivan. Well, thank you very much for that.
Listen, I want to thank this first panel. Outstanding job, as
we expected. I also want to remind the witnesses that the
hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks, and Senators will
be able to submit additional questions. And if you do get
additional questions, we would respectfully ask you to try to
respond to those as soon as possible.
So I would like to dismiss the first panel. Thank you
again. And invite the second panel up to begin your testimony
as well. Thank you very much gentlemen.
[Pause.]
Senator Sullivan. OK. I would like to begin with our second
panel. And I'm going to ask each witness to deliver a 5-minute
oral statement. If you have a longer statement, we would be
glad to include that written statement in the record.
I want to welcome our second panel of witnesses. Starting
from our left is Mrs. Lori Steele, Executive Director, West
Coast Seafood Processors Association; Mr. Peter Andrew is a
Board Member of Bristol Bay Native Corporation. In my opening
statement, I talked about Alaska is the superpower of seafood.
Almost 60 percent of all the seafood harvested in the United
States comes from the waters of Alaska, and a lot of those come
from Bristol Bay. Mr. Gregory DiDomenico--have I got that
right, sir?--Executive Director of Garden State Seafood
Association. And Captain William ``Bubba'' Cochrane, President,
Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders Alliance.
Again welcome to our panelists.
Ms. Steele, the floor is yours for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF LORI STEELE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
WEST COAST SEAFOOD PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION
Ms. Steele. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Peters, and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to
share our perspective on the MSA reauthorization. I am
confident that we can build on lessons learned from our past
experiences to fulfill one of the Act's fundamental and
original goals emphasized in National Standard 1, to prevent
overfishing while achieving on a continuing basis the optimum
yield from each fishery.
On the West Coast, the conservation successes under the MSA
have been significant. Almost all groundfish stocks overfished
at some point in the last 15 years are now rebuilt, many ahead
of schedule. Most fisheries are 100 percent monitored and fully
accountable, and bycatch has been greatly reduced.
However, the economic challenges that remain are even more
significant. The non-whiting groundfish IFQ fishery is an
economic failure. Regulatory constraints imposed by restrictive
rebuilding requirements and lack of management flexibility
preclude achieving optimum yield for many stocks. We harvest
approximately 20 to 30 percent of our available non-whiting
groundfish quotas, falling far short of meeting National
Standard 1.
Reforms are necessary to provide the Councils with more
flexibility to achieve the Act's objectives while meeting the
socioeconomic needs of communities. I'm certain that we can
make significant progress toward this end with some relatively
minor adjustments to an already successful Federal fisheries
management framework.
In general, we support many of the reform provisions
contained in H.R. 200, and we hope the Subcommittee will
consider these as well. First and foremost, we must provide
more flexibility to the Councils. The current rebuilding and
ACL requirements are too rigid to apply universally to all fish
stocks. To start, we can eliminate the 10-year rebuilding time
requirement, replace it with a biologically based foundation,
and rely on our regional Councils to determine the optimal path
to stock rebuilding.
We support changing language in Section 304 of the Act from
``possible'' to ``practicable'' in terms of rebuilding periods.
The intent of this relatively simple change is not to allow
fisheries managers unfettered permission to set harvest levels
wherever they choose, but, rather, to allow them to better
protect fishing communities without undermining conservation
objectives. We support defining ``overfishing'' and changing
the term ``overfished'' to ``depleted'' throughout the Act.
This term ``overfished'' unfairly implicates the industry for
stock conditions beyond our control.
We also support adding a comprehensive definition to the
term ``catch share'' in the Act. Especially important is the
inclusion of processors in this definition. This would not
mandate that harvesting shares be awarded to processors, but it
is simply a recognition that in certain fisheries where there
is heavy reliance on shoreside processing capacity,
consideration can be given to this critical infrastructure when
allocating fishing privileges.
We strongly support the inclusion of language that will
ensure consistent fisheries management under competing Federal
statutes, including the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the
Antiquities Act, and the Endangered Species Act, with specific
acknowledgement that the MSA is to be the controlling Federal
statute to manage our fisheries. Our intent is not to
circumvent these other laws, but, rather, to apply a proven,
successful, transparent public process to managing our
fisheries.
Last, I would like to briefly mention S. 1520, the
Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2017,
which was recently referred to Committee. I believe that all
fishery stakeholders must be accountable for their impacts on
fishery resources, and we should resist any efforts to
undermine these requirements.
We have concerns that S. 1520 and its counterpart, H.R.
2023, as drafted, could potentially subvert conservation by
exempting private anglers from accountability measures with
little Federal oversight or MSA consistency. These bills would
also handicap the national Exempted Fishing Permit, EFP,
process with an overly prescriptive set of requirements.
Throughout 2016 and 2017, we have struggled mightily with
NOAA to implement a critical EFP program to ease regulatory
burdens and provide us access to healthy groundfish stocks on
the West Coast. Why would we want to make that process harder?
We are willing to work with this Subcommittee and other
groups to seek improvements to ensure the long-term
sustainability of fisheries resources for all stakeholders. We
believe recreational and commercial fishing interests want what
is best for their communities and that proper MSA reform is a
necessary component.
Thank you for holding this hearing today and for your
intention to consider important MSA reform during this session
of Congress. I'm happy to answer any questions that you or
other members may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Steele follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lori Steele, Executive Director,
West Coast Seafood Processors Association
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Peters, Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for this opportunity to share my perspective as we move
forward reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSA). My name is Lori Steele, and I am the Executive
Director of the West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA).
WCSPA represents shoreside processing companies and related businesses
located in California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. Our member
companies also have plants and distribution facilities in Texas,
Hawaii, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and Florida. WCSPA members process the
majority of whiting and non-whiting groundfish landed on the West
Coast, in addition to sardines, albacore tuna, Dungeness crab, pink
shrimp, and other important commercial species. WCSPA processing
companies range from literal ``mom and pop'' operations to some of the
largest seafood companies in the United States employing thousands of
workers in harvesting, processing, transporting, and distributing
seafood across the country and throughout the world.
Prior to working for the seafood industry, I spent 18 years working
as a fishery analyst on the New England Fishery Management Council
staff, following some earlier experience with the fishing industry in
New England. I hold a Master's Degree in Environmental Management with
a special focus on fisheries management, as well as Bachelor of Science
Degrees in Marine Science and Biology. My career has allowed me to gain
extensive experience with all aspects of the fisheries management
process and given me a deep respect for those who work in the seafood
industry. I understand the important issues facing the seafood industry
in this time of increasing regulatory demands and competing interests
for resources. I also understand the need to work proactively and
collaboratively with the government and other stakeholders to address
the challenges that lie ahead and to ensure success for the U.S.
industry in the global marketplace. I am excited and honored to
represent the industry as we move forward with reauthorizing this very
important law.
A substantial portion of my perspective regarding reauthorization
of the Magunson-Stevens Act comes from my experience working for the
New England Fishery Management Council from 1997-2015, the time period
covering the last two MSA reauthorizations. I developed several of the
Federal fishery management plans, subsequent plan amendments,
environmental impact statements, and environmental assessments to
address the Act's new mandates to end overfishing, rebuild fish stocks,
establish annual catch limits, and ensure accountability for some of
New England's fisheries. During this period, I experienced first-hand
many MSA management successes and challenges--from policy to process,
and from administration to regulation. My work experience instilled in
me a great appreciation for the regional fisheries management process
established by the MSA. The eight Regional Fishery Management Councils
are the cornerstone of this process. We are incredibly fortunate that
the original authors of the Act had the foresight to understand the
unique challenges associated with managing our Nation's fisheries and
to develop a regional approach to fisheries management that encourages
collaboration and stakeholder participation.
Based on my prior experience with the New England Council and
currently with the seafood industry on the West Coast, I feel confident
the next MSA reauthorization can build on lessons learned from our past
experiences in order to truly fulfill one of the fundamental and
original goals of the MSA, emphasized in National Standard 1, the Act's
guiding principle--to prevent overfishing while achieving, on a
continuing basis the optimum yield from each fishery. From its
beginning, the MSA has conserved, protected, rebuilt, and sustained
marine resources in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). As we move
forward with this next reauthorization, we have an opportunity to
better conserve, protect, and sustain the people, the economies, the
culture, and the communities that rely upon healthy and abundant
fisheries.
The 2006 MSA reauthorization focused on ending overfishing
immediately, ensuring accountability, rebuilding stocks as quickly as
possible, and reducing fishing capacity through limited access
programs, all with increased reliance on science in the decision-making
process. The standards for conservation, rebuilding, management, and
data collection set forth in the MSA apply to all federally-managed
stocks. Yet, the juxtaposition of insufficient data for many stocks
with requirements to account for scientific uncertainty in the quota
setting process has resulted in robust precautionary buffers and yields
well below optimum yield, oftentimes at the expense of our seafood
industry, our fishing communities and our Nation.
On the West Coast, the conservation successes we have experienced
under the MSA are significant and far-reaching--almost all groundfish
stocks that were overfished at some point in the last 15 years have
been declared rebuilt, most fisheries are 100 percent monitored and
fully accountable, and bycatch has been significantly reduced across
all fisheries. Just this year, bocaccio and darkblotched rockfish were
both declared rebuilt, well ahead of schedule.
However, the economic challenges that remain in the West Coast
groundfish fishery are even more significant than the conservation
gains we have made. The non-whiting groundfish fishery, managed under
an Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) program, is truly an economic
failure. When the groundfish fishery was rationalized and the IFQ
program was implemented in 2011, the industry was promised increased
fish harvests, year-round fishing and increased profitability. The IFQ
program was projected to benefit both fishermen and processors, enhance
industry employment, and provide a consistent supply of groundfish to
the American consumer. Instead, we are facing an economic disaster in
the West Coast groundfish processing sector. Since 2011, between 20 to
30 percent of the non-whiting groundfish annual catch limits (ACLs) are
harvested in any given year. Feast-or-famine delivery of West Coast
groundfish under the IFQ program has led to uncertainty, periods of
facility shutdowns for shoreside processors and an inability to
prosecute our groundfish business plans. Following this, key employees
have left our workforce and moved away from coastal communities to seek
more consistent employment elsewhere.
The West Coast groundfish fishery and the management system that
supports it are falling far short of meeting National Standard 1.
Arguably, the management system is also failing to meet National
Standard 5 (efficiency in the utilization of resources, without
economic allocation as its sole purpose), 7 (minimize costs and avoid
unnecessary duplication), and 8 (account for the importance of fishery
resources to fishing communities and provide for sustained
participation of those communities).
National Standard 1 clearly sets up the ultimate challenge for
fisheries managers--to achieve sustainability in terms of both the
health of living marine resources and the well-being of the communities
that depend on them. Some see this fundamental goal of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act--achieving both biological health and economic prosperity--
as a dichotomy; I see it as an absolute necessity and the recipe for
success. This goal should be the primary focus of the next MSA
reauthorization. Changes can be made in the MSA to provide the Councils
with more flexibility to design management systems that better meet the
standards set forth in the Act while also better meeting the
socioeconomic needs of regional fisheries and fishing communities.
Over the long-term, achieving optimum yield from our fisheries on a
consistent basis will require sustaining fishing and processing jobs
that can support coastal economies for generations to come. I am
certain that we can make significant progress towards this end with
some relatively minor adjustments to an already effective and
successful fisheries management framework established under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
In general, we support some of the changes to the Act currently
proposed in H.R. 200 and we offer the following specific comments and
recommendations for the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries,
and Coast Guard to consider as the Senate begins its MSA
reauthorization efforts.
Flexibility in Rebuilding Fish Stocks
First and foremost, providing more flexibility should be the
fundamental element of any changes to the requirements set forth in the
MSA. The addition of provisions that would increase flexibility with
respect to stock rebuilding would improve the ability of Fishery
Management Councils to achieve management objectives. Flexibility is
absolutely necessary for Councils to address the unique and often-
changing circumstances that arise between fish stocks, fishing sectors,
fishing communities, and regional ecosystems. If there's one key lesson
to be learned from the last two MSA reauthorizations, it is that
regional fishery managers benefit from having more tools in the
toolbox, and flexible, adaptable options for implementing them.
The current rebuilding requirements and ten-year rebuilding time
frame mandated in the MSA are simply too rigid to apply universally to
all federally-managed fish stocks. We have learned that in the case of
stock rebuilding, one size does not fit all. Mixed stock and
multispecies fisheries in particular are incredibly complex to
understand and manage; we've experienced this on the East Coast and the
West Coast. Stocks within a multispecies complex can have very
different life histories and growth rates. Some stocks may be more
vulnerable to environmental influences, while others may be more
resilient in the face of changing ocean conditions. In New England,
factors other than fishing have clearly affected the ability of some
fish stocks to recover, perhaps even in the complete absence of
fishing. There is little ability to predict and/or control
environmental changes that may be key drivers in rebuilding progress
for some of these stocks. Yet, the current requirement to adhere to an
arbitrarily-defined rebuilding period assumes that current stock size,
stock size targets, and rebuilding trajectories can be determined with
some degree of certainty, which is clearly not the case.
On the West Coast, more than 90 groundfish stocks are managed under
a complicated management system that utilizes an IFQ program to
allocate ACLs for more than 30 of these species to the trawl sector.
Regulatory constraints imposed by restrictive rebuilding requirements
and lack of flexibility in the management system preclude opportunities
to fully utilize optimum yield for many stocks. We also face problems
with choke species in the groundfish fishery--species with ACLs low
enough to constrain the harvest of other target species. Oftentimes, an
individual allocation of a choke species to a fisherman will be too
small for that fisherman to even utilize it for bycatch when trying to
access other important species. As a result, entire fishing trips may
be forgone for fear of a ``lightning strike'' tow of a restricted
species, and ultimately, the catch of all species in the multispecies
fishery is reduced. This situation is in direct contradiction with
National Standard 1 as well as the goals and objectives of the Pacific
Fishery Management Council's trawl catch share program.
For all of these reasons, we support increasing flexibility for
rebuilding fish stocks to better ensure sustainable fisheries and
fishing communities, and to provide the Councils with more avenues for
addressing the needs of fishing communities. This can be accomplished
in the MSA reauthorization by eliminating the 10-year time requirement
for rebuilding fisheries, replacing it with a biologically-based
foundation, and relying on our regional fisheries management process
(i.e., the Councils) to determine the optimal path to stock rebuilding.
The 10-year rebuilding requirement has long been considered to be
completely arbitrary but was touted by the environmental community as
the gold standard. However, the National Academy of Science concluded
in their 2013 report titled ``Evaluating the Effectiveness of Fish
Stock Rebuilding Plans in the U.S.'' that the pre-set 10-year
rebuilding requirement was indeed arbitrary and harmful, thus ending
the debate. It is time to replace this requirement with more
scientifically valid metrics.
We support adding language in the Act to: allow rebuilding plans to
take into account environmental factors and predator/prey
relationships; require a schedule for reviewing rebuilding targets and
progress being made towards those targets; and allow consideration of
alternative rebuilding strategies including harvest control rules and
fishing mortality rate targets. Another helpful provision that would
provide flexibility would allow a Regional Council to terminate a
rebuilding plan for a stock that was initially determined to be
overfished when updated science determines the stock is no longer
overfished. Again, these provisions are consistent with the best
available science and generally reflect a common sense approach based
on the lessons we have learned through the last two MSA
reauthorizations.
We support changing language in Section 304 of the Act from
``possible'' to ``practicable'' in terms of rebuilding periods. This is
a relatively minor change that will help us make major strides towards
improved implementation of the Act to help protect fishing communities
without undermining conservation objectives. The interpretation of the
MSA rebuilding requirements and the application of this language have
affected West Coast fisheries, highlighted by the 9th Circuit Court
ruling in NRDC v. Daley in 2002. Ruling on this case contesting the
harvest levels set for the 2002 West Coast groundfish fishery, the
Court said the following:
``Section 1854 contains two significant mandates that constrain
the Agency's options in adopting a rebuilding plan for an
overfished species. First, the time period must be ``as short
as possible,'' although the Agency may take into account the
status and biology of the overfished species and the needs of
fishing communities.''
The practical effect of this ruling is that when selecting a
rebuilding time frame, catch levels may be set at levels that are
barely above economic devastation for fishing communities in order to
rebuild in as short a time frame as possible. However, under a more
flexible approach, an incremental amount of harvest could be allowed
while the species rebuilds, thereby still achieving rebuilt status
within a reasonable timeframe. The Pacific Fishery Management Council
faced a situation like this in 2013 with rebuilding plans for two
rockfish stocks. At that time, allowing 30-mt increase in the ACL of a
single rockfish species while achieving rebuilt status in December of
that year (vs. January of that same year) would have provided for
another few hundred tons of associated rockfish landings. While the
dockside landed value of those fish may not have been viewed as
significant, the indirect value was enormous: having more incidental
species available would have provided additional opportunity for
commercial, sport, and tribal harvesters to access abundant stocks of
fish that currently go unharvested due to the choke species effect. In
turn, local vessels would have had another few weeks on the water,
processors would have had longer seasons, consumers would have had more
healthy domestic seafood--all without any risk to the status of the
rebuilding rockfish species. Yet, the interpretation of the law
required selection of a rebuilding time that would be as short as
possible, not as short as practicable.
Simply changing this terminology in the MSA would provide Councils
much needed flexibility and the option to choose between several
rebuilding scenarios to achieve specified conservation and management
objectives, not just the shortest and most harmful to fishing
communities. This change could benefit coastal communities without
undermining any conservation and stock rebuilding objectives. The
intent of this change is not to allow fisheries managers unfettered
permission to set harvest levels wherever they choose; rather, it would
allow them to exercise some reasonable judgment so they could, for
example, allow a fish stock to be rebuilt in December rather than
January, which were the choices available for canary rockfish in the
above example.
We support modifications to requirements for annual catch limits
(ACLs) to allow regional Fishery Management Councils to consider
ecosystem changes and the needs of fishing communities when
establishing catch limits. In light of changing environmental
conditions, and the role of the environment in fisheries recruitment,
these considerations certainly make scientific and common sense.
We support adding language to allow ACLs for multispecies stocks/
complexes to be set for multiple years. This change would essentially
codify NOAA's related recommendations in the National Standard 1
guidelines, as we understand the issue. We believe flexibility should
be provided to establish multiyear periods in which an overall catch
limit could be set, but annual harvest could fluctuate based on fishing
conditions, market conditions, weather, water temperature, or any of
the other variables that affect fisheries harvest. If the best
available science and the management/monitoring systems can support
this approach, we see no reason to specify that harvest levels must be
set each and every year.
We support defining overfishing and changing the term overfished to
depleted throughout the Act. This is a simple yet very important change
that more accurately characterizes stock condition, which is most often
based on a number of factors, not solely on fishing mortality. The term
overfished is perceived negatively and can unfairly implicate the
industry for stock conditions resulting from other factors like
pollution, coastal development, and changing ocean conditions. We also
support changes to the Act that would require the Secretary, in the
annual Status of Stocks Report, to distinguish between stocks that are
depleted or approaching a depleted condition due to fishing, and those
meeting that definition as a result of other factors. We support the
separation and clarification of these terms and the requirement to
differentiate sources of mortality when projecting stock status and
setting ACLs.
Defining Catch Shares
We support adding a comprehensive definition of the term ``catch
share'' to the Act. H.R. 200 proposes language to define a ``catch
share'' as any fishery management program that allocates a specific
percentage of the total allowable catch for a fishery, or a specific
fishing area, to an individual, cooperative, community, processor,
representative of a commercial sector, or regional fishery association
established in accordance with section 303A(c)(4), or other entity.
Especially important is inclusion of ``processors'' in this definition.
Though this inclusion does not mandate that harvesting shares be
awarded to processors, it represents a continual recognition (along
with recognition of cooperatives and communities), that in certain high
volume fisheries where there is a heavy reliance on shore side
processing capacity, investment and marketing capability (such as
Atlantic mackerel and pelagic squids, Alaska and Pacific groundfish),
consideration can be given to these critical elements of the
infrastructure when allocating fishing privileges.
Fishery Disaster Requests
We support requiring timely decisions by the Secretary in
circumstances when fishery disasters are requested. It is unlikely that
anyone would argue that the fishery disaster assistance program set
forth in the MSA has worked as it was originally intended. Recently on
the West Coast, Governor Brown requested a fishery disaster declaration
for our California Dungeness crab and Rock crab fisheries. This request
was made to the Secretary of Commerce on February 9, 2016 but the
Secretary of Commerce announced the official disaster declaration on
January 18, 2017, almost a full year after the request was made. We
should be able to do better than this for our fishing communities when
fishery disasters strike.
Therefore, we suggest adding language to the Act requiring the
Secretary to make a formal determination within 90-days of receiving an
estimate of the economic impacts from the entity making the request.
Additionally, the Secretary should be required to publish the estimated
cost recovery from a fishery resource disaster no later than 30 days
after making the formal determination.
Consistency with Other Laws
We strongly support the inclusion of language that will ensure
consistent fisheries management under competing Federal statutes,
including the National Marine Sanctuaries Act of 1972, the Antiquities
Act of 1906, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)--with
specific acknowledgement that the MSA is to be the controlling Federal
statute.
If restrictions on the management of fish in the U.S. Exclusive
Economic Zone are required to implemented as a result of an ESA
recovery plan--to address fisheries management in a marine monument or
national marine sanctuary--the restrictions should be developed and
implemented under the authorities, processes, and timelines mandated by
the MSA. To be clear, our intent is not to undermine or circumvent
these other laws but instead, to apply a proven, successful and public
process to manage fisheries. The MSA provides for rigorous scientific
analysis and clear documentation of management decisions. The Council
process provides significant opportunities for public comment through a
number of meetings and public hearings. Following Council decision-
making, regulatory actions by NMFS are guided by the Administrative
Procedures Act and allow for transparent public participation. The
Councils, their advisors, the public, and NMFS have a full set of
economic and environmental data available before decisions are made,
with trade-offs fully recognized.
