Huffman introduces bill to refinance decade-old fishing industry loan
Legislation aimed at alleviating the financial hardship of a federal loan that has been weighing on Pacific Coast groundfish fisherman for nearly a decade has moved one step closer to passing, North Coast Congressman Jared Huffman's office announced on Thursday.Introduced into Congress this week, Huffman's “Revitalizing the Economy of Fisheries in the Pacific Act” picks up where a bipartisan bill introduced in September 2012 by former North Coast Congressman Mike Thompson left off, and would allow for the refinancing of a $35.7 million buyback loan authorized by Congress in 2003.In a press release, Huffman called the bill -- his second piece of legislation to be introduced since he took office in January -- “... a win-win for small businesses and the environment.”The opportunity to refinance the loan at a lower interest rate would give local groundfish fishermen the same opportunities as any homeowner or business, and would not require the federal government to spend any new money.“The success of our local fishermen is essential to the health of the North Coast's economy, but it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to repay the debt on a decade-old federal loan,” Huffman said in the release. “The combination of interest payments, new fees, and rising fuel costs are putting small businesses in our coastal communities at risk.”Read the full story here.
House Natural Resources Chairman Hastings Discusses Magnuson-Stevens Act Reauthorization at Fisheries Conference
Today, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA -04) spoke at the third Managing Our Nation’s Fisheries Conference coordinated by the Regional Fishery Management Councils and hosted by the Pacific Fishery Management Council. During his remarks, Chairman Hastings discussed the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, President Obama’s National Ocean Policy, and the need to update the Endangered Species Act.The following are highlights from his speech:Balance and Flexibility“Managing fish - and fishermen - is a challenge. It requires balancing act in a number of areas: between a sustainable harvest level and the maximum economic value for the fisheries; between recreational and commercial users of the same resource; between different gear types in the same fisheries; and between the interests of different states. In addition, not only are the fisheries different, but the challenges are different in each region of the country. Because of these differences, a one-size-fits-all management structure is not the most efficient structure.The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the framework for sustainable fisheries management that allows for regional solutions to address regional challenges. The Act works, it is absolutely necessary to maintain this authority that allows regions to find unique solutions to their problems. Because of this framework the United States has arguably the best managed fisheries in the world.”Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization“It is Congress’ responsibility to re-examine and reauthorize the laws that we create and the current authorization for the Magnuson-Stevens Act expires at the end of Fiscal Year 2013. The time for Congress to work on this reauthorization is now.As Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee – the House Committee with jurisdiction over the Magnuson- Stevens Act - I have already begun the reauthorization process with several hearings in the last Congress and, in March, the first of several hearings we will hold this year. It is my goal is to try and reauthorize this important statute this Congress… We are in the process of scheduling our next hearing on the reauthorization and it will be formally announced soon. It will be on data collection issues and it will be held on May 21st, but there are other issues that need to be addressed at further future hearings.”Read full speech here.
Fishery Management: An Analysis of Fish Stock Assessments
Center for American Progress
Counting Fish 101
An Analysis of Fish Stock Assessments
George Lapointe, Linda Mercer, and Michael Conathan 
Science is integral to fishing operations. Without the ability to estimate how many fish exist in the ocean there’s no way to determine how many of them we can catch while allowing the remaining fish populations to stay viable. But fish live in a mostly invisible world beneath the ocean surface, they move around constantly, and they eat each other.
This creates a dynamic population structure that’s incredibly difficult to track, making fish virtually impossible to count. Thus, fisheries scientists—like political pollsters or other statisticians—must rely on imperfect data to make their predictions about the status and health of fish populations.
They take these data—some of which they collect, some of which come from fishermen—and plug them into scientific models which, in turn, create estimates of population health. Because the entire population of a given species is frequently divided into subpopulations known as “stocks,” these estimates are called “stock assessments,” and they form the backbone of modern fishery management in the United States.
These assessments provide an estimate of the current state of a fish population and, in some cases, forecast future trends. This tells us whether fishery management goals arebeing met and indicates the type of conditions to which the fishery will have to adapt in the near future. In an ideal world, scientists would have the resources to provide managers with updated stock assessments for each species every year, but their expense and complexity mean they can only be updated periodically.
Regardless of how frequently they can be updated, strong, science-based stock assessments are the key to future sustainability, not just of the fish but also of the fishing industry. Fishing is an inherently unstable business, yet strong, accurate science can give fishermen a better understanding of whether their resource will remain healthy, and if it does, how many fish they will be allowed to catch. This in turn allows fishermen to make informed business decisions and stabilizes coastal economies.
Read the full report here.
Record Salmon Run Expected
"The Klamath River expects a record chinook salmon run this year, the most since 1978. Much like the abundant forage - such as sardines and squid - that live off California's coast, the high numbers of salmon reflect both strong precautionary fishery management practices and good ocean conditions.
- California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA)
Epic forecast for fall run on Klamath River
Written by Adam Spencer, The Triplicate
The largest projected return of fall-run chinook salmon since 1978 is looming over the Klamath River.
Fishery managers project that roughly 380,000 adult chinook salmon will migrate up the Klamath this fall to spawn — three times the estimated run of 2011 adult chinook and 50 percent greater than the highest run on record (245,242 total fish in 1995).
Starting Wednesday, sport fishermen will be allowed to keep four adult chinooks per day, with a possession limit of eight adult chinooks.
The abundant forecast is a boon for sport anglers, tribal fishermen and the guides, hotels and restaurants that benefit from tourism dollars.
“I think it’s going to be the best season I’ve ever seen,” said fishing guide Gary Hix, who has already booked up much of his season on the Klamath.
“We haven’t had a four-fish quota since the quota era started,” said Wade Sinnen, senior environmental scientist with the California Department of Fish and Game.
Sinnen said it was a “tough sell” to convince the California Fish and Game Commission to adopt the four-fish limit, but the projections warrant it. “Even with a four-fish adult bag, it’s very unlikely we will obtain our quota,” he said. “This is a test year to evaluate the capacity of the sport fishery.”
It’s important to get as close as possible to the sport-fishing quota of 67,600 chinooks, because conditions are ripe for another event like the 2002 fish kill when tens of thousands of salmon died from diseases before spawning — partly due to more fish than usual.
An estimated 34,000 to 78,000 salmon died primarily from a gill-rotting disease known as “ich” (Ichthyopthirius multifilis).
“I was out there counting those dead fish; it was a smelly, disgusting mess — it was sad really,” Sinnen said. “People are nervous this year that the same thing could occur due to the record forecast of salmon and dry to average water conditions in the Klamath basin.”
To prevent a repeat fish kill, the Bureau of Reclamation started releasing additional water from the Lewiston Dam on the Trinity River to keep the flow of the lower Klamath River at 3,200 cubic feet per second throughout the peak of the fall run.
Mike Belchik, senior fisheries biologist for the Yurok Tribe, presented a case for higher flows for the fall-run chinook to the multi-agency Trinity River Fall Flows Workgroup, which was well received.
Maintaining a minimum flow of 2,800 cfs for an above-average run had already been established, but this run’s bigger than that.
Belchik emphasized to the group that excellent salmon fishing on the ocean provided reason to trust the predictions, and “in order to decrease the odds of fish kill happening we would like to increase the flow from 2,800 to 3,200,” he said.
Read the full