Making modifications to fisheries to address overlapping Federal
statutes through the MSA process will ensure that required regulations
are developed through a transparent and public process that encourages
stakeholder participation. This approach will also increase efficiency
by streamlining our management systems and administrative/regulatory
processes. Given current financial constraints, any unnecessary
duplication of analyses or extra administrative steps in management
processes must be minimized, and sources of unnecessary cost, delay,
and uncertainty must be avoided.
Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2017
I would also like to briefly address a few issues related to S.
1520, The Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2017
that was recently referred to the Committee. America's commercial
fishermen make their living under the most comprehensive conservation
rules in the world. Under the MSA, all seafood harvested in the United
States is required to be sustainably managed under strict limits
designed to prevent overfishing. While many provisions of the MSA are
successful, much of the domestic commercial fishing industry continues
to struggle for survival as a result of certain unnecessarily
burdensome provisions that should be improved in the current
reauthorization process. In light of this present situation, we cannot
ignore legislation that would potentially change the MSA in a way that
could disadvantage the commercial fishing industry.
First, S. 1520 contains provisions that could potentially allow the
private recreational angling industry to circumvent the rigorous
fisheries management requirements of the MSA that are strictly applied
to commercial fishing activities. The section titled ``Alternative
Fisheries Management'' would allow the private recreational angling
industry to be managed using undefined ``alternative fishery management
measures . . . including extraction rates, fishing mortality targets
and harvest control rules,'' in the absence of accurate estimates of
recreational catch and discard mortality. This could subvert the
conservation accountability standards set forth in the Act by exempting
certain stakeholders from the important accountability measures
associated with Federal fisheries management. Any resulting quota
mismanagement by the recreational sector that is almost certain to
happen would cut directly against commercial and charter stakeholders.
Second, a provision contained in the ``Recreational Data
Collection'' section would allow individual states to receive Federal
funding and collect recreational harvest data, potentially giving
individual states an inordinate amount of control over recreational
harvest estimates beyond state waters absent Federal oversight.
Furthermore, funding for these activities would come from NOAA's
Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program, a program originally intended by
Congress to fund commercial fisheries research and product development
that is already underfunded and over-subscribed.
Third, Section 106 of S. 1520 would handicap the national Exempted
Fishing Permit (EFP) approval process with an overly prescriptive set
of requirements that to us appears designed to undermine the process.
In 2016 and through this year as well, we struggled mightily with NOAA
to implement a critical EFP program to help ease regulatory burdens in
our West Coast groundfish fishery--why would be want to make the
process even harder and far less nimble? If enacted, this provision
will be damaging to commercial fisheries around the Nation. EFPs are a
critical component to cooperative research, gear development,
conservation engineering, and data collection. The use of EFPs should
be encouraged, and we are very concerned that the provisions in this
bill do quite the opposite.
Last, and perhaps most disturbing and precedential is the clear
intent of this legislation to create and fund an initiative leading to
reallocation of quotas from commercial to recreational sectors in the
Gulf and South Atlantic regions in the section titled ``Process for
Allocation Review of Mixed-Use Fisheries.'' This provision is
completely unnecessary as NOAA and the Regional Councils are already
charged to examine and address allocation issues on an ongoing basis.
Rather than press for the one-sided and potentially harmful changes
embodied in S. 1520, we ask this Subcommittee to work with the
commercial fishing and seafood industries on legislation that will
improve the MSA and continue to ensure the long-term sustainability of
our fisheries resources for all stakeholders. We believe that
recreational and commercial fishing interests want what is best for
their communities, and that proper MSA reform is a necessary component.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Peters, and Members of the
Subcommittee for holding this hearing today and for your intention to
consider important MSA reform during this session of Congress. We look
forward to working with this Subcommittee and your staff to support the
passage of fair, balanced legislation that will fulfill the intent of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I am happy to answer any questions that you
or other Members of the Subcommittee may have.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you, Ms. Steele.
And, Mr. Andrew, I think you win the award for coming the
furthest to testify, so thank you for doing that. And the floor
is yours.
STATEMENT OF PETER ANDREW, JR., BOARD MEMBER, BRISTOL BAY
NATIVE CORPORATION
Mr. Andrew. Quyana, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. My
name is Peter Andrew, Jr. I live in Dillingham, Alaska. As the
good Senator said, I've been a commercial fisherman all of my
life. I'm a subsistence user. Bristol Bay is in Southwest
Alaska. I'm also the president of our local utility. I serve on
American Seafoods' Advisory Board. And I'm the Board of
Director of the Bristol Bay Seafood Development Association.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act, by enhanced opportunities for
local fishing fleets, by allowing Federal and state governments
to work together, has been of great benefit to the people of
Bristol Bay. I've experienced this firsthand. In 1971, my
brother, when I was 9 years old, took me out fishing because I
was worth some gear. And in 19--and back then, there was hardly
any fish to catch. And then after enactment of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act some years later, the stocks in Bristol Bay started
to rebound. What was happening was offshore interception was
happening, and after this Act was enacted, it substantially
changed the lives of many fishers that live in Bristol Bay.
Our success continues today. This summer, another
historical run. Overall, this year, our commercial fishermen
caught, processed, and shipped more than 39 million pounds
around the world. What's more, despite the significant increase
in supply and prices paid to fishermen, the prices continue to
increase. In fact, we had 17 days, many of those days, 17
continuous days of over a million sockeye caught, and many of
those days exceeding 2 million. While we can always improve,
2017 was another bumper year for us.
As it has for 130 years, our fishery will produce jobs,
sustain our communities for generations, as long as it's
properly managed, and when necessary, protected. No wild salmon
fishery in the world comes close to matching the productivity
of Bristol Bay. Bristol Bay reliably provides 50 percent of the
world's sockeye salmon production. Bristol Bay brings billions
of dollars annually to our local, state, and national economies
and supports over 20,000 jobs: catching, processing, delivering
our salmon to market.
The economic importance of the fishery extends well beyond
Bristol Bay, in particular, significant to the West Coast of
the states of Washington, Oregon, and California. Consumers,
increasingly aware of the healthy attributes of wild salmon
versus farmed salmon are now seeking our wild salmon product.
Bristol Bay and its fishermen benefit from the reputation that
precedes them.
As important as commercial fishing is to our people, so is
subsistence. I brought a nice little jar here that I may share
with one of your members there. It defines our culture----
Senator Sullivan. Well, I love that. I get a lot of it.
It's fine. I will make sure that I share it with my Senator
colleague from Michigan here.
Mr. Andrew. Thank you.
Senator Sullivan. It's the great Alaskan wild salmon.
Mr. Andrew. OK. Also, it defines our culture as well, as
you are well aware of it, Mr. Chairman. Commercial sport
fishing and subsistence fishing are two pillars of the fishing-
based economy in Bristol Bay.
The third is the quantity and quality of our amazing fish
attract thousands of visitors each year where they stay in
lodges, hire guides, buy supplies, while participating in a
bucket list trip. Sport fishing in Bristol Bay watershed
accounts for approximately $60.5 million in annual spending.
Roughly 37,000 sport fishing trips were taken on the Bristol
Bay region. The sport fishing activities directly employ over
850 full-time and part-time workers. Bristol Bay, it is a true
mecca of sport fishing men and women. It's phenomenal.
The tourism--forgive me--the sport fishery in Bristol Bay
benefits many who live in the region, including BBNC and its
10,000 shareholders. Recognizing the importance of tourism to
the region, BBNC has made substantial investments in lodges
throughout the Bay, thus, enhancing opportunities for local
employment as well as opportunities to share culture and the
incredible environment with the people around the world.
What an experience this year was. We had another huge
record run. It's just unbelievable. Boats were sinking. People
couldn't take their net fish and so on.
Our fishery is robust, healthy, because of strict
compliance with proven science-based management model,
protection of pristine watershed conditions, and I would add a
robust and transparent Federal and state fisheries management
process.
This week, we are celebrating this invaluable resource here
in D.C. with the Alaska Wild Salmon Day, featuring the bounty
of our region.
Chairman Sullivan, as you appreciate the uniqueness of
Bristol Bay, and we are pleased to give you BBNC's Fish First
Award this year for your work on salmon issues.
Senator Sullivan. I'm very honored. Thank you.
Mr. Andrew. BBNC and the people of Bristol Bay put fish
first and are proud to have a delegation that knows and
understands the philosophy, too.
In conclusion, the Bristol Bay--the people of Bristol Bay,
we now live in--we know we live in one of the most incredible
places on earth, if well managed, can sustain for thousands of
years into the future. Ted Stevens knew this and also Warren
Magnuson. I'm glad that 4 decades later, we still have an
Alaskan Senator, a Washington Senator, on this Committee
championing the values inherent to the Magnuson-Stevens Act
that allows our Bristol Bay salmon to be successful.
Thank you for the opportunity, Senator.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Andrew follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter Andrew Jr., Board Member,
Bristol Bay Native Corporation
Dear Members of the Committee:
Thank you very much for inviting me to testify today. My name is
Pete Andrew Jr. and I live in Dillingham, Alaska. I am on the Bristol
Bay Native Corporation's (BBNC) Board of Directors, a commercial
fisherman, and a life-long subsistence user from Bristol Bay in
southwest Alaska. I have served as a BBNC Director since 2006, as chair
of the Finance Committee and I am a member of the Legal & Policy,
Government Services Operations, Executive, and Nominating Committees. I
am president of the Nushagak Cooperative (electric utility) board of
directors and serve on the American Seafood Community Advisory Board
and have served on the Board of Directors of the Bristol Bay Regional
Seafood Development Association.
I am a life-long commercial and subsistence fisherman in Bristol
Bay. I first commercial fished in 1971 when I was ten years old,
working with my older brother on his 32, Bristol Bay gillnetter named
the Cuddy Shark. In 1977 my father gave me my own permit, nets and a
22, skiff to start my own operations. Since then I have owned several
boats, and currently captain the Lucky Bear, with crew from Togiak and
New Stuyahok..
I have experienced first-hand the immense economic and cultural
value of the Bristol Bay fishery. As you can see in the pictures
attached to my testimony, fishing is essential to our lives in Bristol
Bay. It is something I am passing to my children and want to pass to my
grandchildren (see attch. A). Just as I did, my children's livelihoods
are based on commercial fishing in Bristol Bay.
My family is similar to many families in Bristol Bay. We have kept
our strong ties to the Bay and its incredible wild salmon. We take
increasing advantage of educational and other opportunities, available
to us because of the strong foundation provided to Bristol Bay by its
incredible 130 year old sustainable commercial salmon fishery. This
fishery will produce jobs and sustain our communities for generations
so long as it is properly managed and, when necessary, protected.
This week, we are celebrating this invaluable resource here in
D.C., with an Alaska Wild Salmon Day featuring the bounty of our
region. Chairman Sullivan, we know you appreciate the uniqueness of
Bristol Bay and we're pleased to give you BBNC's ``Fish First'' award
this year for your work on salmon issues. BBNC and the people of
Bristol Bay put fish first, and we are proud to have a delegation that
knows and understands that philosophy too.
I'm here to talk about the direct effects of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act (MSA) management approach on salmon fishing. Pursuant to the MSA,
the North Pacific Fishery Management Council developed a fishery
management plan for salmon. With respect to Bristol Bay and many of
Alaska's other salmon fisheries, the Council defers to the State of
Alaska for direct management of the fishery, thus supporting Alaska's
escapement-based management approach. This is a good example of
federal-state cooperation in the management of a critical ocean
resource. And the example has extraordinary results as seen in the
strength of Bristol Bay's salmon run and ability to meet management
goals year after year.
My testimony focuses on the importance of the Bristol Bay economic
engine--the pristine salmon fishery--and the need to protect this
immensely important economic and cultural resource. First, I describe
the world-class Bristol Bay fishery; second, I speak to the strong
economy that relies on the fishery; and third, I conclude with the
importance of protecting, preserving, and properly managing this world-
class fishery.
Bristol Bay Fishery--A Historic Run for the World's Largest Salmon
Fishery
Bristol Bay provides about 50 percent of the world's sockeye salmon
production. This year saw one of our strongest salmon runs in history,
with more than 56 million salmon returning to our waters (see attch.
B). Our salmon runs were so strong this year that, remarkably, on
seventeen days this season, our commercial fishermen caught and
processed more than one million fish per day.
No wild salmon fishery in the world matches the productivity of
Bristol Bay. Overall, this year our commercial fishermen caught,
processed, and shipped more than 39 million salmon around the world.
What's more, despite a significant increase in supply, prices paid to
fishermen actually increased. While we can always improve, 2017 was a
true bumper year for us.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
What we experienced this year is not a product of chance, but
rather of our careful management and stewardship of this sustainable
resource. Our fishery is robust and healthy because of a strict
compliance with the proven escapement-based management model and
protection of the pristine watershed conditions.
The people of Bristol Bay take great pride in the region's
fisheries. In February of 2011, after two years of engaging community
members in 27 communities, the people of Bristol Bay drafted the
``Bristol Bay Vision Statement'' (excerpt below). This collective
vision exemplifies the central importance of salmon to all aspects of
our lives--cultural, economic, recreational and more.
The success of the commercial fishery is due in no small part to
the fishermen who sustainably managed the salmon fishery for millennia.
The current generation is committed to preserving and managing our
salmon fishery for generations to come.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The people of Bristol Bay have a clear vision for the future. That
vision is based on the fact that we are a salmon-based community and
economy, and the vision is founded on a fish-first policy.
Bristol Bay Economics--Commercial Fishing, Sportfishing, and Tourism
Bristol Bay brings in billions of dollars annually to our local,
state and national economies, and supports over 20,000 jobs catching,
processing, and delivering our salmon to market (see attch. C). The
economic importance of the fishery extends well beyond Bristol Bay and
Alaska, and is particularly significant to the West Coast States of
Washington, Oregon, and California. Every summer over 7,000 commercial
fishermen fish in Bristol Bay and this provides essential income and
additional jobs to watershed residents. The University of Alaska
Institute of Social and Economic Research found the Bristol Bay salmon
fishery has a total economic output, or sales value, of $1.5 billion
across the United States (see attch. C).
Consumers, increasingly aware of the healthy attributes of wild
salmon versus farmed salmon, are seeking our wild salmon products.
Bristol Bay and its fishermen benefit from the reputation that precedes
them.
Commercial and subsistence fishing are two pillars of the fishing-
based economy of Bristol Bay. Sportfishing is the third, and the
quantity and quality of our amazing fish attract thousands of visitors
to our region each year, where they stay in lodges, hire guides, and
buy supplies while they participate in bucket list trips. By one
estimate, sportfishing in the Bristol Bay watershed accounts for
approximately $60.5 million in annual spending. Roughly 37,000 sport-
fishing trips were taken to the Bristol Bay region. These sport-fishing
activities directly employ over 850 full-and part-time workers. Each
year, these fishermen come to Bristol Bay to catch trophy rainbow
trout, all five species of Pacific salmon, Arctic grayling, and many
other species of fish found in our waters. It is a true mecca for
sportfishing men and women.
The tourism generated by the sportfishery in Bristol Bay benefits
many who live in the region, including BBNC and its over 10,000
shareholders. Recognizing the importance of tourism to the region's
sustainable economy and ability to provide economic stability in the
region, BBNC has made substantial investments in tourism. BBNC's
investment in Mission Lodge several years ago opened the doors for a
thriving tourism sector at BBNC. And the recent purchase of Katmailand,
Inc., which includes the Brooks Lodge and Grosvenor Lodge concessions
in Katmai National Park, and Kulik Lodge on Nonvianuk Lake, will
provide opportunities for employment for the people in our region as
well as opportunities to share our culture and incredible environment
with people around the world.
Conclusion--Protecting, Preserving, and Managing Bristol Bay's World-
Class Fishery
Bristol Bay supports a salmon fishery that is the economic and
cultural foundation of Bristol Bay. The Magnuson-Stevens Act, by
allowing cooperative management between the Federal and state
governments, has played a prominent role in the successful management
of that resource. As a result, this year, like many years in the past,
tens of millions of fish returned to the Bay and were available for
harvesting by the region's fishermen.
The people of Bristol Bay know we live in one of the most
incredible places on earth that, if well-managed, can sustain us for
thousands more years into the future. Ted Stevens knew this, as did
Warren Magnuson. I am glad that four decades later, we still have an
Alaska senator and a Washington senator on this committee championing
the values inherent in the Magnuson-Stevens Act that allows our Bristol
Bay salmon fishery to be so successful. Thank you for the opportunity
to testify today.
Attachments
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Andrew.
Mr. DiDomenico.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY P. DiDOMENICO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GARDEN
STATE SEAFOOD ASSOCIATION
Mr. DiDomenico. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Senator, Mr.
Peters, I want to thank you for taking such a serious interest
in our issues. They're very important to us, and I'm going to
try to do my best on behalf of our members from the Garden
State Seafood Association to tell you the four most important
topics.
First is NOAA's interpretation and implementation of the
2006 Magnuson amendments are threatening the viability of the
domestic seafood industry. Second, our access to traditional
and productive fishing grounds are being altered by marine
monuments, sanctuaries, marine protected areas, and national
ocean policy. Number three, the struggle of fisheries
management with estimating recreational fish mortality. Number
four, the potential for the unfair implementation of catch
shares.
The domestic seafood industry has suffered since the 2006
Magnuson amendments. NOAA's interpretation was designed to be
precautionary, and its implementation risk-averse. The most
significant application of this policy is scientific
uncertainty. In place is a systematic erosion of the founding
principle of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to such an extent, we
have lost our ability to achieve optimum yield on a continuing
basis. Optimum yield is no longer possible. The result,
diminished opportunities, inefficiencies, and, quite frankly, a
waste of a natural resource.
There are solutions. We support eliminating the 10-year
time-frame for building overfished fisheries and replacing it
with a strong science-based flexible approach. We support
substituting the term ``overfished'' with ``depleted.'' In some
cases, ``depleted'' much better characterizes the situation
with a particular stock. We support expanding the existing ACL
exemptions for short-lived species to include species with a
unique life history. We support an amendment from annual catch
limits for transboundary stocks.
Second, and, quite frankly, most timely, a well-
orchestrated effort is underway using the Antiquities Act, the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the National Ocean Policy, to
reduce fishing access in regions across this country, both
coasts. We are extremely disappointed by the prior
administration's establishment of the Northeast Canyon and
Seamounts National Marine Monument designation and the
resulting fishing prohibitions. We have every reason to believe
that a network of marine protected areas will be designated
from the Gulf of Maine to the Gulf of Mexico.
We are looking for your help. How can you help? We need
this Committee to make sure that the dominant regulatory
authority is the Magnuson-Stevens Act. It should, of course,
achieve goals, conservation goals, with some of these other
entities, but, quite frankly, we need to have it as the
statutory authority over marine sanctuaries, marine monuments,
and the requirements of the Endangered Species Act.
Number three, the inability of fisheries management to
control and estimate recreational fishing mortality. This
situation continues to plague numerous fisheries around the
Nation, including red snapper, black sea bass, and summer
founder. The most serious impact is its effect on stock
assessments. Recently, it's been estimated that the
recreational fishing mortality may be and may have been four
times higher in the Mid-Atlantic than previously expected. The
result is a perpetual state of uncertainty for all
stakeholders.
The resulting controversy has consumed regional councils in
the Magnuson debate for years, and has resulted in several
bills over the last few congressional sessions, including the
current one. We feel strongly Senate Bill 1520, the Modernizing
Recreational Fisheries Management Act, is an attack on the
management process and a clear path toward exempting
recreational fishing from the same accountability measures that
are required of the commercial fishing industry.
But with all that said, there are solutions that we can
support. We recognize the negative impacts on the recreational
industry. We can support funds being made available to the
states to transfer the responsibilities of accounting and
reporting, but we hope and would ask that they do not raid the
national Saltonstall-Kennedy program set aside for commercial
fishing.
We can support alternative management for recreational
fisheries only if they are consistent with the current MSA
requirements, and clear Federal management authority and
oversight is maintained. But we cannot support any changes that
attempt to solve the lack of recreational accountability by
reallocating the resource from the commercial industry or
provide any exemptions to annual catch limits to the
recreational industry.
I just would like to take 30 seconds. I know I'm reaching
the time limit. I would like to say one thing about catch
shares. We're asking for only one thing for this Committee to
do and to understand. Currently, there is no referendum
required to place a catch share in a region on a group of
fishermen who have dedicated their lives to a particular
fishery. They do not get a vote or a say whether or not catch
shares would be implemented into their fishery.
Now, 10 years ago, Magnuson amendments made it perfectly
clear that quota decisions would be out of the realm of the
industry, it would be strictly for the SFCs and the councils to
decide. If that's true, then why not at least let the industry
be involved in the management?
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DiDomenico follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gregory P. DiDomenico Executive Director,
Garden State Seafood Association
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Peters, Members of the Subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss our
concerns and recommendations related to maintaining commercial fishing
access to healthy Atlantic Ocean resources. For the record, my name is
Greg DiDomenico and I serve as the Executive Director of the Garden
State Seafood Association (GSSA). Our Association represents commercial
fishermen, commercial fishing dock operations, shore-based seafood
processors and associated seafood businesses in New Jersey. GSSA staff
and its members are involved in all aspects of the fishery management
process. Our members occupy advisory panel seats on management
councils, participate in cooperative research and have a healthy
respect for the ocean environment.
We believe there are four main threats to the domestic fishing
industry that are consistent with the concerns of this Subcommittee.
They are as follows: (1) the status of the implementation of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA),
specifically the 2006 Amendments which were interpreted to be overly
precautionary and limit management flexibility; (2) the growing efforts
of the environmental industry to curtail commercial fishing access via
use of the Antiquities Act, National Marine Sanctuary designations, and
marine planning created pursuant to the National Ocean Policy; (3) the
chronic inability to estimate and manage recreational fishing
mortality; and (4) the potential for unfair implementation of catch
shares.
(1) MSA 2006 Amendments
The 2006 Amendments and their subsequent implementation
fundamentally altered the way domestic fishery resources are managed.
The core concept was to separate fish politics from science. Those new
provisions focused on ending overfishing immediately, developing
accountability in both recreational and commercial fisheries,
rebuilding stocks as quickly as possible and reducing fishing capacity
through defining limited access programs--all in the context of a more
intensive reliance on science in the decision-making process.
Since 2006, the U.S. seafood industry has lost access to robust
fishery resources from the application of overly-precautious
interpretations of the Act by attempting to rein in a changing marine
environment on an annual basis or within a decadal timeframe. The
result has been that a founding principle of the Act has been eroded to
the extent where we have lost our collective ability to ``achieve
optimum yield on a continuing basis'' in our region.
While the rigid nature of annual adjustments of quotas may have
reduced or eliminated overfishing of some directed fisheries, an
outcome that we certainly support, in many cases it has also led to
significant underfishing of other stocks. This is due primarily to the
domestic seafood industry being subjected to a seemingly repetitive,
precautionary application of risk-averse management culminating with
significant unpredictable quota reductions stemming from wildly
fluctuating estimates of scientific uncertainty.
In 2009, and again in 2016, NOAA revised the National Standard One
Guidelines (NS1G) requiring the Regional Fishery Management Councils
(RFMCs) to consider both scientific and management uncertainty when
setting quotas. Many of these recommendations we strongly support, such
as the application of a mixed stock exception to the Act's annual ACL
requirement in certain cases, and the authorization for Optimum Yield
(OY) to be expressed qualitatively in data poor situations.
Unfortunately, National Standard Guidelines are just ``guidelines'' and
not law.
We offer the following recommendations to this Subcommittee for
consideration in this current reauthorization:
Flexibility In Rebuilding Fish Stocks
We support flexibility in rebuilding fish stocks and eliminating
the 10-year time-frame for rebuilding overfished or depleted fisheries
within a particular time period, replacing it with a biologically-based
alternative.
We support rebuilding plans that can take into account
environmental factors and predator/prey relationships. In addition, a
rebuilding plan must be required to include a schedule to review
Fishery Management Plan targets and progress, including the option to
use alternative harvest control rules and F-rates that are MSA
compliant.
We also support clarifying that a rebuilding plan may be terminated
if it is determined the stock status determination was incorrect and
the allowance that an emergency rule/interim measure period may be
increased to 1-yr (from 180 days) with an option to extend for an
additional 1-yr period.
Modifications To Annual Catch Limit Requirments
MSA reform could provide Regional Fishery Management Councils
(RFMC) with increased flexibility in setting annual catch limits (ACL).
The ACL requirement would be retained in the Act but the RFMCs could
consider changes in ecosystem and economic needs of the communities
when setting these limits. In light of changing environmental
conditions, these additions make scientific and common sense.
We strongly support expanding limitations to ACL requirements for
`special fisheries' by expanding the existing 12 month life history
limitation to include species with unique life history characteristics.
We believe butterfish, for example, should fit this proposed ACL
exemption as a species that exhibits a short life history, an extremely
high natural mortality rate, and highly uncertain, variable survey
indices to such a degree that we cannot make accurate stock predictions
for management purposes.
The Act currently provides an exemption from the ACL control rules
for stocks managed under international agreements but does not address
species that are truly trans-boundary in nature where there is only an
informal agreement (or no agreement) in place. We support expansion of
these extra-territorial considerations.
For example, in the case of Atlantic mackerel, scientific evidence
has indicated the stock distribution is shifting into Canadian waters.
Unfortunately, the U.S. has no formal trans-boundary sharing agreement
and Canada takes what they can harvest before a U.S. ACL can be
specified. In this instance, unilateral U.S. management actions
pursuant to MSA do not affect rebuilding or end overfishing but
disadvantage our fishermen and weaken the U.S. negotiating position.
We support defining ``Ecosystem Component Species'' as a non-
target, incidentally harvested species identified by a regional council
that is not depleted or likely to become depleted in the absence of
management measures. This will provide additional flexibility in
allocating directed fishery resources by the RFMCs when minor
incidental catches are involved. We also support the clarification that
ACLs can be established for up to three years, which codifies NOAA's
related NS1 guideline recommendations.
Distinguishing Between Overfished and Depleted
We support redefining the term ``overfished'' from the MSA and
substituting the newly defined term ``depleted''. This change would
allow a differentiation between stocks that are depleted or approaching
that condition due to fishing and those meeting that definition as a
result of other factors. The Secretary must also state for each
identified fishery whether they are the target of directed fishing. We
support the separation and clarification of the two terms and the
requirement to differentiate sources of mortality when projecting stock
status and setting ACLs.
(2) The threat of the Antiquities Act, National Marine Sanctuary
designations, and marine planning created pursuant to the
National Ocean Policy
One of the most serious threats to commercial fishing and consumer
access to a sustainable supply of seafood is the loss of access to
traditional fishing grounds. It appears to our industry that a well-
orchestrated effort is being made under the Antiquities Act, National
Marine Sanctuary Act (NMSA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the
National Ocean Policy (NOP) to reduce fishing access in regions across
the country.
What occurred during the most recent flurry of monument
designations is exactly what we are concerned about.
This came in the form of a ``top down'' approach facilitated by the
prior Administration and supported by multinational environmental
organizations that did not take the input of the affected industry
seriously. The result was the establishment of the Northeast Canyon and
Seamounts Marine Monument, the first ever on the east coast. Despite
the concerns raised by local and Federal officials, the New England
Fishery Management Council, and the fishing industry the designation
closes traditional fishing areas and phases out commercial fishing from
these areas that supports a fishing economy of roughly $75 million
annually.
The Antiquities Act provides no basis for learned discourse, no
scientific, economic, or social analysis; it is whatever the President
says it is. The use of the Antiquities Act to create Marine National
Monuments and manage fisheries is a true top-down, dictatorial approach
which is frequently championed by big-bucks environmental groups in
which the public, including the fishing community, who is directly
affected has little to no voice.
Generally, we believe the preferred solution for many of these
place-based conservation issues is a collaborative MSA-driven process
that provides clear, justifiable science-based conservation benefits
while ensuring future commercial fishing access. Our preferred option
for protecting sensitive habitat areas is through the established MSA
process.
An excellent example of how this process can work is the coral
habitat amendment managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council (MAFMC) in October 2015.
The MAFMC finalized an amendment to protect coral habitat in 13
deep water canyons in the region pursuant to their MSA authority. The
Council used a considerate approach that brought together many
disciplines and backgrounds which yielded the best possible results for
all stakeholders and for these sensitive and unique habitats. We are
hopeful any future protections will be similarly and carefully vetted
with the fishing industry which has the applied experience and
technical capabilities to inform conservation. Without an adequate
process developed through the regional management councils the result
will be inadequate protections from a lack of knowledge resulting in
needless burdens on the fishing industry.
Regarding the National Ocean Policy (NOP), we are concerned about
its implementation and potential to impact access to natural resources
and Federal fishery management plans under the MSA. Though widely
touted by the prior Administration and leading agency officials as
merely a sharing of data to inform ocean planning that will not lead to
any new regulations, the details suggest something more insidious. This
uncertainty has created concerns throughout the regulated community,
including the GSSA, who have written to Congress in a unified manner to
bring attention to these issues.
It is unclear to our industry how the NOP can possibly achieve its
stated goals of, among other things, coastal and marine spatial
planning, ecosystem-based management, regional ecosystem protection and
restoration, and resiliency and adaptation to climate change and ocean
acidification--absent the creation of new regulations to control human
behavior.
We are already starting to see the emergence of a nexus to a
regulatory regime with such concepts as ``pre-certification'' approval
requirements for all federally-permitted activities which technically
include an MSA-driven fishery management plans and amendments. Since
these NOP regional plans are just now coming online, it is unclear to
us what the practical impacts will be and what other requirements and
``concepts'' will be revealed in the coming months. We are concerned
that once we see the true extent of NOP implementation it will be too
late to address the core issues.
We offer the following recommendations:
This Subcommittee could finally clarify that the MSA is the
controlling statute in regard to Federal fisheries management. By using
the MSA process to develop regulations instead of the National Marine
Sanctuary Act, the ESA, NOP or the Antiquities Act, we will ensure that
at least when it comes to fishing there will be thoughtful and thorough
analysis and the opportunity for public comment.
We also request a prohibition of the establishment of a Marine
National Monument anywhere in the exclusive economic zone before
certain steps are taken, including getting approval from the governors
of affected states. More specifically we support a prohibition of the
establishment of a Marine National Monument in the EEZ of the entire
United States.
We request this Subcommittee conduct formal oversight of the
National Ocean Policy, including a detailed review of its impacts on
all federally permitted activities (including MSA plans and amendments)
as well as its funding sources.
(3) The chronic problem of estimating recreational fishing mortality
Since the 2006 Amendments to MSA our fisheries management system
has struggled to complete and implement a proper accounting system for
recreational catch and discards. In 2006 the National Research Council
began a critical review of the Marine Recreational Information Program
(MRIP) and its results were finalized in 2017. Clearly, work must
continue to complete implementation of the MRIP. The significant delays
in successfully implementing MRIP are in our opinion inexcusable and
have resulted in serious management inefficiencies and precipitated
stakeholder infighting.
The Mid Atlantic Council has also conducted a peer review of the
new MRIP survey and the results are not yet available. We believe one
possible outcome could prove that that estimates of recreational
harvest may be 4 times higher than previously thought.
The potential impact of the new survey results on stock assessments
will vary but may be severe. For example, it is possible that it may
trigger overfishing designations of several stocks or result in
assessments that reveal higher population size and lead to increases in
acceptable biological catch levels.
Unfortunately, some of these outcomes could have a severe impact on
all stakeholders. We are also concerned this process will be used to
reallocate fishery resources as a potential solution.
So far, what is missing from the ongoing discussion is what happens
if recreational mortality was 4 times higher over the last 10 years?
Who is responsible for this? What was the impact of that higher
mortality, especially for stocks currently under a rebuilding plan?
Lastly, what will be the justification for any new allocations? I do
not believe there should be any reward for overfishing. The obvious
inequities could be forced upon the commercial fishing industry and
ultimately the consumer.
We offer these recommendations:
We can support Federal funds being made available to the States to
transfer the responsibilities of accounting and reporting of
recreational fisheries provided the programs are MSA compliant and the
funding does not come from the national Saltonstall-Kennedy (S-K)
Program.
We can support alternative management for recreational fisheries
only if they are consistent with the current MSA requirements and clear
Federal management authority and oversight is maintained.
We support Congress mandating completion and full implementation of
the MRIP as soon as possible.
However, we cannot support any changes that attempt to solve the
lack of recreational accountability by reallocating the resource from
the commercial industry or by providing any exemptions to annual catch
limits.
(4) Catch Share Programs
While we are not interested in dismantling existing catch share
programs or removing the option entirely from the management system we
are strongly in favor of the addition of an inclusive, transparent
referendum requirement for future catch share programs being added to
the MSA. Such a provision is contained in H.R. 200.
The opposition to the NOAA Catch Share Policy runs strong in the
Mid-Atlantic Region. This opposition is firmly rooted in concerns over
the top down approach that has seriously and negatively impacted
fisheries around the country. In addition, is has become very clear to
Mid-Atlantic fishermen that the process is tainted by environmental
organizations who do not have the best long term interests of the U.S.
commercial fishing industry in mind.
We offer these recommendations:
We request this Subcommittee considering including a referendum
requirement for all future catch share programs in a manner similar to
that included in H.R. 200. Specifically, that any future catch share
program in the Gulf of Mexico/New England/South Atlantic/Mid Atlantic/
Pacific shall have a fully-informed majority vote referendum by
participating fishermen.
(5) Industry Concerns on the ``Modernizing Recreational Fisheries
Management Act of 2017''
I would also like to address a few issues related to S. 1520 ``The
Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2017'' that was
recently referred to the Committee. Simply put, commercial, for-hire
and private anglers should each be held accountable for their impacts
on our Nation's fish resources. We must resist changes to the law that
could be interpreted to remove this accountability. Our commercial
fishermen operate in a complex world of monitoring, reporting and are
under strict limits designed to prevent overfishing and quota overages.
S. 1520 contains a provision that could potentially allow the
private recreational angling industry to circumvent their share of the
fisheries management requirements and oversight that are applied to
commercial fishing activities. This includes the use of undefined
``alternative fishery management measures.'' If it were made clear that
these measures were required to be MSA-consistent then our concerns
would be greatly reduced.
Another provision in S. 1520 would permit individual states to
receive Federal funding and collect recreational harvest data,
potentially giving individual states an inordinate amount of control
over recreational harvest estimates. This may be helpful but two issues
must be addressed. First, the funding for these programs would come
from NOAA's Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program, a program originally
intended by Congress to fund commercial fisheries. Secondly, it is
unclear if the collection methodology would be peer-reviewed and
required to meet MSA standards.
Finally, the always-present issue of reallocation by the
recreational sector is also included in S. 1520. Clearly, the intent
here is to create and fund an initiative that could lead to
reallocation of quotas from commercial to recreational sectors in Gulf
and South Atlantic regions. Not only are we strongly opposed to this
provision, it is also completely unnecessary as NOAA finalized its
national reallocation policy in the spring of 2017 and tasked the RFMCs
to implement the policy within 3 years, or as soon as possible.
(6) Council Voting Structure in the GARFO Region
We request this Subcommittee consider the addition of a provision
from H.R. 200 to specify that reciprocal voting rights be established
for existing council ``liaison'' positions between the New England and
Mid-Atlantic RFMCs. While fishermen in the Mid-Atlantic region do not
wish to dismantle the long standing, MSA-established council
membership, fishermen in New England have made requests to change that
membership. Since the provision in H.R. 200 establishes limited
reciprocal voting rights, but does not disrupt current council
procedures, there is general agreement about this provision between
fishermen in the two areas. This solution will facilitate enhanced
coordination between the two Councils.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify today and for the
Subcommittee's interest in our marine issues in the Greater Atlantic
Region.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you for that testimony.
Captain Cochrane, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM ``BUBBA'' COCHRANE II, PRESIDENT, GULF OF
MEXICO REEF FISH SHAREHOLDERS' ALLIANCE
Mr. Cochrane. Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters, and
members of the Subcommittee, my name is Bubba Cochrane, and I'm
a commercial fisherman from Galveston, Texas. I'm the President
of the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders' Alliance and the
Vice President of Gulf Wild Seafood brand.
I've fished my entire life. I own and operate my own
commercial fishing boat using hook-and-line to catch reef fish.
I spend over 100 days a year fishing and another 15 to 20 days
attending meetings of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council, and traveling to Washington to speak to you, your
staff, and other decisionmakers.
My 14-year-old son, Connor, who is probably watching this
hearing right now when he should be doing his homework, loves
to fish and will someday take over my business. I'm here today
to represent my organization, Gulf commercial fishermen, the 97
percent of Americans who access fresh fish by purchasing it in
restaurants, grocery stores, and fish markets that we supply,
and my son, Connor. We have an obligation to pass on something
truly sustainable to him and others like him.
A number of witnesses today complained that Magnuson-
Stevens is not working. My business and ability to provide for
my family depends on healthy fish stocks. I am here today to
ask that we work together to support Magnuson-Stevens and
safeguard the gains made since its last reauthorization. And
I'm here to tell you that Magnuson-Stevens is a success story,
your success story.
Magnuson-Stevens is working. Fishing is profitable. Fish
stocks are rebuilding. More anglers are able to go catch fish.
And American seafood consumers have year-round access to
sustainably harvest fish. Forty-one stocks have been rebuilt
since 2001, and the number of stocks on the overfishing and
overfished lists remains near all-time lows.
Some groups say that quota and catch limits don't work for
recreational fishermen. This is simply not true. Between 2010
and 2016, recreational fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico
successfully caught up to 96 percent of their gag grouper quota
without exceeding the recreational catch limits. Some groups
say that IFQs are not suitable for mixed-used fisheries, such
as Gulf red snapper.
As someone whose business depends on IFQs, I would like to
provide some facts. IFQs saved the red snapper fishery in the
Gulf of Mexico. Before the IFQs were implemented, we fished at
derby. We were fishing on 2- to 3-pound fish, and many times
discarded more than we landed. We fished in dangerous weather,
and some boats never made it back to port.
Since the red snapper IFQ, things have gotten much better,
quotas have increased, and price has come up, discards are way
down, and the red snapper we're catching are much larger than
what we caught before the IFQ. I can now stay home when it is
blowing 35 knots because I can spread out my quota throughout
the year, and I have more control over my business, and I've
learned that sustainability and profitability go hand-in-hand.
Thanks to Magnuson-Stevens' science-based conservation
requirements and the commercial IFQ program, the red snapper
quota for all fishermen in the Gulf has nearly tripled in the
last 10 years from 5 million pounds to nearly 14 million
pounds. Clearly, the commercial IFQ has not harmed recreational
fishermen. And let me stress that accountability, fishing
within the rules, not exceeding harvest limits, timely
reporting of catch, and proper monitoring have been key to the
success. This is our success, as it is yours.
Yes, it's true that the Federal recreational red snapper
season has shrunk in the Gulf, and I understand that private
anglers want a longer Federal red snapper season. However, as
the U.S. Department of Commerce admits, bypassing conservation
measures and science-based management will result in the
recreational sector substantially exceeding its annual catch
limit and delay rebuilding the stock by as many as 6 years. We
support the Gulf States and Federal Government working together
to develop a sustainable, accountable, science-based solution
to the Gulf of Mexico private angler fishing challenges.
Red snapper is a critical species for Gulf commercial
fishermen. Since recreational fishermen already take home 80
percent of the most popular fish in the Gulf, including
overwhelming majorities of amberjack, king mackerel, and
triggerfish, even if the Federal red snapper fishing season
cannot be as long as they want, recreational fishermen can fish
for these other species in Federal waters.
On a final note, I want to reiterate that red snapper are
our public resource, and commercial fishermen provide public
access to millions of consumers who cannot afford to catch it
themselves. From the businessman in Detroit to the teacher in
Denver to the nurse in Indianapolis, commercial fishermen give
them the opportunity they deserve to enjoy some of the best
seafood the world has to offer.
Magnuson-Stevens is more--is about more than just Gulf red
snapper. It's also about Alaskan halibut, New England codfish,
and Georgia grouper. Magnuson-Stevens is about Florida charter
fishing businessmen, the California recreational fishermen, and
the South Dakota family that has just as much right to order a
red snapper fillet off the menu as I do.
We all have an obligation to protect the fisheries and the
fishery recoveries we've experienced under the last 10 years of
Magnuson-Stevens. We owe it to the next generation, like my
son, Connor, to pass on a natural resource legacy that ensures
sustainable public access for future generations of Americans.
Thank you. And I'll be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cochrane follows:]
Prepared Statement of William ``Bubba'' Cochrane II, Commercial
fisherman, Galveston, Texas; and President, Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish
Shareholders' Alliance
Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters, and distinguished members
of the Subcommittee--thank you for the opportunity to address you today
regarding the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act.
My name is Bubba Cochrane and I'm a commercial red snapper
fisherman from Galveston, Texas. I also run a federally permitted
charterboat and fish recreationally when I have the time. I have the
honor to serve as the President of the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish
Shareholders' Alliance--the largest organization of commercial reef
fish fishermen in the Gulf, and I'm the Vice President of Gulf Wild--
the only brand of seafood in the country that's fishermen-built,
conservation-based, and fully-traceable.
I've fished my entire life. I started out recreational fishing with
my father and then began working on a local charterboat. From there, I
worked my way onto a commercial fishing boat in 1990 and eventually
saved enough money to start my own business. I now own and run my own
commercial fishing boat--the Chelsea Ann (named after my daughter)
using hook and line to catch red snapper and other reef fish in the
western Gulf. I spend over 100 days a year on the water and another 15
to 20 days attending meetings of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council and traveling to Washington to speak with you, your staff, and
other decision makers.
My fourteen year old son Connor (who's probably watching this
hearing right now when he should be doing his homework) loves to fish
and will someday take over my business when I retire . . . but not
until he graduates. I'm here today not just to represent my business,
my organizations, the Gulf's commercial fishermen, or the 97 percent of
Americans that get their access to fresh fish by purchasing it in
restaurants, grocery stores, and fish markets that we supply. I'm here
for Connor--he is the next generation of commercial fisherman because I
feel-an obligation to pass on something truly sustainable to him and
others like him.
America has set the gold standard for sustainable fisheries because
of our commitment to science-based management. The Magnuson-Stevens Act
is the system's bi-partisan backbone and it is something we should all
be proud of. I am truly honored to call myself an American fisherman
and to have the opportunity to have a voice in this process.
Magnuson-Stevens is working. Fishing is profitable, fish stocks are
rebuilding, more anglers than ever before are able to go catch plenty
of fish with their kids and grandkids, fishing communities are
resilient, and American seafood consumers have year-round access to
wild, sustainably-harvested fish and shellfish. Under Magnuson-Stevens,
forty one stocks have been rebuilt since 2001 and the number of stocks
on the overfishing and overfished lists remains near all-time lows.
Combined, U.S. commercial and recreational saltwater fishing generated
$208 billion in sales and supported 1.6 million jobs in 2015.
A number of the people who spoke before me told you that Magnuson-
Stevens is failing, and some even claimed that it has had ``devastating
impacts.'' But nobody else here today--maybe with the exception of Bob
Zales--makes their living on the water. My livelihood depends on
healthy fish stocks. My ability to feed my family and send my kids to
college hinges on there being fish to catch. I've taken time off the
water to be here today to impress upon you that we must work together
to support Magnuson-Stevens and safeguard the gains made since the last
reauthorization. And I am here to tell you that Magnuson-Stevens is a
success story--your success story.
You've heard from some that Magnuson-Stevens needs to be changed to
allow ``more flexibility.'' But when it comes to science-based fishery
management, flexibility is a slippery word, especially when it means
making an end-run around conservation. Make no mistake about it:
extending rebuilding timelines in the name of flexibility would be a
step away from science. Remember, the 10 year rebuilding requirement
people complain about already has built-in flexibility. Take Gulf red
snapper for example--we're currently 12 years into a twenty seven year
rebuilding plan. Atlantic halibut have a 50 year rebuilding plan, and
some rockfish species on the west coast have a 70 year rebuilding plan.
These plans are stretched to the limit--stretch any more and they might
just snap.
You've also heard that quotas don't work for recreational
fishermen. This is simply not true. Between 2010 and 2016, recreational
fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico successfully caught up to 96 percent of
their gag grouper quota without exceeding the recreational annual catch
limit. The Gulf of Mexico Headboat Collaborative Pilot Program
successfully took more than 200,000 anglers fishing in 2014 and 2015
and through a combination of real-time reporting and quota management,
succeeded in staying within its quotas. And starting in 2016,
Louisiana's LA Creel program has successfully used weekly landings
estimates to monitor and enforce a self-imposed red snapper quota for
state waters recreational fishermen. Quotas are working for the
recreational sector all across the Gulf.
It wouldn't be a fisheries-related hearing without the individual
fishing quota--or IFQ--programs coming up. As someone whose business
depends on IFQs, I'd like to take a moment to provide some facts. IFQs
are one type of catch share program. Two of the 16 catch share programs
in the United States are in the Gulf of Mexico--the red snapper and
grouper/tilefish IFQs. Together they generate over $50 million in
direct fishing revenue. Alaska leads the way with six catch share
programs (the most in any region) that generate over $980 million in
direct revenue.
IFQs saved the red snapper fishery in the Gulf. Before the IFQ was
implemented, we fished a derby--we went as hard as we could for the
first ten days of every month and dumped a lot of fish on the dock for
very low prices. The stock was crashing and we all knew it, but we had
to make a living. We were fishing on 2-3 pound fish and many times
discarded more than we landed. We fished in weather we shouldn't have,
and some guys never came home.
I put every dollar I had into my fishing business when we were
developing the red snapper IFQ program in the Gulf. I was ``all in.''
Failure was not an option for me or my family.
Since the IFQ, things have gotten better--quotas have increased,
the price has come up, discards are way down, and the red snapper we're
catching are twice as large as the ones we caught before the IFQ. I now
have the opportunity to stay home when it's blowing 35 knots because I
can spread out my quota throughout the year. I have more control over
my business.
I've figured out that sustainability and profitability can--and
do--go hand in hand. The stock assessments prove this. The 2009 stock
assessment update, the 2013 assessment, and the 2015 assessment update
all confirm that overfishing has finally ended and there are more red
snapper in the Gulf of Mexico today than there have been in decades.
Thanks to the science-based conservation requirements of Magnuson-
Stevens and a fully accountable commercial IFQ program, the red snapper
quota for all fishermen in the Gulf has nearly tripled in the last 10
years. Commercial, charter, and recreational fishermen had a 5 million
pound quota in 2008 and today we're all fishing under a quota that's
nearly 14 million pounds. Clearly, the commercial IFQ program has not
harmed recreational fishermen. And let me stress that accountability,
fishing within the rules, not exceeding harvest limits, timely
reporting of catches and proper monitoring, has been key to our
success. This is your success as well.
Yes, it's true that the Federal recreational red snapper fishing
season has shrunk in the Gulf, and I'm sensitive to that. The
recreational red snapper catch limit increased by 120 percent from
2008-2014, compared to a 623 percent increase in recreational landings
per day during that same time period. As a result, the recreational
season continues to shorten so that recreational fishermen stop
overharvesting this species. I appreciate the recreational point of
view of wanting more access, but rolling back conservation measures and
ignoring science-based management is only going to slow down, stop or
even reverse the rebuilding process altogether. As it is, the U.S.
Commerce Department admits that this year's recreational season
extension will, and I quote, ``necessarily mean that the private
recreational sector will substantially exceed its annual catch limit''
and that, quote, ``this approach may delay the ultimate rebuilding of
the stock by as many as 6 years.''
Commercial fishermen and the federally permitted charter boat
community in the Gulf support improving management for private anglers,
but it must be done in a sustainable and accountable manner. We can
achieve this by doubling down on data collection and accountability,
and by using the existing flexibility in the Magnuson-Stevens Act to
come up with creative solutions. We continue to support the Gulf States
and Federal government working together to develop a viable, long-term,
science-based solution to the red snapper challenges in the Gulf of
Mexico for private angler fishermen. But let's be clear, as our
population grows the number of private anglers and seafood consumers
will continue to increase every year. Fishery managers must be mindful
of this fact when developing a solution but must also understand that
taking away quota from the commercial and charter boat sectors won't
solve the problem.
Red snapper is a critical species for Gulf commercial fishermen,
since recreational fishermen already take home 80 percent of the most
popular fish species in the Gulf, including overwhelming majorities of
amberjack, red drum, speckled trout, king mackerel, and triggerfish.
Even if the Federal red snapper fishing season could not be extended,,
private anglers can fish in Federal waters for these species or for red
snapper in state waters during longer state seasons, including in my
home state of Texas where recreational fishermen fish for red snapper
year round Commercial fishing for red snapper started in the Gulf in
the 1880s. Red snapper is part of our heritage and our history and, as
a commercial, federally-permitted charter, and recreational fisherman
myself, I want to be sure it is available for generations to come.
On a final note, I want to reiterate that commercial fishermen like
me provide American seafood consumers with access to domestic
sustainably-harvested snapper and grouper 365 days a year. Red snapper
are a public resource, and commercial fishermen provide public access
to millions of consumers who cannot afford to go catch it themselves.
From the businessman in Detroit to the teacher in Denver to the nurse
in Indianapolis--commercial fishermen give them the access they deserve
and the opportunity to enjoy some of the best seafood the world has to
offer.
Magnuson-Stevens is about more than just red snapper in the Gulf of
Mexico--it's about halibut in Alaska, it's about codfish in New
England, and it's about grouper in Georgia. Magnuson-Stevens is about
the charter fishing businessman in Florida who wants more
accountability and the recreational fisherman in California who values
conservation. And Magnuson-Stevens is also about the family in South
Dakota that has just as much right to order a red snapper fillet off
the menu as I do.
The Gulf's fight is everyone's fight. It's a fight to put the long-
term supply of fish first, to commit to science-based management, to
insist on accountability across all sectors, to invest in the future
generation, and to ultimately defend the pillar of our Nation's
fisheries--the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
We--the nation's fishermen, seafood suppliers, seafood-consuming
public and Congressional leaders--have an obligation to protect the
gains we've made and the recoveries we've experienced under the last
forty years of Magnuson-Stevens. We owe it to ourselves, our fishing
communities, and the next generation like Connor to pass on a natural
resource legacy that ensures sustainable seafood and sustainable public
access for all Americans for today and future generations.
Thank you; and I'm happy to answer any questions you have.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Captain Cochrane.
And I want to thank all the panelists for their outstanding
testimony.
Let me begin with just a very basic question. It's the
focus of this and the other hearings. From your perspective,
and I'll just ask each of you to provide a brief answer here,
what are the one or two things that we can do in the Congress
in this reauthorization to help improve our fisheries
management system, from your perspective?
I'll start with you, Ms. Steele.
Ms. Steele. Thank you. I think that the one thing that
Congress can do in this reauthorization is focus any changes in
the law on the fundamental and original goal of this law, which
is to achieve optimum yield, finding the balance between
biological health and economic prosperity. That can be done
through providing flexibility in both the rebuilding
requirements and the ACL provisions in the law. In the interest
of time, I'll just refer you to our written testimony, which
has several suggestions along those lines.
Thank you.
Senator Sullivan. Great.
Mr. Andrew, any thoughts on that question, basic question,
reauthorization top priorities?
Mr. Andrew. I think that the Alaska model is an excellent
model to maybe take a good hard look at, giving trust to the
state of Alaska to manage for sustained yield. As far as
fisheries, the North Pacific Management Council, science-based,
really looks good. So, as you know, as well as I do, the
fisheries are very healthy in our state, and we're very
thankful.
Senator Sullivan. Yep. Thank you.
Mr. DiDomenico.
Mr. DiDomenico. Well, I'll be as brief as possible on a
difficult topic. What--what----
Senator Sullivan. Top priorities.
Mr. DiDomenico. Yes. What we're asking for is this
Subcommittee to have very, very direct and clear intent to be
added to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. We--as I said earlier, we
had suffered over the last 10 years because of the
interpretation of the last time this law was reauthorized. I
would suggest that the 10-year timeframe absolutely have some
added flexibility to it. We're not the only ones saying that.
National Academy of Science has admitted that it's arbitrary.
Continued rebuilding flexibility that's science-based in
other contexts of the law, admitting the difference between
depleted and overfished, expand the short-lived exemptions for
certain fisheries, some that are very--of great interest to us,
and exempt transboundary stocks from ACLs.
Thank you.
Senator Sullivan. Captain Cochrane.
Mr. Cochrane. Well, I'd be more interested to say what not
to do, and I would hate to see any reauthorization roll back
the conservation efforts that Magnuson has been successful
with. And I'll also say that when it comes to data collection
and the science, I think that, you know, we could possibly
solve some recreational problems with coupling that better with
the technology.
I think one of the witnesses earlier was talking about
using a smartphone to report your landings. And every
recreational fisherman I talk to, the biggest problem they have
with the numbers that are coming in on their landings is, ``Who
asked me how many fish I caught?'' And I've never talked to a
recreational fisherman that wasn't willing to be accountable.
Senator Sullivan. Right.
Mr. Cochrane. And then earlier questions asking that the
recreational sector not be held to the same standards as the
commercial, I think that's an unfair advantage, and I don't
think it would get them or us anywhere.
Senator Sullivan. Let me--I'm going to ask Mr. Andrew a
couple more parochial questions since you traveled all this
way, and you're one of my constituents.
2017, as you mentioned, saw near record sockeye salmon run.
What was the total number?
Mr. Andrew. Thank you, Mr. Senator, I mean, Congress--geez.
I'm so nervous, I could--explain five times.
Senator Sullivan. No, you're doing great.
Mr. Andrew. Mr. Chairman, I think this year's total numbers
are probably pushing about 62 million escapement and harvest,
from one----
Senator Sullivan. That's remarkable. One salmon run. That's
the biggest salmon run in the world.
Mr. Andrew. Yes.
Senator Sullivan. Let me ask, in terms of--one of the
things that you've mentioned--you note the economic impact of
the Bristol Bay fisheries. One of the concerns that I share I
believe with you and many others in the region are the number
of permits issued to non-Alaskans. Is there a way to reverse
the trend of permits leaving Alaska's communities?
Mr. Andrew. I think today the majority of the permits that
are issued in Bristol Bay are owned by state residents, but
watershed residents, there's a little bit of a shift, I guess,
but through the Magnuson-Stevens Act, it created Bristol Bay
Economic Development Corporation. There are some programs
within that, within BBEDC, that help local fishermen to
purchase permits, help fishermen with leases, and so on, to get
into--to get these younger fishermen into the fishery. So it's
a very successful model, and I hope that it will work. As you
know, we're getting older.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sullivan. We are indeed.
Senator Peters.
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, thank you to our witnesses, for all of you, for
excellent testimony as we sort through a very complex issue
here to do what we can that's best for the fishing industry and
for a very important resource for our country.
Mr. Andrew, I just want to start by saying I appreciated
learning about Bristol Bay because actually I had the privilege
of being on the Coast Guard icebreaking tug Bristol Bay, which
operates out of Detroit in the Great Lakes, a part of our
icebreaking fleet there. And when I go back there, I'm going to
be able to tell them a whole lot about the name ``Bristol Bay''
and why this is such an important operation. But thank you for
sharing that, very interesting. And thank you for, on short
notice, coming here, a very, very long way.
Captain Cochrane, the first question is for you. We
certainly know that fisheries are facing a very changing
environment right now, as climate change is changing water
temperatures, we've got changes in chemistry, some of the
science related to this is complicated. And for your son to
take over the business someday when he gets done with his
homework and graduates from school, that he's working on right
now, this could require quite a bit of long-range planning to
figure out how we maintain the sustainability of this fishing
stock.
My first question is, you know, you've spent an awful lot
of time out on the water, you mentioned over 100 days per year.
What changes have you noticed when you go out there? What do we
need to know? What sort of changes in the environment as you go
out fishing?
Mr. Cochrane. Well, fortunately, red snapper are very, very
resilient. And, you know, we have our own challenges in the
Gulf with other things like dead zones and things like that
that could interact with the fisheries. But as far as climate
change and water temperature, I couldn't really identify any
definite--definite changes as of, you know, right now. What the
future holds, you know, definitely is something different.
Everything is going to change, you know, no matter how subtle
and no matter how long. I think that we are in store for some
type of change.
I will say that--and this might not have anything to do
with climate change, but it seems that in Galveston, where we
have a lot shallower shelf and it takes longer to get out to
deep water, that it appears that the inshore fishing for the
red snapper that we mostly target is moving further and further
offshore without any real significant explanation. I mean,
there are so many snapper out there, you would think they would
be right off the beachfront, but for some reason they're not.
And I've been fishing my whole life, and I've never seen
red snapper fishing so good, but I've also never seen it so
much further than it normally would be. And it's probably more
the depth of the water, not how far, because further down the
coast, they haven't really been seeing that, but the deeper
water is closer, you know, down, say, towards Rockport or
Corpus Christi.
Senator Peters. Mm-hmm. Right. And I'll continue, Captain
Cochrane. Several folks have called for more flexibility in
fisheries management, which we've heard over and over again.
Just last October, NOAA issued an update to the National
Standard 1 guidelines to help some more tools in the toolbox,
given fisheries management flexibility that many have asked
for. What reactions have you seen to this update and the
flexibility that it provides?
Mr. Cochrane. Well, the big question is, What kind of
flexibility are they talking about? Are they talking about
eliminating ACLs or--you know, it just depends on what kind of
flexibility, you know, we're talking about. I think it's
important to use--like using Magnuson and its conservation
science-based management to work with flexibility instead of
the flexibility working around that.
Senator Peters. OK. Well, and many of you have raised the
scientific uncertainty or issues related to scientific
management.
Ms. Steele, you raised the issue caused by insufficient
data and scientific uncertainty. From your perspective, how can
we best fill in these gaps to address the problems that you
mentioned in your testimony?
Ms. Steele. Well, I think that the best way to fill in the
gaps is to support the collection of data within the framework
of the law. We've experienced--I've seen in my experience many
situations that are data-poor or lacking in terms of data to
make management decisions, yet the decisions have to be made.
And what we've done in the past, instead of trying to exempt
ourselves from the law or trying to get some sort of exemption
to deal in other ways with those issues, is worked within the
confines of the law to try to improve the science and provide
the best available science to the councils to make decisions.
I think that the framework in the Magnuson Act provides for
that, and we just need to do a better job of managing our
fisheries with the best available data under this framework.
Senator Peters. Would anyone else like to comment? I know
all of you have mentioned scientific uncertainty or the need
for more science. Any ideas from the panel here, please?
[No response.]
Senator Peters. Any? No? OK. Very good.
Thank you.
Senator Sullivan. I think I'm going to ask a few more
questions here. I think Senator Cantwell might be on the way,
and if so, just give me a heads-up on that.
But, Mr. Andrew, let me go back to another question. This
is a little more concerning--actually, I wish Senator Cantwell
was here to hear the question, but, you know, we have concerns.
We obviously value the Alaska wild salmon, it's the best salmon
on the planet, and the biggest runs on the planet, the best
tasting on the planet, relative to GMO seafood or farm-raised
fish. As you know, earlier this year, there was a fish farm in
Washington State that had a net failure resulting in a spill of
Atlantic salmon into the ecosystem.
Can you provide some insights into what a spill like this
could do or potentially do to the wild fisheries that are so
prominent? And, again, I think, you know, in many ways, the
most revered in the world like we have Alaska, and what your
concerns are for the community and, you know, the viability of
the Bristol Bay fishery?
Mr. Andrew. Thank you, Senator. Quite honestly, I mean,
I've had 24 hours to prepare for this testimony, so I am just
running just a little bit behind regarding that. But, yes, in
western Alaska, every single river that is in Bristol Bay
produces wild salmon. And so I think that there's a predatory
threat that would be--that would make us worry a lot. Also, the
market factor of wild stocks. You know, there's a whole gamut
of things that I can't really pinpoint at this time.
Senator Sullivan. Well, we're going to continue, from this
Committee's perspective, to continue to monitor those kind of
situations. You know, there are always these assurances, ``Oh,
don't worry, there won't be a mix,'' in terms of a different
kind of farm-raised and wild salmon, but, you know, that seems
to have happened, and I certainly have some concerns about it.
I know a lot of our fellow Alaskans do as well. So we will
continue to monitor that.
Mr. DiDomenico, I want to--just two points that you raised
that I'd like to just touch on. We had a previous hearing
actually related to the use of the Antiquities Act over the MSA
that a lot of us have concern. And I agree with your
assessment, that the main management tool needs to be the MSA,
not the other provisions that weren't supposed to manage
fisheries. You know, most witnesses over the last three
different hearings that we've had have all said what you have
said, yes, the Act needs some tweaks and some adjustments, but
it's working well.
And I agree fully that we should not be looking as the main
management tools of America's fisheries acts that, to be
honest, weren't designed to bring in the science, bring in the
data, that you are all talking about with regard to the MSA and
how important that is. So I appreciate you highlighting that in
your testimony.
I would also like you to just dig a little bit deeper on
the issue that's come up a couple times in testimony today on
the importance of terms like ``depleted'' versus
``overfished,'' and why you believe, or others on the panel
think, that that should be altered as we look in the
reauthorization of the MSA. Why is that a priority of yours?
Mr. DiDomenico. Well, as so many people have already said,
you know, the variable nature of these fisheries, I believe,
are much more, I guess, susceptible to those fluctuations from
environmental conditions or just natural fluctuations than
harvest.
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. DiDomenico. And why would you not just label a fishery
or a stock ``overfished'' when you know that the condition of
the stock has nothing to do with removals?
Senator Sullivan. So you're just trying to be more
accurate. You're essentially saying that ``overfished'' is a
term that can be used, and sometimes it's accurate, we know
that that's a fact, but other times it's being used in a way to
describe situations where it's not accurate.
Mr. DiDomenico. It could very easily trigger a rebuilding
plan for issues outside of, you know, U.S. fisheries and U.S.
waters. There could be--we've got many pelagic fish. We've got
a whole host of fish that range from outside the jurisdiction
of U.S. waters. Why would you penalize U.S. fishermen for
something that's happening somewhere else?
Senator Sullivan. Great. Let me ask one final question. I
believe Senator Cantwell is on her way, so we'll leave this
open.
Ms. Steele, you've had kind of a unique perspective on the
MSA from different kind of regional fisheries approaches. Do
you think the MSA, in its current form, provides enough
regional flexibility? And that's certainly one of the things
that we're trying to do on this panel, looking at not only
Alaska and other places, but on the East Coast, in the Gulf. Do
you believe it provides enough regional flexibility to apply
conservation and management measures that can match the needs
and challenges of each geographically unique area, or does
something need to be more--to be done on that?
Ms. Steele. I certainly think that's the intent of the Act,
and I certainly support that. I do think that we can do more to
provide the regional councils with the flexibility and the
tools essentially that they need to be able to manage to the
needs of the ecosystem and their regional areas.
I worked in New England. Now I work on the West Coast. I've
seen it in both situations. And the councils--the regional
council process is a really wonderful vehicle for addressing
fisheries and ecosystem issues. I think that what we need to do
is, as Mr. DiDomenico mentioned earlier, is provide the
Councils with more flexibility to be able to--and, I'm sorry--
to clarify the intent with respect to the flexibility provided
to the Councils. I think that can be done with clarifications
like changing ``possible'' to ``practicable'' and things like
that to make sure that the Councils have the flexibility to
make the decisions and tailor the rebuilding plans and
management measures to meet the needs of not only their
fisheries, but the communities that depend on them.
Senator Sullivan. So those are the priority legislative
fixes that you would have from your association's perspective?
Ms. Steele. Yes. Flexibility for the rebuilding timeframe
as well as flexibility in the development of annual catch
limits, all within the confines of the conservation objectives
of the plan.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
Mr. Andrew, is there anything more? You know, we had this
great run, but we actually saw that there was some processor
capacity issues in Bristol Bay. Is there anything that we need
to be looking at that can help us address some of those
challenges? Which in some ways are good challenges to have,
right? You have a very big run, a stable high price. But what
could we be doing in that regard? And are there any things that
you think we should be looking at in this legislation?
Mr. Andrew. That was actually going to be my question: What
a great problem to have.
Senator Sullivan. That's right.
Mr. Andrew. But, yes. I mean, a lot of things are not--you
can't plan for everything.
Senator Sullivan. Right.
Mr. Andrew. And certain situations happen at certain
processors that just make processing difficult. It may be
employee-based, it may be mechanical, and so on. I know that
probably several of them had issues in those areas. But
competition is always good. And, you know, if there was a
situation that would could allow more competition, it would be
great for the region and for the fishers. But in Nushagak,
where I predominantly fished this year, we had foregone
harvests, which means fish that--the number of fish that
escaped into the region above and beyond the escapement level
was in excess of 6 million.
Senator Sullivan. Wow.
Mr. Andrew. So that was 6 million fish that could have been
harvested that was foregone. In other words, it just padded the
number of spawners.
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. Andrew. So maybe in 5 years there's going to be another
huge run. Who knows? But I'm not a scientist. I've been a
catcher all my life.
Senator Sullivan. Great.
Well, listen, I want to thank the panel again, the
witnesses, for the outstanding testimony here. And like I did
with the last panel, I want to remind all of you the record for
this hearing will remain open for an additional 2 weeks. During
this time, we may have other Senators from the Committee who
could not make it here, or others who have questions,
additional questions. They may submit questions for the record,
and upon receipt, we would respectfully ask the witnesses to
submit their written answers to the Committee as soon as
possible.
I want to thank all of you again for appearing today. This
hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Captain Robert F. Zales II, President,
National Association of Charterboat Operators
Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters, and Members of the
Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today
about the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act). My name is Robert F. Zales, II and I am
President of the National Association of Charterboat Operators (NACO).
NACO is a non-profit 501 (c) (6) Association providing the voice
representing recreational for hire charter boat owners and operators
across the United States. Our members own and operate the platforms
providing the opportunity for anglers to fish recreationally.
We are acutely aware of the devastating impacts of the last
reauthorization of the MSA to fishermen, their families, supporting
businesses, and fishing communities by the increasing loss of JOBS. The
requirements of the MSA are overly restrictive and require arbitrary
rebuilding timelines based on no science. Congress mandated a new
recreational data system be provided by January 2009. Your mandate was
ignored by the NOAA/NMFS as we still do not have the new data system
today.
Some laud the 2007 reauthorization as the reason for many species
recovering from over fishing and being overfished. The facts are that
most of the species that have fully recovered or almost recovered, such
as Gulf and South Atlantic red snapper, Gulf gag grouper, Gulf and
South Atlantic king and Spanish mackerel, South Atlantic black sea
bass, East Coast summer flounder, striped bass, West Coast coho salmon
and ling cod, and others are due to the 1996 reauthorization as they
were on their way to recovery prior to the 2007 reauthorization. While
the 2007 reauthorization can be credited with ending over fishing of
many species due to the required complete closure of fishing for many
species it is also responsible for the severe negative economic and
social impacts to anglers and small family businesses and their local
fishing communities. The severe and unwavering restrictions of the 2007
reauthorization have created many conflicts between stakeholders and
the Federal government which have led to many States moving to take
over management off their respective coasts through proposed
legislation and other efforts.
The 2007 arbitrary requirements to end over fishing and rebuild all
over fished stocks as a one size fits all management style has almost
eliminated the recreational fishery. Adding new acronyms such as ACLs
(allowable catch limits) and ACTs (acceptable catch targets) that
mandate all fishing stops when reached creates unscientific buffers
that prevent any fishery ABC (allowable biological catch) from ever
being reached. As an example, in the Gulf of Mexico the SSC (scientific
and statistical committee) sets the ABC during each stock assessment.
This is the level of harvest that can be obtained and the stocks
maintain sustainability. The Gulf Council then sets the OFL (over
fishing limit) at a percentage of harvest below the ABC to ensure the
ABC is not exceeded. This management style was created by the 1996
reauthorization. The 2007 reauthorization mandated more restrictive
measures and resulted in establishing an ACL which further reduced what
could be harvested and went further establishing an ACT that further
restricts harvest. When the percentage of the buffers is added together
the allowable harvest of red snapper in the Gulf is reduced by an extra
50 percent, meaning maximum sustainable yield will never be achieved.
We suggest eliminating the use of the unscientific buffers or at least
allowing no more than a 5 percent buffer for each acronym.
The 2007 reauthorized MSA also provided unrestricted power to the
SSCs by mandating any SSC recommendation of ABC to not be exceeded by a
council. Prior to 2007 a council could recommend exceeding the
recommended ABC based on updated information during public discussion.
Since 2007 any new information from any source that indicates an ABC
could be increased cannot be done. The councils should be provided the
ability to increase a recommended ABC should new and updated data be
provided.
Currently the MSA requires ``best'' available science be the only
science and information to be considered for a stock status. We
recommend the use of any and all science and also anecdotal information
from fishermen and others to be considered in stock status
determination. Many times fishermen can provide important information
on the historical and previous stock status that a computer model can
never do. In addition we fully support the replacement of the term
``overfished'' to ``depleted'' as in some cases fishing is not the
problem in reduced stock abundance.
Catch shares have no place in any recreational fishery whether in a
recreational for hire charter or headboat fishery or private
recreational fishery. Catch shares do nothing to improve fisheries they
are simply a tool to reduce fleet capacity, eliminate jobs, and
eliminate access and opportunity. While catch shares may have a place
in some commercial fisheries, any effort to implement such should be by
a required referendum that allows all permit holders to have an equal
vote in the process. Allowing the NMFS to determine who can and cannot
vote and the use of any type of weighted vote should never be allowed.
Look to the commercial red snapper and grouper fisheries in the Gulf of
Mexico as classic examples as to why. Inter sector trading of catch
shares between recreational and commercial fisheries should be forever
prohibited. Preventing Federally Permitted recreational for hire
vessels from fishing their respective state waters when the EEZ is
closed should be eliminated. Rule 30B in the Gulf of Mexico is an
example and should be rescinded.
Each Region should have the flexibility to manage the species under
their responsibility for the best benefit of their stakeholders.
Management is not and should never be a one size fits all style as
every species, every area, and every user is unique. A reauthorized MSA
should ensure managers have the ability do what is best for their
region. They should be able to use management systems that are not
quota based, especially for recreational fisheries and for stocks that
have a large percentage of recreational harvest. It is a fact that
recreational fisheries cannot be managed in the same way as commercial
fisheries. Stock assessments and scientific models must be adapted to
better assess recreational harvest and social behavior. Governmental
management requirements alter recreational fishing behavior which
alters catch.
Using different management systems and moving away from quota based
management will allow the councils to manage recreational fisheries
with fixed seasons over a specific number of years. An example is,
setting a summer flounder recreational season for a specified length of
time for each of 3 years will provide for stability in the region. The
harvest can be measured by new and improved data systems such as a web
based reporting system or catch card system that can be adapted to the
web. By establishing multiyear seasons everyone can plan, the angler,
the supporting small family businesses, the communities, and
management. Providing anglers with the flexibility to fish when they
want during a fixed season vs. mandating they fish within a short
number of days will provide no more harvest than fishing for a short
period. Allowing anglers to fish when they want allows them to select
the days they want to go and to select the days they spend with family
and friends doing other activities and should the weather be bad on
some days they can fish others.
As I stated above our vessels are the platforms providing anglers
the opportunity to recreationally fish. As such we, as owners and
operators, should not have a separate quota and should not be forced to
operate under any type of catch share program. People hire us for our
expertise and knowledge of knowing where fish live and how to catch
them. Our customers are the anglers who catch and keep the fish and
should be considered recreational while fishing under fixed seasons and
bag and size limits. We fully support establishing seasons, bag and
size limits, and allowing the regional councils to use various
management systems to do so. The current system of quota based
management for all recreational species under the overly restrictive
management measures utilizing unscientific based buffers called ACLs
and ACTs to keep harvest from reaching the OFL prevent management from
achieving maximum sustainable yield, an important objective of
Secretary of Commerce Ross. In our fisheries the buffers and the
requirements to end fishing when reached restrict our ability to meet
MSY. This type of management is responsible for the continued shortened
fishing seasons and creating the angler mad rush to fish under such a
short season and anger toward management.
Allowing the regional councils to utilized different types of
management measures such as mortality based systems where properly
designed cooperative independent research programs to determine stock
status will allow for multi year fixed seasons to be adjusted a minimum
of every 3 years. Such a multiyear system of management will provide
for stability in fishing by allowing for a fixed period of access which
provides opportunities. Requiring a bench mark stock assessment on
important species every 3 years will allow managers to adjust the
future 3 year system up, down, or status quo depending on the previous
removals and the ability of the stock to continue sustainability.
All know that recreational data continues to be a critical issue
that causes uncertainty in the data resulting in overly conservative
and restrictive management measures and affects the assumed status of
stocks, especially in fisheries that have high recreational use. I have
been involved for over 30 years in working to help design and improve
recreational data. While some efforts have helped and the data systems
are a little better, much work remains. I have proposed a simple web
based system that utilizes a dedicated website, required reporting, the
ability to use any smart device, computer, fax, or phone, and the
ability to ensure everyone reports. Such a system coupled with improved
and expanded dockside surveys will allow all recreational for hire
charter and headboats as well as private recreational anglers to report
their activity and catch every day. This will improve the effort to
collect real time data thus improving the ability to track harvest
sooner and keep seasons open.
In previous testimony by Chris Oliver, NMFS AA, he accurately
provided the economic impacts of both commercial and recreational
fishing to the country. Both are significant and prove that access to
enjoy and use our fishery resources is extremely important and
management must be allowed the flexibility to ensure access to our
fisheries so opportunities abound.
Currently there are several proposed bills to improve the MSA.
Those we fully support and suggest merging the best parts of both are
H.R. 200 introduced by Representative Young, H.R. 2023 introduced by
Representative Graves and others, and S. 1520 introduced by Senator
Wicker. These bills contain similar provisions and we suggest by
incorporating the best of them will go far toward dramatically
improving the MSA and allowing our fishing industries to grow and
prosper while continuing to conserve and improve the sustainability of
our stocks.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Again, I truly
appreciate the invitation and opportunity to provide you and the
subcommittee with this information. I will be pleased to respond to any
questions.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
Chris Horton
Question 1. Angler-Supported Taxes and Aquatic Conservation: Your
written testimony describes efforts to establish and expand angler-
supported taxes on various types of fishing and boating gear. The
amount of money you described coming from these taxes and being put
toward fisheries and aquatic conservation is significant.
What are the impacts of conservation measures supported from the
$8.6 billion generated through the taxes you described in your written
testimony?
Can you share some of the conservation successes that have been
supported through these taxes?
Answer. It is significant in that these taxes and angler license
fees, collectively known as the American System of Conservation
Funding, have largely funded efforts to restore critical fisheries
habitat, reintroduce extirpated fish species or supplement recruitment-
limited fish populations through state fish hatchery systems, conduct
research on fish population dynamics, develop state fisheries
management plans, conduct routine monitoring and harvest adjustments
necessary to maintain and enhance fish populations, and to construct
and maintain access areas for America's anglers and boaters.
While there are thousands of examples of conservation success
stories across the Nation funded by the Sport Fish Restoration and
Boating Safety Trust Fund (SFR) program, a likely familiar example for
Senator Peters can be found in the fisheries of Lake Michigan. Like so
many of our natural resources in the late 1800s and early 1900s,
popular fish species in Lake Michigan were subjected to commercial
overexploitation to the point of collapse. Some species, like lake
sturgeon, were thought to have been extirpated from Lake Michigan
entirely. Likewise, by the mid 1950s, lake trout had been virtually
eliminated as well. In a 1990 Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(MI DNR) report entitled Review of salmon and trout management in Lake
Michigan, the authors state, ``We believe that the disappearance of the
lake trout in Lake Michigan was a direct result of overfishing and sea
lamprey predation.'' While the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission became
a key partner in reducing sea lamprey predation, MI DNR managers made a
paradigm shift and started managing the Lake's fisheries resources for
recreational fishing first, and commercial fishing second. This
resulted in the restoration of fish populations, like lake trout and
lake sturgeon, through supplement stockings from state fish hatcheries,
habitat restoration and protection, and more intensive population
monitoring and harvest rate management--all of which were predominately
funded by angler license fees and excise taxes on their equipment.
Question 2. Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Safety Trust Fund:
Mr. Horton, your testimony cited the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating
Safety Trust Fund in regards to the recreational and boating
manufacturer industries' contributions to fisheries conservation. The
Trust Fund provides grant monies to the States to support various
important efforts, including fish conservation, within their own
waters. It does not, however, have very much impact on fisheries
conservation conducted under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Given that, what is the Congressional Sportsmen Foundation and
other groups in your coalition advocating for to improve fisheries
conservation under the Magnuson-Stevens Act?
Answer. This is an excellent question that highlights the
unfortunate misunderstanding by many Members of Congress and some
environmental organizations as to the fundamental importance of
recreational angling to fisheries conservation. Through the Sport Fish
Restoration and Boating Safety Trust Fund (SFR) and angler license
fees, we provide the base funding, or a significant portion thereof,
for all fisheries management--including federally managed species.
Since I am most familiar with fisheries management in the Gulf of
Mexico, I will address the statement and question from this
perspective, though the same holds true for states all along our
Nation's coasts.
There are many examples of how SFR funds benefit federally managed
species. One of which is improving upon the first leg of the fishery
management stool--habitat. Good habitat is essential to healthy
fisheries, and while NOAA Fisheries focuses relatively little attention
on improving habitat, the states spend a considerable amount of angler
funded effort and resources improving and protecting habitats that
benefit a variety of species, including those under the jurisdiction of
regional fishery management councils. For example, low profile
artificial reefs constructed by the states using SFR dollars, both in
state and Federal waters all along the Gulf Coast, benefit reef fish
species directly. SFR funding also supports habitat restoration and
enhancements in vital nearshore and inshore nursery rearing areas
through projects like oyster reef establishments and coastal marsh
restoration. These projects provide critical juvenile habitat for not
only species directly managed under Federal management plans, like some
grouper and snapper species, but also support healthy forage bases
(menhaden, mullet, shrimp, crabs, etc.) that are important to all
federally managed species.
Another leg of the fishery management stool is the people who
participate in the fishery. Again, the taxes generated through the SFR
program and angler license fees supported all five Gulf states
developing more accurate angler harvest data collection programs to
supplement MRIP's inability to adequately estimate recreational harvest
in relatively short Federal seasons, like red snapper. In addition to
funding better angler surveys, enforcement of fishing regulations of
federally managed species in state waters is primarily paid for by the
SFR program and angler license fees.
In addition, the SFR and angler license programs provide Federal
managers with the critical data needed to understand the third leg of
the management stool--the fish. For example, the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission's (FWC) Fish and Wildlife Research
Institute (FWRI) Marine Fisheries Research program conducts a number of
studies (e.g., tagging projects to look at stocks distribution,
abundance, and connectivity) as well as broad scale data collection and
stock assessment programs with SFR funding. Examples of federally-
managed species benefiting from the data collection and stock
assessment funded with Florida's SFR dollars include gag grouper, red
grouper, red snapper and hogfish, among others. Likewise, Texas uses
SFR funds for fisheries independent sampling such as Gulf trawls,
longline and vertical line sampling, along with other fishery-
independent surveys in the bays and estuaries, all of which provide key
biological information for stock assessments and ecosystem approaches
to fisheries management in the Gulf.
In summary, to truly understand the importance of the SFR program
and angler license fees to managing all three legs of the fisheries
management stool in the above examples, in 2017 the state of Texas
alone used $3.9 million of SFR funding, combined with another $7.8
million in angler license dollars, to address the management needs of
Gulf of Mexico fisheries, including federally managed species. While
funding levels will vary by state and their number of license buying
anglers, recreational anglers provide significant funding for marine
fisheries conservation, both in state and Federal waters.
Question 3. Forage Fish Management: My understanding is that the
Morris Deal report, which articulating a number of the recreational
industry's policy priorities related to the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
included a conservation pillar related to the management of forage
fish. Management of these important fish was not addressed in the
Modern Fish Act. Do you still believe enhanced forage fish conservation
remains an important issue for Federal managers to address?
Answer. Yes. We support the Regional Councils review and
identification of forage fish stocks that should be covered in fishery
management plans based in part on the value of the forage fish stock
for predator stock health, reproduction and growth. In fact, the
Subcommittee has recently been provided with language to that effect
that would be supported by CSF, other recreational angling
representatives and the sportfishing industry.
Question 4. Federal versus State Management of Fisheries: You
describe philosophical differences between Federal and state-level
management of fisheries, in your written testimony. Can you clarify how
a fishery that provides its maximum sustained yield year after year
would not be a healthy population and a robust fishery?
Answer. Another excellent question, since there is a common,
misinformed belief that managing for Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) is
the epitome of fisheries management. However, for most species,
managing for MSY is actually the antithesis to a healthy, robust
fishery. The concept of MSY stems from the commercial sector's goal to
efficiently remove fish from a population. Basically, the premise of
MSY management is to cut the population down to the size where there
are just enough breeders to maintain the population indefinitely and is
thus considered ``sustainable''. In fact, if a new species were
discovered, managers would first try to cut the population by roughly
half to get to MSY. This produces the highest yield per recruit that
can maintain the population. It also reduces or eliminates any density
dependent factors that decrease spawning potential, essentially trying
to maximize recruitment. It does not optimize size or age structure,
which is typically important in defining healthy, balanced populations.
The forestry equivalent would be converting old growth timber, with
high wildlife values, to a much higher yield pine plantation with much
lower wildlife values.
The below pyramids highlight how managing to MSY can truncate the
population potential.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Rather than managing for maximum harvest under the MSY model,
recreational anglers would prefer to be managed for maximum encounter
rate, which is more in line with the premise of Optimal Yield (OY),
with the ``yield'' being abundant fish of all sizes in the population
to provide encounters and an enjoyable fishing experience--not
necessarily harvest. Unfortunately, the Gulf Council has often used OY
and MSY interchangeably. A good example is with king mackerel in the
Gulf. Although the commercial sector harvests their quota every year,
the recreational sector leaves much of our quota in the water. While
there have been discussions to reallocate more king mackerel to the
commercial sector in the name of maximizing the economic benefits to
the nation, or OY, recreational anglers argue that we are achieving OY
because of the opportunity created by leaving fish in the water. When
most of the easily accessible reef fish seasons are closed, king
mackerel are readily available for anyone who just wants to enjoy a day
on the water with family and friends catching fish. Those trips for
king mackerel, regardless if any harvest occurs, result in a
significant economic value to the Nation.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
Anthony ``Tony'' Friedrich
Question 1. Changing Environment: Your written testimony
highlighted the importance of conservation and ``putting fish first''.
With the recent hurricanes, we are hearing about record warm ocean
water and impacts on weather, but we are not hearing about how warm
ocean water and changing ocean chemistry are impacting fisheries. How
do changing conditions in the environment, like increases in water
temperatures, affect fish stocks?
Answer. There are multiple effects of climate change on fish,
including impacts to prey availability, increasing low oxygen zones,
and a host of others. The warming of ocean waters is already having a
profound effect on the distribution of marine organisms, especially
fish. Marine species respond to changing temperatures by changing their
geographic distribution and depth range. In response to warming,
normally temperate species are moving to higher latitudes, either due
to active migration or due to changes in productivity of local
populations.\1\ Studies have documented the worldwide shift of fish
toward the poles and to deeper water as they seek cooler water.\2\ In
addition to shifting stocks in response to temperature changes, one of
the important ways in which fish population productivity is affected by
climate change is through impacts on recruitment success.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Anne B. Hollowed et al., Projected Impacts of Climate Change on
Marine Fish and Fisheries, 70 ICES J. Marine Sci. 1023, 1027 tbl. 1
(2013) (citing Pierre Petitgas et al., Anchovy Population Expansion in
the North Sea, 444 Marine Ecology Progress Series 1 (2012)).
\2\ See, e.g., Richard D. Norris et al., Marine Ecosystem Reponses
to Cenozoic Global Change, 2 Sci. 492 (2013); Malin L. Pinsky et al.,
Marine Taxa Track Local Climate Velocities, 13 Sci. 1239 (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The effects of warming oceans can both provide new opportunities
and burden traditional fisheries.
Black sea bass produce larger year classes if young-of-the-year
fish encounter warm, saline waters at the edge of the continental
shelf, where they spend their first winter.\3\ Recent warming off the
northeast coast produced a very large 2011 year class, and reportedly a
dominant 2015 year class as well.\4\ As a result, recreational anglers
in northeastern states are encountering, and harvesting, more black sea
bass than they did in the past.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 2017, 62nd Northeast
Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (62nd SAW) Assessment Report, (US
Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc 17-03, 822 p. Available
from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole,
MA 02543-1026, or online at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/,
p.5
\4\ Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Summer Flounder, Scup
and Black Sea Bass Monitoring Committee Webinar Meeting Summary--Black
Sea Bass, July 24, 2017, available at https://static1.squarespace.com/
static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/597b66d87131a590b17806
b3/1501259484291/Tab08_BSB-Specifications-Review.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Massachusetts, the northernmost state with an established black
sea bass fishery, anglers landed about 59,000 black sea bass in 2001.
That number increased to 105,000 fish in 2006, 195,000 fish in 2011 and
392,000 fish in 2016.\5\ While some of that increase is attributable to
Federal fisheries managers' successful rebuilding of the black sea bass
stock pursuant to Magnuson-Stevens, much of it, particularly over the
past decade, is undoubtedly due to the effects of warming water, both
over the continental shelf and in the inshore waters of southern New
England.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Personal communication from the National Marine Fisheries
Service, Fisheries Statistics Division, October 6, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cod, on the other hand, are suffering from New England's warming
seas, which may be making it more difficult to rebuild the badly
overfished cod stocks. There is research suggesting that warming waters
has decreased the number of certain copepods, a type of zooplankton on
which larval cod feed, in the Gulf of Maine, and that the loss of such
copepods has negatively impacted the number of cod recruited into the
population.\6\ Other research conducted in the Gulf of Maine has found
that there is a strong correlation between rising water temperatures
and declining cod recruitment,\7\ with the disruption of the food web
again the probable cause. The impacts of warming waters have
complicated the fishery management process, reducing the effects of
regulatory measures intended to rebuild cod stocks and rendering the
species far less available to anglers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Friedland, Kevin D., et al, ``Thermal habitat constraints on
zooplankton species associated with Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) on the
U.S. Northeast Continental Shelf,'' Progress in Oceanography, Vol. 116,
Sept. 2013, pp. 1-13.
\7\ Pershing, Andrew J., et al, ``Slow adaptation in the face of
rapid warming leads to collapse of Gulf of Maine cod fishery,''
Science, Vol. 350, Issue 6262, November 2015, pp. 809-812
Question 2. Changing Environment: What can we do to better manage
and continue to make sure we ``put the fish first'' under these
changing conditions?
Answer. In the Mid-Atlantic and New England, I support efforts to
ensure that councils are coordinating when stock cross council
jurisdictions. Stocks are already shifting and we need to adapt.
In addition, NMFS has taken steps to further the use of ecosystem-
based fishery management (EBFM) approaches. For example, the agency has
an EBFM Policy and Road Map. Ecosystem-based management is achievable
under existing law, and for more than a decade numerous experts have
been recommending a shift to an ecosystem approach.\8\ Congress has
acknowledged the importance of an ecosystem-based fishery management
approach, requiring the Secretary of Commerce in the last two Magnuson-
Stevens Act reauthorizations to develop recommendations and identify
needs for a successful transition.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See, e.g., Joint Ocean Comm'n Initiative, From Sea to Shining
Sea: Priorities for Ocean Policy Reform 6 (2006), Pew Oceans Comm'n,
America's Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change, at x (2003);
U.S. Comm'n on Ocean Policy, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century 63
(2004).
\9\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1882 (2012); Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006, Pub. L. No.
109-479, Sec. 210, 101 Stat. 3575, 3617 (2007); Sustainable Fisheries
Act, Pub. L. No. 104-297, Sec. 207, 110 Stat. 3559, 3612 (1996) (prior
to 2007 amendment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some Councils are taking concrete steps to adapt management for
current and future impacts of climate change. For example, the North
Pacific and Pacific Regional Fishery Management Councils have used
Fishery Ecosystem Plans (FEPs) to catalog and assess ecosystem
considerations, including increasing climate change impacts, alongside
traditional FMPs.
Another way to ``put fish first'' is to use new and innovative
tools to protect forage species, to learn more about age and size
distribution of managed stocks, and to evaluate management strategies
to ensure managers are protecting key stocks while fulfilling
management objectives. We also need to protect fish habitat from
destructive fishing practices and other damaging human activities to
ensure that fish have safe places to breed, feed, grow, and take
shelter. And we need to conserve forage fish, the primary food source
for many larger fish species that support U.S. fisheries.
Councils are already doing some very innovative things that suit
their particular needs, and I'm encouraged to see this innovation
continue.
Question 3. Access to Fisheries: The issue of public access to
fisheries was raised during the hearing due to short fishing seasons,
closures of fisheries, and variability in fishing seasons between
years. Many of these measures curtailing access occur because fisherman
are exceeding annual catch limits.
What can be done to better maintain consistent access to
recreational fisheries and support confidence in the recreational
fishing industry?
What examples do you know of where public access and conservation
were balanced effectively and what policies made those situations a
success?
Answer. There is probably nothing as difficult as managing a
recovering fishery. Even when the population is still well below
managers' target, fish abundance is greater than anglers' have
previously experienced, and such abundance draws more anglers into the
fishery, resulting in higher recreational landings and,
counterintuitively, to more restrictive regulations at a time that fish
appear to be becoming more abundant. That seeming contradiction leads
to angler discontent, which is then exacerbated when various ``anglers'
rights'' organizations and industry trade groups make irresponsible
statements about the Federal fishery management system being
``broken.''
The solution to such problem is evasive. As stated, the primary
cause is angler overharvest, the result of too many anglers, or at
least too many angler trips, directed at too few fish to sustainably
support the fishing pressure. However, in each fishery, the exact
causes differ, and one solution will not fit all.
Of all the recreational fisheries in the United States, none
exemplify this problem more than Gulf of Mexico red snapper, and none
better illustrate the problems that fishery managers confront. On one
hand, the red snapper population is rebuilding well, although because
the snapper is a long-lived, late-maturing species, the population
wasn't expected to fully recover until the early 2030s. On the other
hand, the increasing abundance, after a period when the spawning stock
had declined to extremely low levels, has resulted in a sharp increase
in angler success; recreational fishermen are now catching more and
larger red snapper than they have ever before in their lifetimes. Such
success results in the entire recreational quota, which constitutes 49
percent of the overall annual catch limit, being caught in a very short
time. The situation is made worse by states which establish far more
liberal state-waters regulations than those in force in Federal waters.
For example, while Federal regulators originally established a 3-day
season, 16-inch minimum size and 2-fish bag limit, Texas anglers,
fishing in state waters, enjoy a 365-day season, 15-inch minimum size
and 4-fish bag. Although other states' rules are more restrictive, they
remain liberal enough that managers predicted that 80 percent of all
red snapper caught in 2017 would be landed in state waters.
Thus, while the recreational community criticizes Federal fisheries
managers for the ever-shortening length of the Federal red snapper
season, the problem is actually caused by the states. Because red
snapper are managed as a single stock throughout the Gulf, and fishing
mortality represents an aggregate of all red snapper harvested, whether
in state or Federal waters, when the states adopt longer seasons and
other more liberal regulations, they compel the National Marine
Fisheries Service to compensate by adopting a short Federal season, in
an effort to keep landings within the recreational catch limit. That
effort often fails as a result of too many fish being landed in state
waters, which then leads to even more restrictive regulations in the
following season.
In such situation, the only way to provide anglers a greater
opportunity to fish for red snapper in Federal waters is to convince
the states, either through argument or the coercive provisions of
Magnuson-Stevens,\10\ to conform their regulations to the Federal
standard. Without such state cooperation, Federal managers have no
viable means to provide a longer Federal season while preventing
overfishing and continuing to rebuild the stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Magnuson-Stevens provides that if a fishery is predominantly
prosecuted in Federal or international waters, and a state takes
actions that ``substantially and adversely'' frustrate the National
Marine Fisheries Service's ability to carry out its fishery management
plan, NMFS may preempt state management authority within state waters.
16 U.S.C. 1856(b). Such provision would clearly be applicable to the
recreational red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, although
invoking it is probably politically impracticable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When stocks have already been rebuilt, the problem is easier due to
a greater abundance of fish. We have seen that first-hand in the Mid-
Atlantic, where six consecutive years of below-average recruitment
caused summer flounder abundance to decline, but remain abundant enough
that a modest increase in the size limit and modest decrease in the bag
limit allowed the season to remain open throughout most of the
traditional harvest period. Although such measures were heavily
criticized by some organizations who were unwilling to accept any
additional strictures at all, and partially frustrated when the
Secretary of Commerce overturned the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission's efforts to impose needed measures on New Jersey's
recreational fishery,\11\ they allowed anglers to prosecute the
recreational summer flounder fishery throughout the summer season while
generally assuring the future health of the stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, ``Department
of Commerce's Decision May Impact ASMFC's Ability to Conserve Atlantic
Coast Fisheries,'' July 14, 2017, available at http://www.asmfc.org/
uploads/file/5968fe9dpr29SummerFlounderNJCompliance.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Managing the recreational summer flounder fishery was also made
easier because anglers had an alternative species readily available to
them, which in many areas could be caught in conjunction with summer
flounder. That was the black sea bass which, due to both good
management and favorable spawning conditions, is at a high level of
abundance, and could support a shift of effort from the summer flounder
fishery. As a result, 2016 black sea bass regulations could be carried
over into 2017 despite higher recreational landings.
Thus, the lessons offered by the summer flounder and black sea bass
fisheries is that abundance matters, and that it is not enough to have
a single species at high levels of abundance; by diligently restoring a
number of species to a level near or even well above target levels,
managers create a sort of safety valve that allows angling effort to
shift from species to species as needed, and does not require any
restored species to be subject to very restrictive management measures.
Both Mid-Atlantic black sea bass and summer flounder also provide
good examples of species that were at low levels of abundance two or
three decades ago, but were rebuilt after the 1996 reauthorization of
Magnuson-Stevens prohibited overfishing and mandated that stocks had to
be rebuilt in a time certain. The rebuilding of both species, summer
flounder in particular, was controversial, again because there are
elements within the recreational fishing community who are unwilling to
accept even the most badly needed regulation. However, in the case of
both species, reasonable fishing seasons were maintained throughout
rebuilding period, although for a year or two anglers were forced to
accept very restrictive bag and size limits in exchange for an adequate
summer flounder season.
It should be noted that managers' ability to strike a balance
between the conservation needs of a rebuilding stock and fishing
seasons reasonably acceptable to anglers is driven less by policy than
by the life history of the species in question. Such balance was
possible in the summer flounder and black sea bass fisheries because
both species mature relatively early, and are relatively short-lived,
and thus can rebuild at higher fishing mortality rates. In the case of
red snapper, biology ties managers hands, as they are dealing with a
fish that can live for more than 50 years, doesn't begin to make a
material contribution to the spawning stock until it reaches 7 years of
age, and even then doesn't reach its prime spawning potential until
move than 10 years old. In the case of such long-lived, late-maturing
species, regulations will necessarily be restrictive if the stock is to
rebuild; a policy of cooperation between state and Federal managers
will help somewhat, but even full cooperation will not lead to the
months-long seasons that anglers enjoyed years ago, seasons which, in
the last analysis, were a major cause of the stock's decline.
Question 4. National Standard Guidelines Update: Several folks
today have called for more flexibility in fisheries management,
although your testimony has cautioned too much flexibility. In October
2016, NOAA issued an update to the National Standard 1 Guidelines to
provide more options and give fisheries management some of the
requested flexibility.
What reactions have you seen to this update and the flexibility
that it provides to management?
How long do you think it will take to see the full implementation
of the is update and its subsequent results?
Does this update to the National Standard 1 Guidelines go far
enough in providing flexibility in your opinion? Or does it go too far?
Answer. Before answering these questions in detail, it is probably
best to observe that the National Standard 1 Guidelines are just what
their name suggests, guidelines for implementing National Standard 1,
and do not in themselves constitute a change to the statute. Thus,
rather than providing additional flexibility to Magnuson-Stevens, the
updated guidelines instead illustrate how much flexibility already
exists in the law, and why additional legislation to increase
flexibility in Federal fishery management is not needed.
Reactions from various angling organizations and trade associations
to the update has generally been favorable, while some conservation
organizations have expressed concern that some of the provisions will
entice regional fishery management councils to manage at the margins of
what Magnuson-Stevens allows, and take a less precautionary approach in
fishery management plans, and their various amendments and frameworks.
Full implementation of the update will probably be a gradual
process. In fisheries which have been functioning well, are at or near
target abundance levels and largely free from overfishing, such as Mid-
Atlantic bluefish or scup, the update will probably have little or no
near-term impact on management plans. However, with respect to large
multi-species plans, such as New England Multi-species or Gulf of
Mexico Reef Fish, regional fishery management councils may quickly
resort to provisions of the update to address data-poor species within
a species complex, new scientific information or the problems of
rebuilding depleted stocks within a stock complex without placing
unnecessary restrictions on other fisheries. In all cases,
implementation of the update will probably occur on an ad hoc basis,
driven by the characteristics and issues that define individual
fisheries.
As mentioned earlier in this response, the update does not provide
additional flexibility, but rather illustrates the flexibility that is
already inherent in Magnuson-Stevens. Some provisions of the update may
help fishery managers, by demonstrating that some so-called
``alternative management measures'' such as managing by control rule or
fishing mortality rate, as opposed to hard-poundage quotas, may already
be employed in recreational fisheries, so long as overfishing does not
occur and overfished stocks may still promptly recover. Other
provisions, such as the use of multi-year averaging and the alternate
approaches for calculating the maximum time to rebuild an overfished
stock (assuming that such stock cannot be rebuilt within 10 years), may
tempt regional fishery management councils to use such provisions to
put off addressing overfishing issues or delay the rebuilding of
overfished stocks. However, so long as overfishing is ultimately
avoided and stocks are rebuilt within the prescribed period, there
should be few concerns about stock health.
Question 5. Forage Fish Management: In the hearing, the benefits of
managing forage fish were clearly made as well as the negative
consequences of when their populations get too low.
Can you elaborate on what policies you have advocated in the Mid-
Atlantic and describe what changes were made to lead to the stunning
success in bringing back the forage fish for larger fish, osprey, and
to the benefit of the larger ecosystem?
How should the Magnuson-Stevens Act give additional treatment to
forage fish management?
Answer. There are two different success stories with regard to
forage fish in the Mid-Atlantic.
The first addresses Atlantic menhaden, a species managed by the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). Originally,
menhaden were essentially unmanaged, with both the management board and
its scientific advisors dominated by members of the menhaden
industry,\12\ which assured ASMFC that all was well with the stock.
However, observations by anglers and various conservation organizations
determined that menhaden abundance had declined, and those observations
led to a decades-long effort to manage menhaden sustainably, in
accordance with reference points established by a team of independent
biologists. That was first accomplished in 2012.\13\ Since then,
menhaden have become noticeably more abundant along the Mid-Atlantic
and New England coasts, which in turn has attracted a plethora of
predators, ranging from striped bass to ospreys to humpback whales,
into nearshore waters, where they feed on the menhaden schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Fishery
Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden, 1981, available at http://
www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/1981MenhadenFMP.pdf.
\13\ Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Amendment 2 to
the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden, 2012,
available at http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/
atlanticMenhadenAmendment2_Dec2012.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other success story involves the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council's recent adoption of an Omnibus Unmanaged Forage
Fish Amendment, which ``freezes the footprint'' of existing fisheries
and prevents the creation of new fisheries targeting forage fish until
it can be demonstrated that such fisheries can be prosecuted without
disrupting the relevant ecosystem. While it is too early to determine
the impact of such newly-adopted amendment, the decision to protect
both forage species and their predators from unsustainable fisheries
marks the next logical step forward in ecosystem-based fishery
management.
As good stewards of the resource, we have to understand that when
we harvest species that are low on the trophic level, we impact the
entire ecosystem. Single species management does not work well for
forage species. That is, we can't manage menhaden based on ``how many
can we remove so that there is some left over for next year''. Forage
species need to be managed based on their ecological importance. We
must dig deep and embrace new forage management strategies that account
for the predatory species dependant on healthy levels of prey items.
Question 6. M-RIP: When the Magnuson-Stevens Act was last
reauthorized, Congress directed NOAA to overhaul its recreational
angler survey methodology with a ``goal of achieving acceptable
accuracy and utility'' for recreational fisheries. NOAA responded with
the creation of the Marine Recreational Information Program (M-RIP). In
January 2017, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine published a review of M-RIP and found major progress in
improving the data collection methodology.
What are your experiences and observations regarding M-RIP compared
to the old Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey?
During the hearing, M-RIP was called a ``terrible data system'';
could you provide a counter to the various points made in the argument
against M-RIP?
How could M-RIP move toward being a workable tool for in-season
management?
What role might technology play in improving M-RIP, data
collection, and recreational fisheries management more broadly?
Answer. The MRIP methodology, which provides 24-hour coverage of
fishing locations and does not give interviewers discretion to change
sampling locations, will serve to both capture data that was missed by
MRFSS, which did not sample anglers fishing outside of typical 9-to-5
``working hours'' and to eliminate sampling bias created when
interviewers left less-frequented sampling locations in favor of areas
with more anglers, and perhaps different rates of angling success.
Those two changes will go a long way to improve the accuracy of field
surveys of anglers. In addition, MRFSS' telephone survey of coastal
households, designed to gauge angling effort, is being replaced by a
mail survey of known anglers (from license/registration records
maintained by each state) and coastal households. Research has
demonstrated that mail surveys will provide both a better response rate
and more accurate data, while mailing to a list of known anglers will
provide more intercepts of people who actually went fishing during a
two-month sampling ``wave,'' and so will also help to provide more
accurate information.
Criticism of MRIP generally addresses the perceived inaccuracy of
the data provided. To the extent that such criticism is justified, it
arises out of sampling that is inadequate to accurately gauge the
harvest of seldom-encountered species or species with a very short
fishing season. That is because the accuracy of MRIP is directly
related to the number of samples; to increase the accuracy of the
survey, it will be necessary to increase the number of samples taken;
such increase can either be coastwide, or spatially and temporally
limited in order to more accurately estimate landings in a particular
place during the course of a short season. More generally, critics who
call MRIP a ``terrible data system'' are in direct opposition to the
National Academies report, which gave the program a generally favorable
review, although some improvements to it are probably still needed.
The question of ``in-season management'' largely addresses a
problem that doesn't exist. Very few East Coast recreational fisheries
are subject to in-season closures when a particular number of fish are
harvested. The only one that comes to mind is bluefin tuna, where
harvest is governed by quotas assigned by the International Commission
for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, and landings are estimated
through a dedicated Highly Migratory Species program, rather than MRIP.
Virtually all other East Coast fisheries, including that for Gulf of
Mexico red snapper, are subject to regulatory schemes that establish
size limits, bag limits and seasons prior to the opening of the season,
and estimates landings once the season has closed. That being said,
adopting MRIP for in-season management would require that the number of
angler intercepts be significantly increased, in order to obtain an
accurate picture of landings, and that both the results of intercepts
and angler surveys be made within a much shorter time period than the
current two-month waves. Louisiana's state program, LACreel, which is
designed in coordination with MRIP, is an example of how that could be
successfully accomplished.
The question of how technology could be used to improve
recreational landings is a difficult question to answer. Allowing
anglers to voluntarily provide data creates a significant issue of
bias, as not all anglers would be entering data, and there is no way to
be sure that the anglers who do provide such data are representative of
the larger angling community. In addition, there is no way to be sure
that the data provided is accurate. Mandatory angler reporting sounds
like a viable answer, but compliance with such requirements has
historically been poor. NMFS estimates that only about 20 percent of
recreational bluefin tuna anglers report their harvest, even though
such reporting is required. Alabama's experience with mandatory red
snapper reporting reflects a similar experience; over the last two
years of the program, the highest compliance rates were only about 30
percent, while just 7 percent of Alabama red snapper anglers are
believed to have reported their catch during the 2017 Federal red
snapper season. Larger vessels, such as party and perhaps charter
boats, might be subject to the same sort of electronic reporting that
will be required of commercial vessels, with the cockpit videotaped to
record all fish brought aboard, mandatory vessel trip reports completed
before the boat returns to the dock and electronic monitoring devices
to determine when the vessel is away from the dock and where it is
fishing. However, the question then arises of whether the expense
connected with such electronic monitoring is justified by the
information provided.
Question 7. Improving MSA: At the hearing, a witness from your
panel was asked to comment on why you were ``wrong'' about the
improvements made to the Magnuson-Stevens Act when it was last
reauthorized. Unfortunately, you weren't able to respond, and so I'd
like to give you that opportunity.
How have annual catch limits and other improvements to the
Magnuson-Stevens Act benefited anglers like you?
Given your experience as the former executive director of CCA
Maryland, why do you think some in the recreational fishing industry
are now advocating against policies they supported during the last
reauthorization?
Answer. The most recent reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens
completed the work that was begun in 1996. Prior to the 1996
reauthorization, regional fishery management councils were not required
to develop management plans that were likely to end overfishing and
rebuild fish stocks; maximum sustainable yield could be exceeded if
justified by economic and other considerations. As a result, fish
stocks were not rebuilt, and the health of many fell into deep decline.
The 1996 reauthorization, bolstered by a Federal appellate court
decision that found that fishery management plans must have at least a
50 percent probability of achieving their goals, ended overfishing in
many fisheries and initiated the recovery of a number of stocks.
However, overfishing still occurred in many fisheries, most notably
those overseen by the New England Fishery Management Council.
By requiring that annual catch limits be established for every
fishery, prohibiting the councils from setting such limits higher than
the allowable biological catch established by their science and
statistical committees and imposing accountability measures in the
event that such limits were exceeded, the most recent reauthorization
imposed needed discipline on the fishery management process. Fishermen
had a defined quota, based on the best available science, that they
could not exceed, and faced the consequences imposed by the
accountability measures should they land too many fish. Such discipline
has led to additional management successes in the decade since that
reauthorization occurred.
As a recreational fishermen, these catch limits help me fish
responsibly by knowing when and how many fish I can catch to take home,
or when I simply need to fish for catch and release. It's about fishing
responsibly and only taking your fair share.
Critics of Magnuson-Stevens chafe at the strictures imposed by
hard-poundage annual catch limits, but cannot point to a more
successful model for fisheries management. Some recreational
organizations advocate for a Federal management system that resembles
the flexible approach taken by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission, which does not impose hard quotas on recreational
fishermen. However, it is important to note that since 2000, Federal
managers, adhering to the changes in the law made during the two most
recent reauthorizations of Magnuson-Stevens, have successfully restored
41 once-overfished populations, while ASMFC has failed to rebuild a
single fish stock.
CCA Maryland made a difference in the Chesapeake Bay. The
volunteers were tireless stewards of the resource. It is quite a task
to stay up to date on fisheries policies in your own state, much less
high level Federal issues. Even the best volunteers have only so much
time to dedicate. These major shifts have one root cause, red snapper.
Recreational anglers in the Gulf States are frustrated with the
situation. They don't feel they have the same access as other sectors.
Anglers are experiencing large numbers of red snapper, in some cases
more than they have ever seen. Yet, they aren't allowed to keep them.
The fish seem abundant because they have been overfished for so long.
Red snapper still need time to recover but people want them now. This
feeds the narrative that recreational anglers don't matter. The
rhetoric has become inflamed and science is taking it on the chin. The
situation has created a high level of distrust, hence the desire for
state management. On the Federal level, they feel that there is no
other option left but to make drastic changes to Manguson. We can't let
management challenges push us backwards. My only agenda is to improve
fisheries for future generations. The rec industry has an incredible
opportunity to do the right thing for young fishermen. Let's hope they
decide to make the most of it.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to
Anthony ``Tony'' Friedrich
Question 1. Climate Change: Mr. Friedrich, the effects of climate
change on our oceans, fisheries and marine life are being studied all
over the United States. In Massachusetts, the Waquoit Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve, the Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank
National Marine Sanctuary, the New England Aquarium, and dozens of
colleges and universities are leading the way on this scientific
research.
The fishing industry is already seeing impacts that some of these
researchers have found--The Gulf of Maine is the fastest warming body
of water in the United States and fishermen have already seen species
including black sea bass, scup, yellowtail flounder, mackerel, herring
and monkfish moving northward towards cooler waters. A recent study
estimated that global fisheries may lose as much as $41 billion in
landings by 2050 due to the effects of climate change.
How are the managers of the recreational fishing industry,
including NOAA's Marine Recreational Information Program, responding to
changes in our recreational fishing industry as a result of climate
change?
What flexibility exists in recreational fisheries management to
handle species moving as a result of climate change?
Answer. Recreational fishery managers aren't taking any direct
action to address climate change's impacts on the recreational fishing
industry. However, climate change's impacts on the fishery is addressed
indirectly, on a species-by-species basis.
For example, black sea bass produce larger year classes if young-
of-the-year fish encounter warm, saline waters at the edge of the
continental shelf, where they spend their first winter.\14\ Recent
warming off the northeast coast produced a very large 2011 year class,
and reportedly a dominant 2015 year class as well.\15\ The 2016 stock
assessment acknowledged the high biomass of the stock, and as a result,
fishery managers permitted a 52 percent increase in black sea bass
landings.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 2017, 62nd Northeast
Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (62nd SAW) Assessment Report, (US
Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc 17-03, 822 p. Available
from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole,
MA 02543-1026, or online at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/,
p.5
\15\ Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Summer Flounder, Scup
and Black Sea Bass Monitoring Committee Webinar Meeting Summary--Black
Sea Bass, July 24, 2017, available at https://static1.squarespace.com/
static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/597b66d87131a590b17806
b3/1501259484291/Tab08_BSB-Specifications-Review.pdf
\16\ Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Summer Flounder, Scup
and Black Sea Bass Monitoring Committee: January 26, 2017, 2017-2019
Black Sea Bass Specifications and 2017 Black Sea Bass Recreational
Measures, available at https://static1.squarespace.com/static/
511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/5893a752579fb35d028370e1/1486071639873/
Tab06_BSB-Specifications.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Such increases in abundance and the corresponding increase in
recreational landings are detected by the Marine Recreational
Information Program (MRIP), and are translated into regulatory changes
for the relevant species. In the case of black sea bass, the increasing
abundance has led to sharply increased recreational landings in states
between Massachusetts and New Jersey, which in recent years resulted in
more restrictive bag limits, size limits and seasons; such increased
landings would have led to extremely restrictive recreational
regulations in 2017, had the 2016 stock assessment not assured fishery
managers that the stock was abundant enough to allow 2016 regulations
to be carried forward for another year.
However, MRIP has not been accurate, and thus not as effective a
management tool, as it could be due to the concept of ``conservation
equivalency'' \17\ applied to the black sea bass and other fisheries
which are prosecuted in both state and Federal waters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Conservation
Equivalency: Policy and Technical Guidance Document, 2016, available at
http://www.asmfc.org/files/pub/Conservation
EquivalencyGuidance_2016.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act's National Standard 3 requires that ``To the extent practicable, an
individual stock of fish shall be managed as a unit throughout its
range,'' \18\ recreational fisheries regulations in the Mid-Atlantic
the East Coast are often set by the states acting through the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), which permits states to set
regulations unique to each jurisdiction, provided that such regulations
are ``conservationally equivalent'' to those in the governing fishery
management plan. Such regulations often vary not only by state, but
also, within each state, by two month ``wave'' and/or by sector (shore,
private/rental boat, for-hire vessels), resulting in MRIP surveyors
interviewing a handful of anglers for each state, sector and wave.
Since increasing the sampling size decreases MRIP's sampling error,\19\
varying state, wave and sector regulations decreases the number of
samples that can be obtained for each different set of rules, and thus
increases the error inherent in the survey. Thus, it can be difficult
to craft regulations that reflect the current state of the fishery in
each jurisdiction, resulting in angler dissatisfaction when the
regulations don't seem to correspond to what they believe they see on
the water. Eliminating such conservation equivalency for federally-
managed fish stocks would allow the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) to more accurately gauge recreational landings and so devise
regulations that would better manage stocks, in accordance with
National Standard 3, as warming waters cause local changes in
abundance, and provide greater flexibility on a coastwide basis, as
individual states would not be locked into jurisdiction-based
recreational catch limits, based on inadequate harvest data, that fail
to account for populations expanding north as waters warm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(3)
\19\ NOAA Office of Science and Technology, Marine Recreational
Information Program Data Users' Handbook, p.43, available at http://
www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/recreational-fisheries/MRIP-Handbook/
MRIP_handbook.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, in both commercial and recreational fisheries, NMFS
must have the ability to change regional allocations based on the
current distribution of fish, and not be locked into landings patterns
established when oceanographic conditions were very different than they
are today.
Summer flounder provide a good example of why such changes are
needed. The current commercial allocation is based on landings for the
years 1980-1989,\20\ when the stock was in steep decline and most
landings were made in the Mid-Atlantic states, while the primary
recreational allocation (which has recently been modified by ASMFC, on
an ad hoc basis, to permit regional management \21\) was based on
landings in a single year, 1998.\22\ Although changes in both summer
flounder abundance and oceanographic conditions have changed in the
decades since, moving the center of abundance farther north,
allocations have not been permanently adjusted to account for the
impacts of a warming ocean, a failure that has been particularly
harmful to commercial and recreational fishermen at the northern extent
of the specie's range, who have seen traditional groundfish species
disappear while Mid-Atlantic species become more abundant, but have not
been granted sufficient ability to target the latter fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Hicks, Robert and Kurt Schnier, ``Commercial and Recreational
Allocation for Summer Flounder,'' 2017, p. 8, available at https://
static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307
a2628ac6/t/592589ef893fc0277a45e2fb/1495632370514/
summer_flounder_report_final_4_11_
2017.pdf
\21\ Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Addendum XXVII to
the Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan,
2017, available at http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/
58b5cf80SummerFlounderAddendumXXVIII_Feb2017.pdf
\22\ Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Addendum VIII to
the Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan,
2003, available at https://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/addendumVIII.pdf
Question 2. Science for Recreational Fisheries: In your testimony
you describe how the Marine Recreational Information Program gathers
catch and other data from state surveys to determine recreational
fishery management decisions. Would providing more funding for this
program improve the critical science needed for recreational fisheries
management decisions?
Answer. Yes. Additional funding, used to conduct additional angler
interviews, would substantially reduce error in MRIP data.
The National Academy of Sciences recently reviewed MRIP and found
that the program has made ``impressive progress'' in providing reliable
catch data for management.\23\ Increased funding for MRIP would allow
the experts working there to implement plans to improve the timeliness
and accuracy of data, addressing the need for better in-season data for
fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Review-Marine-Recreational-
Information/24640
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned in the response to the previous question, MRIP's
accuracy depends on the number of anglers interviewed. If additional
funding made a significantly greater number of interviews possible, the
error inherent in MRIP estimates could be substantially reduced. In
addition, by conducting more and more frequent interviews, fishery
managers would be better able to address both fish that are caught less
frequently than some other species and those fish, such as Gulf of
Mexico red snapper, that are caught during short fishing seasons that
aren't adequately sampled through the current MRIP protocols.
Question 3. Public Education on Fishing Laws: Recreational
fishermen are traditionally very conservation minded and want to follow
fishing regulations. However there can be inadvertent noncompliance by
anglers since state and Federal regulations change depending what
waters they are fishing in and the time of year. Supported by NOAA
funding, Scott Steinback in Woods Hole, Massachusetts helped develop an
app for smart phones called Fish Rules. This free app helps anglers
easily understand what regulations they need to follow because it
determines which fishing regulations apply to the angler wherever they
are, using the GPS and calendar in the angler's smartphone. Even though
this app is only a year old, 20,000 to 35,000 people were checking this
app a day in June and July of this year. How can these sort of efforts
be expanded upon and what sort of future do you see for this app and
other emerging technologies in recreational fishing?
Answer. Apps such as the one mentioned, Fish Rules, can only help
anglers comply with fishing regulations. As more species of fish are
being subject to more intricate regulations which, as mentioned above,
may differ from state to state and from month to month, and may even
differ depending on whether an angler is fishing from a boat or from
shore, having a handy app that allows such angler to check on the
applicable regulations would be beneficial. The evolution of technology
holds great potential for recreational fisheries management. In 2010,
Florida lost 70 percent of the entire snook population in just a few
days. Florida experienced extremely cold weather which is deadly for
snook. Recreational anglers stepped up and worked with FWC to provide
catch and effort data for snook recovery. The Snook and Gamefish
Foundation employs iAngler as a data tool not just a regulation
reference. \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ http://snookfoundation.org/news/research/561-iangler.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reasoning behind creating the program was explained by Rick
Roberts, Executive Director of SGF. ``With the threat of longstanding
fishing closures, the time was right for recreational anglers at large
to stop being viewed as the problem.'' A program was needed to bring
recreational anglers into the process. In its infancy the program was a
combination of an on-the-water data collection form and online logbook.
Anglers recorded timely catch data on the form and then use their
computer to upload it to the collection site.''
After years of recreational anglers providing data for snook, the
fishery was allowed to be reopened two years before predicted. While
not perfect, we need to give technology a chance. It could be a way to
get recreational anglers involved while working towards greater
accountability for the recreational sector.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Cory Booker to
Anthony ``Tony'' Friedrich
Question 1. A common theme in much of the testimony at this hearing
was the need for good science to inform management decisions. We are
fortunate to have some of the best scientists and researchers informing
every management decision--from adjusting catch limits on a given
fishery in a given season, to figuring out how to confront the big
global challenges like climate change and ocean acidification.
Particularly when you have legislation introduced that deals with
things like how data collection should be improved and how to best
conserve the resource while still allowing access, I don't see how we
can have that conversation without science being at the very center.
Under National Standard 2 of the Magnuson Act, all conservation and
management measures for all fisheries are to be based on the best
scientific information available. NOAA's guidelines provide a robust
process for councils and Statistical and Scientific Committees to
follow when determining what constitutes best available science. This
process is based on recommendations from the National Academy of
Sciences.
Should we be legislating what constitutes best available science
under the Magnuson Act, or should we leave these crucial decisions to
the agency, councils, and SSCs that have well-honed expertise in this
area? More generally, how can we ensure that fisheries management
continues to be a process based on sound science?
Answer. ``Science'' represents an orderly approach to obtaining and
organizing information with a minimum of bias, and testing that
information to determine whether or not it is true. The scientific
collection of data requires that such data be collected in a systematic
matter designed to minimize bias, that any biases that might have
arisen in the collection of such data be identified and quantified,
that such data is analyzed in a statistically valid manner and,
ultimately, that the data collection process, the adequacy of the data
for fishery management purposes and the conclusions drawn from such
data be subject to rigorous, independent peer review to determine its
validity. That is the process currently employed by the National Marine
Fisheries Service.
Unfortunately, there is pending legislation that would water down
such a rigorous scientific approach, and mandate that seeks to
facilitate ``greater incorporation of data, analysis, stock
assessments, and surveys from State agencies and nongovernmental
sources,'' with such ``nongovernmental sources'' to include both
fishermen and fishing communities,\25\ without any requirement that
such parties demonstrate their competence to collect data in a
systematic or unbiased manner, or their qualifications to perform
analyses, stock assessments, etc. Requiring that such dubious data be
incorporated into the fishery management process, rather than leaving
judgement calls on the appropriateness of various data sets to trained
fisheries professionals, is contrary to the scientific approach and
could only dilute the quality of the information on which fisheries
decisions are based.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ H.R. 2023, the Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management
Act of 2017, available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/
house-bill/2023/text
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure that fishery management decisions continue to be based on
sound science, data should be gathered by or under the supervision of
scientists, analyzed by scientists, and peer reviewed by scientists,
who are allowed to act with complete freedom from the pressures that
might be applied by persons or organizations seeking a conclusion that
would benefit their particular interests. There's a real opportunity to
bridge the gap between scientists and recreational anglers through the
use of data and effort collection via smart phone apps. The anglers can
participate in a meaningful way while the scientists can get real time
information to better manage the resource. While there's so concern
over inherent statistical bias, there are some success stories like
snook that can't be ignored.
We absolutely should NOT be legislating what constitutes best
available science under the MSA. These are decisions that are properly
left to the expertise of the agency and SSCs. Legislating what science
can or should be used would reduce the ability of our management system
to adapt to new scientific developments, would discourage innovation,
and likely increase the uncertainty of our scientific estimates, which
could result in reduced catch levels for fishermen. That process is
best left with the scientists and peer review.
National Standard 2 of the MSA requires that ``Conservation and
management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information
available.'' \26\ In 2013, NOAA Fisheries released revised guidelines,
informed by input from the National Academy of Sciences, for
determining what constitutes ``BSIA.'' \27\ The extensive criteria in
this rule describes a dynamic process for balancing 8 important
considerations (relevance, inclusiveness, objectivity, transparency,
timeliness, verification, validation, and peer review) when determining
what science meets the BSIA standard. This process is not exclusive to
only ``federal'' or ``agency'' science--all relevant data, including
the data from states or non-traditional sources that some are seeking
to legislate into fisheries management--can and are evaluated based on
these criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1851(a)(2).
\27\ National Marine Fisheries Service, National Standard 2, Final
Rule, 78 Fed. Reg. 43066, 43067 (July 19, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the BSIA concept explicitly recognizes that the ideal
amount of scientific evidence for decision making may not be available.
We'd all like to have better data and less uncertainty, but the law and
guidelines are clear--mandatory management decisions should not be
delayed due to limitations in the scientific information or the promise
of future data collection or analysis.\28\ Scientific uncertainty in
fisheries data will never be completely eliminated, and new techniques
and methodologies are being developed all the time
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ National Marine Fisheries Service, National Standard 2, Final
Rule, 78 Fed. Reg. 43066, 43067 (July 19, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to ensure our scientific understanding of our fisheries is
constantly improving, we should invest more in data collection, stock
assessments, monitoring, and enforcement. The scientists and experts in
academia, NOAA Fisheries, and the regions are doing amazing work on
shoe string budgets. Transferring their work to other entities, like
the states or commissions, will only disrupt the science endeavor and
create inefficiency and redundancy. Where possible, NOAA Fisheries
already uses data from states, academic institutions and other experts.
The stumbling block to greater inclusion of this information is often
simply the funding and capacity to ensure those data sets and existing
data sets are properly calibrated and survey designs allow for
comparing ``apples to apples.'' We have one of the best fisheries data
and management systems in the world, and the solution to improving it
is to invest in augmenting the system we have.
Also, let's not forget that this isn't a unique system. Beyond the
MSA, numerous resource management statutes contain a requirement for
the use of the best available science. These include the Endangered
Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Safe Drinking Water
Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, and others. The effectiveness of
``best available science'' standards has been proven not only in the
world of marine fish, but in these other resource management contexts
as well.
Question 2. Current Magnuson law requires a ten-year time-frame for
rebuilding that is provided in the law, with an exception for
situations where rebuilding is not possible within ten years. This ten-
year time-frame is double the amount of time that most stocks need to
rebuild in the absence of fishing, which is generally regarded as an
appropriate outer bound for rebuilding.
Approximately how many rebuilding plans actually are subject to the
ten-year timeframe? In your opinion, does current law provide
sufficient flexibility with regard to rebuilding timelines?
Answer. To clarify, the current law requires stocks to be rebuilt
in as short a time as possible; that time is not to exceed 10 years
except in cases where the biology of the stock, environmental
conditions, or international agreements dictate a longer time-frame is
necessary. Many stocks can and do rebuild in less than 10 years.
However, there are certainly cases where stocks require a longer
rebuilding time period. It is clear this built-in flexibility is being
actively used: Over half of the rebuilding plans in place today are
over the 10 year time limit.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_eco/
status_of_fisheries/archive/2016/2016-trends-analysis.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the 13 stocks that have rebuilding timelines of less than 10
years, five are in their second rebuilding plan after previous ones
failed (meaning their timeline has now been reset), and two are over
their time limit but continuing with the same rebuilding plan. Thus the
time in which they have been rebuilding is more than 10 years, despite
being subject to a plan that states less than 10 years on paper. In
short, there is so much flexibility in this system that MOST rebuilding
plans are over 10 years.
I agree that there is enough flexibility in the law already for
rebuilding. Timelines are important because they establish a clear goal
for restoring the stock to healthy levels, which improves ecosystem
function and provides more opportunity for recreational and commercial
fishermen alike. Before the timelines were put in the law, few if any
stocks were recovered. Time and again, the decisions necessary to
rebuild stocks were delayed because of short-term concerns. But since
timelines were incorporated, we have seen clear success in rebuilding--
43 stocks have rebuilt since 2000.
Of the 34 overfished and/or rebuilding stocks not subject to the
10-year timeframe, 6 (13 percent) fall under the exception for stocks
managed ``under an international agreement in which the United States
participates.'' Three others (6 percent) have no set rebuilding
deadline due to insufficient knowledge regarding the life histories of
the relevant species, while two stocks (4 percent) have only recently
been declared overfished, and no rebuilding plans have yet been
developed. The remaining 23 stocks (49 percent) fall under the
exception to the 10-year timeline created for cases ``where the biology
of the stock of fish'' requires a longer rebuilding period.
Current law certainly provides enough flexibility to rebuild those
23 stocks. Current guidelines adopted by the National Marine Fisheries
Service \30\ provide three methods for determining rebuilding timelines
for stocks that, for biological reasons, cannot be rebuilt within ten
years. The relevant regional fishery management council may select a
rebuilding time that is equal to (1) the minimum time it would take to
rebuild the stock in the absence of any fishing mortality, plus one
mean generation (the average time it takes a fish to mature and first
produce young) for the species in question; (2) the time it would take
to rebuild the stock if it was fished at 75 percent of the maximum
fishing mortality threshold; or (3) twice the time that it would take
to rebuild the stock in the absence of any fishing mortality. Those
three approaches, which allow managers to select the approach best
suited to a particular fishery, provide all of the flexibility needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 50 C.F.R. 600.305 et seq
Question 3. Regarding proposals to add language into the law about
``alternative management measures'' for recreational fisheries: do
councils already have the authority to manage recreational fisheries in
a number of creative ways, including with harvest control rules or
extraction rates as noted in some legislative proposals? And that's as
long as they are still subject to the backstop of a science-based ACL
and accountability measures, correct?
Answer. Magnuson-Stevens currently permits fishery managers broad
discretion to employ ``alternative management measures.'' The National
Standard One Guidelines issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service
explicitly provide for the use of control rules and fishing mortality
rates \31\ to manage fisheries, provided that overfishing does not
occur and further provided that, in the case of overfished and
rebuilding stocks, the rebuilding period is not extended. Thus, the
desire to employ such alternative management measures does not justify
the passage of additional legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 50 U.S.C. 600.301
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Lori Steele
Question. Ms. Steele, your testimony referred to the ten year
rebuilding target in MSA as ``arbitrary.'' First, I would like to
clarify for the record that this rebuilding provision requires managers
to consider the needs of fishing communities when setting the timeline
and provides for a broad exception for stocks that cannot rebuild in
ten years. Currently, the average length of timeline for stocks
currently in a rebuilding plan is 15 years. I would further like to
clarify that there is a body of scientific work demonstrating the basis
for Congress's enactment of the 10 year target. I would like to submit
an example of this for the record.
Finally, with regard to arbitrariness, your testimony issues
support for H.R. 200s amendment to the MSA's rebuilding requirements
that would allow managers to develop plans that rebuild a stock in as
short of a time as ``practicable,'' as opposed to ``possible.''
Legally, this change would provide managers with vast discretion in
setting the rebuilding timeline lengths, regardless of what the science
dictates. How does your support of this change square with the concern
you've raised about so-called arbitrary timelines?
Answer. My testimony references the 2013 National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) report titled ``Evaluating the Effectiveness of Fish
Stock Rebuilding Plans of the United States.'' In this report, one of
the NAS key findings with respect to rebuilding timelines states,
``Rebuilding plans that focus more on meeting selected fishing
mortality targets than on exact schedules for attaining biomass targets
may be more robust to assessment uncertainties, natural variability and
ecosystem considerations, and have lower social and economic impact.''
The fact that ``the average length of time for stocks currently in
a rebuilding plan is 15 years'' supports the argument that the ten-year
time-frame is arbitrary and unnecessary. The change from possible to
practicable would not allow fisheries managers discretion to make
decisions irrespective of the best available science. With this change,
conservation and management measures will continue to be based on the
best available science, consistent with MSA National Standard 2. Annual
catch limits (ACLs) will continue to be set with precautionary buffers
to account for scientific uncertainty and management uncertainty.
Accountability measures will continue to ensure that ACLs are not
exceeded. Nothing about this change alters the mandates for
conservation embedded in the MSA.
Fundamentally, the difference between possible and practicable with
respect to the selection of rebuilding timelines is an allowance for
the application of the best available science to the realities of a
given fisheries management situation. This change will result in better
management responses to variability and uncertainty, and better
consideration of both ecological and economic conditions, while still
meeting all of the conservation objectives of the MSA.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
Lori Steele
Question 1. Considering Ecosystem Changes: In your written
testimony, you describe support for modifications that would ``allow
regional Fishery Management Councils to consider ecosystem changes and
the needs of fishing communities''.
How do you envision the Fishery Management Councils taking into
account changes to the ecosystem including changes to food sources and
habitat?
How is this different from what they consider now and how they
consider that information?
Answer. We are certainly fortunate that the MSA's standards and
guiding principles already ensure that the Councils consider habitat
impacts, cumulative effects, and other ecosystem factors when
developing fishery management plans. However, it is essential that
Congress clarify its intent and provide additional flexibility through
this reauthorization so the Councils can more explicitly account for
ecosystem factors and changing ecological conditions when developing
rebuilding programs and/or setting catch limits. Increasing flexibility
in the MSA allows Congress to specifically acknowledge the importance
of changing ecological conditions, and to allow the Councils to better
respond to these changes.
The MSA reauthorization should require the Councils to consider
ecosystem changes and economic needs of the communities when setting
annual catch limits. In light of changing environmental and ecological
conditions, these modifications make scientific and common sense.
Specific changes to increase flexibility for Councils to allow
rebuilding plans to better take into account environmental factors and
predator/prey relationships could be very helpful to managers. There
may be instances where the time period required to rebuild a particular
stock of fish could be negatively impacted by excessive marine mammal
predation; reduced availability of food; or changing ocean temperatures
forcing a shift in distribution. Currently, we believe the RFMCs have
little flexibility to extend rebuilding (and could also be required to
reduce ACLs) to address such changing stock conditions. Providing
explicit alternatives for the RFMCs could result in less onerous
restrictions (i.e., rebuilding times and quotas) on fishing
communities, and also encourage scientific data collection in areas not
currently examined for inclusion in Federal fishery management plans.
Additionally, the term ``overfished'' should be changed to
``depleted'' throughout the Act to more explicitly acknowledge
ecosystem factors beyond our control. The term ``overfished'' is
perceived negatively and can unfairly implicate the industry for stock
conditions resulting from other factors like pollution, coastal
development, and changing ocean conditions. For example, a stock might
be subject to minimal or even zero fishing yet still become
``overfished'' due to predation, disease, changes in water temperature,
or lowered ocean productivity. Yet when the public is informed that a
stock is overfished, we believe the perception is that fishing is the
cause. Changing this terminology in the MSA will clarify which factors
are most significantly affecting stock status and ultimately lead to
better conservation and management of the stock.
Allowing the regional Fishery Management Councils to better address
the needs of fishing communities can be achieved, in part, by changing
language in Section 304 of the Act from ``possible'' to ``practicable''
in terms of rebuilding periods. This minor change will result in better
management responses to variability and uncertainty. It will also
improve consideration of both ecological and economic conditions while
still meeting all the conservation objectives of the MSA.
Question 2. Exempted Fishing Permits: In your testimony, you
discuss numerous issues with the Modernizing Recreational Fisheries
Management Act of 2017. One of the issues raised was regarding exempted
fishing permits.
How have you used exempted fishing permits, and what were the
outcomes?
Could you elaborate on how the process of obtaining exempted
fishing permits through NOAA was a struggle, as you described in your
written testimony?
Answer. During my time on the New England Fishery Management
Council staff, I worked on numerous EFPs aimed at developing
opportunities for a small-mesh whiting fishery while minimizing bycatch
of other groundfish species. I worked with the fishing industry on
several EFPs, which ultimately led to regulatory changes to increase
fishing opportunities for whiting. The EFP process was a critical tool
to foster cooperation and promote conservation engineering within the
fishing industry, encourage bycatch reduction, and develop better
fishing practices. Opportunities to fish for whiting in New England
would not exist today had it not been for the ability of the industry
to work with the Council and NMFS to develop these opportunities
through the EFP process.
More recently, in my work for the industry on the West Coast, we
are utilizing the EFP process to help expedite the implementation of a
suite of trawl gear regulations for the West Coast groundfish fishery
that hinge on the ability to minimize impacts to salmon species listed
under the Endangered Species Act. The purpose of the EFP is to provide
the opportunity for vessels to target rebuilt, abundant rockfish
species on a year-round basis (to better achieve OY), while ensuring
that conservation objectives for the groundfish fishery continue to be
met. The goal of this EFP is to demonstrate that removal of outdated
and unnecessary gear and season restrictions in the trawl individual
fishing quota (IFQ) program can help the groundfish industry better
meet the economic objectives of the trawl catch share program while
keeping bycatch of salmon and other species within allowable limits.
The flexibility afforded by this EFP is expected to foster innovation
and allow for more optimal harvest operations in the bottom trawl
fishery, which could reduce bycatch and provide additional conservation
benefits.
The process for establishing the West Coast trawl gear EFP has been
lengthy and extremely challenging, given the need to address oftentimes
conflicting standards in multiple Federal laws (MSA, ESA, MMPA, NEPA)
as well as manpower/resource limitations within NOAA/NMFS. The Pacific
Fishery Management Council approved changes to the West Coast trawl
gear regulations in March 2016, but adequate data/analyses do not exist
for NMFS to ensure that these regulatory changes will be consistent
with all applicable laws, so the regulations have not been implemented
and are not likely to be implemented in the foreseeable future. The
trawl gear EFP is therefore needed to collect/provide data to support
implementation of these regulations and successful long-term management
of the groundfish fishery, yet the process for approving the EFP has
been hamstrung by lack of data and manpower/resource limitations within
NOAA/NMFS.
Without the EFP process, however, there would likely be no
opportunity to implement the Pacific Council's trawl gear package for
the West Coast groundfish fishery. We need the opportunities afforded
by the trawl gear EFP as quickly as possible in order for the
groundfish fishery to improve its utilization of Optimum Yield. The
modifications to the EFP process proposed in the Modernizing
Recreational Fisheries Management Act would completely cripple the EFP
process and eliminate a very important conservation and management tool
available to the Councils.
Question 3. Optimum Yield versus Maximum Sustainable Yield: At the
hearing, your terminology focused on ``optimum yield'' for fisheries
oppose to ``maximum sustainable yield'' which is terminology found
within the current Magnuson-Stevens Act. Do you differentiate between
these terms? And, if so, what is the difference?
Answer. The differentiation between MSY and OY and the focus
specifically on achieving OY is emphasized in the MSA through National
Standard 1, the Act's fundamental guiding principle. OY is, in fact,
differentiated from MSY in the MSA in that it is defined based on MSY.
MSY is generally defined in the science as the largest average
catch or yield that can continuously be taken from a stock under
prevailing environmental conditions. MSY is a conceptual reference
point, derived from an equilibrium-based statistical model. It is a
static (constant) estimate of stock productivity that results from the
model inputs, not from the environmental and economic realities of a
given situation in a fishery. Therefore, MSY is strictly a biological
concept, giving no consideration to economic, social, or political
factors.
For decades, the best available science has long acknowledged MSY
as an important part of a fisheries management framework, but not as a
specific amount of yield to be achieved in a fishery for perpetuity. As
history and science have taught us, it is erroneous to assume that a
given level of fishing mortality allows a certain yield to be
maintained indefinitely, irrespective of environmental, ecological, and
economic conditions. Moreover, the objectives of a fishery management
plan are often numerous and quite diverse; OY considers and accounts
for these other objectives. OY is essentially the yield that may result
in a given year when a number of objectives/criteria are satisfied
which effectively ensure that the fishery will remain in a productive
and safe (risk-averse) range (i.e., while still meeting the plan's
conservation objectives).
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
Peter Andrew, Jr.
Question 1. Long-term planning in Bristol Bay: From your testimony,
the Bristol Bay seems to have a long-term plan to keep the salmon
fishery abundant far into the future and sustain your community. How
does your community plan and account for the various environmental
factors that are changing and have the potential to negatively impact
the robust salmon fisheries?
Answer. A changing environment is certainly a challenge for the
Bristol Bay fishery. Salmon, which rely on cool, clean water, are
particularly sensitive to a changing habitat and have adapted to
precise conditions over centuries of evolution. Even small changes--
increase in temperature, pollution, changes in stream conditions and
flow--can have a huge impact, thwarting their biological instincts to
return to the same streams from which they spawned. We must closely
monitor changing conditions and act accordingly to protect our salmon
and their future, and have management plans in place to preserve the
untouched areas where salmon exist in abundance. We do not just
preserve these fish for our own benefit; they are for the benefit of
future generations. That is why flexibility and nimbleness to adjust to
changing conditions is incredibly important in our management.
It is important to note that all fisheries face the challenge of
climate change and a generally changing environment. Bristol Bay
nevertheless faces unique challenges as well. The proposed Pebble Mine
is an existential threat to our fishery. What could be North America's
largest open pit mine should not be built in the headwaters of the
world's most prolific wild sockeye salmon fishery. While climate change
is a complex challenge that requires a global solution, preventing
damage from the Pebble Mine is a local challenge. Our challenge is to
preserve the diverse habitats of the region as a buffer against the
unpredictable effects of these coming challenges. We cannot afford to
allow piecemeal destruction of any streams or watersheds when there is
a more global threat such as climate change that is challenging the
full resiliency of the region's fisheries.
In 2014, the EPA proposed safeguards on mining the Pebble deposit,
which were widely praised by the people and fishers of Bristol Bay.
Unfortunately, the current EPA is moving to abandon those proposals.
While I understand permitting the Pebble Mine would not fall under the
jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on oceans, atmosphere, fisheries, and
Coast Guard, I encourage Senators to do everything in their power to
protect Bristol Bay's fisheries for future generations of fishers.
Question 2. Suggested Revisions to MSA: During the hearing, Ms.
Steele clearly outlined several revisions to consider during the MSA
reauthorization process including: giving more flexibility to the
councils, changing possible to practicable in Section 304, changing
``overfished'' to ``depleted'', provide a definition for
``overfishing'', and provide a definition for ``catch share''. What are
your thoughts on these proposed changes?
Answer. My experience with the Magnuson-Stevens Act comes from my
lifelong participation in the Bristol Bay salmon fishery. The
constructive relationship between the Federal and state governments in
managing this fishery is one reason that we had such incredible fishing
this year. Other reasons include a recognition by Congress in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and among fishery managers, that a sustainable
fishery can support coastal communities for generations upon
generations. Again, there is no better example of this than Bristol
Bay, where we have enjoyed 134 years of commercial salmon fishing. As
you reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act, I encourage you to judge
proposed changes by their impact on the fishers of today as well as
those that will come after us. Further, please take caution in making
changes to law; those noted in this question and any other proposals
that you consider, as our understanding of the marine environment is
not perfect, and there should be a margin of error built into the law
to minimize the risk of longer-term degradation of our Nation's
important fishery resources.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
Gregory P. DiDomenico
Question 1. Suggested Revisions to MSA: During the hearing, Ms.
Steele clearly outlined several revisions to consider during the MSA
reauthorization process including: giving more flexibility to the
councils, changing possible to practicable in Section 304, changing
``overfished'' to ``depleted'', provide a definition for
``overfishing'', and provide a definition for ``catch share''.
In your testimony you touched on a few of these, but could you
elaborate on what your thoughts are on these proposed changes?
Answer. 1) Flexibility to Regional Councils
Providing ``flexibility'' can be achieved by eliminating the 10-
year time requirement for rebuilding fisheries, replacing it with a
biologically-based foundation, and relying on our regional fisheries
management process to determine the optimal path to stock rebuilding.
The National Academy of Science concluded in their 2013 report
titled ``Evaluating the Effectiveness of Fish Stock Rebuilding Plans in
the U.S.'' that the pre-set 10-year rebuilding requirement was indeed
arbitrary and harmful.
It is time to admit the current requirement to adhere to an
arbitrarily-defined rebuilding period is not necessary to rebuild
fisheries and while on the path of rebuilding we can minimize impacts
to fishing communities. Simply put, why would you not choose to rebuild
a fishery in 12 years instead of 10 and avoid very significant impact
to fishing communities?
In addition ``flexibility'' could also adjust rebuilding plans by
taking into account environmental factors and predator/prey
relationships.
Furthermore, ``flexibility'' could also be applied to ACL's. The
ACL requirement would be retained in the Act but the Regional Fishing
Management Councils (RFMC) could consider changes in ecosystem, species
with unique biological characteristics and species managed under
international agreements.
For example a RFMC could be given the option to adjust the ACL
requirements for a species like butterfish that has a short life
history and extremely high natural mortality. This is similar to the
exemption for ACL's that already exists in the MSA for short lived
species but would expand it to include stocks like butterfish.
The Act currently provides an exemption from the ACL control rules
for stocks managed under international agreements but does not address
species that are truly trans-boundary in nature where there is only an
informal agreement (or no agreement) in place. We support expansion of
these extra-territorial considerations.
In the case of Atlantic mackerel, scientific evidence has indicated
the stock distribution is shifting into Canadian waters. Unfortunately,
the U.S. has no formal trans-boundary sharing agreement. In this case
U.S. management actions pursuant to MSA disadvantage our fishermen and
weaken the U.S. negotiating position.
2) Section 304 changing ``possible'' to ``practicable''
Changing this terminology in the MSA provides the specific
allowance for a Council to choose between several rebuilding scenarios
to achieve required conservation and management objectives. Under this
provision a Council would be given the choice to consider all of the
aspects, including biological, life history of a species and socio
economic impacts, not just the shortest path to rebuilding. The
shortest path is often the most harmful to fishing communities with
sometimes irreversible impacts. This change could benefit coastal
communities without undermining any conservation and stock rebuilding
objectives.
3) Changing ``overfished'' to ``depleted''
Changing the term ``overfished'' to ``depleted'' allows for a
differentiation between species that are approaching a reduced level of
abundance due to fishing mortality and those species that are at a
reduced level of abundance as a result of other factors. Why would we
label a stock as ``overfished'' if its current status is as a result of
something other than fishing?
4) Definition of ``overfishing''
The change we are requesting removes the word ``overfished'' from
the current definition of the term ``overfishing.'' We support more
accurately defining ``overfishing'' (as a rate) and removing the term
``overfished'' from the Act, substituting the newly defined term
``depleted''. We support changing the annual Status of Stocks report
submitted by the Secretary to distinguish between stocks that are
depleted (or approaching that condition) due to fishing activities and
those meeting that definition as a result of other factors. We also
support the separation and clarification of the two terms and the
requirement to differentiate sources of mortality when projecting stock
status and setting ACLs.
5) Definition of ``catch share''
We support adding a comprehensive definition of the term ``catch
share'' to the Act. H.R. 200 proposes language to define a ``catch
share'' as any fishery management program that allocates a specific
percentage of the total allowable catch for a fishery, or a specific
fishing area, to an individual, cooperative, community, processor,
representative of a commercial sector, or regional fishery association
established in accordance with section 303A(c)(4), or other entity.
This definition is crucial to keeping the fishery management
process fair and inclusive. Without a clear definition we are concerned
that this type of fisheries management may be used to create unfair
advantages within the fishing industry.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
William ``Bubba'' Cochrane II
Question 1. Success of IFQ Programs: Your written testimony
describes the incredible success of the individual fishing quota (IFQ)
program in the Gulf of Mexico. Bigger fish, better prices, fewer
discards, larger quotas, and more importantly the security with having
a defined share of the resource to allow for increased safety.
How has the IFQ managed to triple the red snapper quota for all
fishermen over the last 10 years, while we are also seeing shorter
recreational fishing seasons in Federal waters? Can you shed some light
on the situation in the Gulf?
Also, how does the state fishing seasons compare to the Federal
fishing season for red snapper?
Answer. The passage of the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996 and
the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) in 2007 and the implementation of the
Gulf of Mexico commercial red snapper IFQ program changed the way that
red snapper were managed in the Gulf of Mexico. The old system wasn't
working for anyone--the commercial fishery was subject to a series of
short, intense seasons at the beginning of each month (regardless of
weather) that led to massive discarding and soft markets; there were no
science-based annual catch limits for any fishermen (commercial,
charter, or recreational); and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council had the flexibility to overrule scientists' recommendations.
Now, we have a successful management system under which all three
fishing sectors are managed to a hard annual catch limit (ACL); the
commercial sector implemented an IFQ program that allows sustainable,
year-round access to the fishery; and the charter sector is in the
process of developing its own management system to extend its fishing
seasons. Before these developments, Gulf of Mexico red snapper were
overfished, small in size (2-3 pounds on average), and scarce. Now, the
stock is rebounding and red snapper are plentiful and getting bigger
(7-8 pounds on average). The quota for all fishermen in the Gulf--
commercial, charter, and recreational--has nearly tripled in the last
10 years from 5 million pounds in 2008 to 14 million pounds today.
Because red snapper need to live for decades to reach their maximum
spawning potential, it has taken until recently for fishermen to see
the benefits of these management changes and it will take several more
years of careful management until there are enough older female red
snapper to allow us to maximize the fishery's potential. If these
controls on Gulf red snapper fishing are relaxed too soon, we will see
the stock plummet back to the bad old days of the early 1990s. I've
already sacrificed to rebuild this stock--my son shouldn't have to
sacrifice to rebuild it again.
While it seems confusing to some that the Federal private angler
season has shrunk while the red snapper population has increased, it is
relatively simple to explain. When it was hard to find a large red
snapper because they were overfished, recreational fishermen didn't
target them. Part of the Gulf Council's efforts to implement the 1996
and 2007 Acts involved reducing the private angler season from 365 days
per year. For many years, four of the five Gulf States followed this
practice (excluding Texas) and established their state waters private
angler seasons to mirror the Federal season. As the red snapper stock
started to recover and the fish got bigger, they became more popular
with private anglers. As the recreational fishing effort per day and
the weight of the fish they caught increased faster than the red
snapper population rebounded, the Federal and state seasons had to be
reduced in an effort to contain the recreational catch within its
growing annual quota. In 2013, the four states started deviating from
the Federal season by setting longer seasons. This increased the
proportion of private angler red snapper caught in state waters,
leaving a smaller percentage available to catch in Federal waters
within the private angler quota. This required shrinking the Federal
season even more. I have attached two graphics that show this trend and
provide more details on how many red snapper were caught in state
waters and Federal waters off each state by private anglers in 2016. As
you can see, the fishing intensity varies off each state.
As the Committee has heard, the use of single season open access
fishing and delayed catch reporting for the private angler sector is
not working well. While the Gulf Council already has the authority
under the MSA to develop a more workable management system for the
private angler sector while staying within that sector's ACL, doing so
requires the cooperation of the States and private angler groups. Both
have resisted participating in Gulf Council efforts to do so and
instead are trying to get out from under the requirement to stay within
an ACL. Granting that wish would reverse the rebuilding of the fishery
and send us back to the bad old days when red snapper were scarce and
small. As we have already seen from the Secretary of Commerce's
decision to extend the 2017 private angler Federal season, more fish
are being caught than the fishery can sustain, and the rebuilding
schedule will be delayed several years. If this continues, Gulf red
snapper will dwindle and private anglers will go back to fishing for
other species, but commercial fishermen will lose their businesses.
Question 2. During the hearing, Ms. Steele clearly outlined several
revisions to consider during the MSA reauthorization process including:
giving more flexibility to the councils, changing possible to
practicable in Section 304, changing ``overfished'' to ``depleted'',
provide a definition for ``overfishing'', and provide a definition for
``catch share''. What are your thoughts on these proposed changes?
Answer. While I think it may be appropriate to apply different
terms to species whose populations have been reduced by too much
fishing and to those reduced by environmental changes, at this point I
don't agree that environmental causes should exempt ``depleted''
fisheries from the management requirements of the MSA, such as
mandatory rebuilding timelines and annual catch limits. In some
situations, a ``depleted'' fishery may only be able to support a lower
fishing effort than if it had been overfished because its ability to
rebound has been reduced by environmental changes. I also disagree with
eliminating the term ``overfished'' because there are still some
species that were overfished but are recovering because overfishing has
stopped. Because these species may have a greater ability to recover
than some ``depleted'' species, they can be managed differently.
Fishery management councils have a lot of flexibility now under MSA
to develop innovative ways to provide access to fishermen. Usually,
when I hear someone say they want the councils to have more
``flexibility'', it means they don't want to have to live within a
particular rebuilding time-frame or ACL. Usually, that means they just
want to fish more now and worry about the consequences later. Before
2007, we saw a lot of fisheries failing under the kind of flexibility
that some people are demanding be returned to the councils. While I
think it may be helpful to clarify the biological factors described in
the MSA that can allow for rebuilding timeframes longer than 10 years,
I think the Congress needs to be very careful not to stall the progress
that has been made in rebuilding so many overfished species since 2007.
I am also opposed to relaxing requirements for scientifically-
determined ACLs. This is just a way to selfishly rob our children of
the healthy fisheries that are our obligation to pass on to them. A
hard ACL is not an impossible burden for the private angler fishing
sector, as was shown this year when the state of Louisiana successfully
held itself to its self-imposed red snapper recreational quota for
state waters fishermen; it just requires private anglers to understand
that they need to come up with a better system and more timely catch
data than the current open seasons and MRIP survey system to manage
their allocation. There are many creative and successful people who
fish recreationally who could help make this happen if they worked with
the Gulf Council to do so. How can the Gulf red snapper fishery be
managed to an overall ACL, with the commercial and charter fishing
sectors having their own ACLs, if the private angler sector is not also
subject to its own ACL? If any sector is allowed to catch Gulf red
snapper without an ACL, eventually all three sectors will suffer from
reduced access in the near future because the resources will return to
being overfished. Commercial fishermen like myself and eventually my
son shouldn't be stuck paying the penalties of another sector
overfishing.
Finally, I don't see any beneficial reason to define ``catch
share.'' The people I have heard saying this should be done only want
to limit the use of catch shares as a management option for fishery
management councils. The current Magnuson-Stevens Act definitions of
``limited access privilege program,'' ``individual fishery quota'' and
``community development quota'' provide good options for councils to
manage fisheries outside of traditional season-based management. I
don't think we need another similar definition and I oppose prohibiting
the Councils from using these options when they make sense for the
fishery and fishermen want to use them.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]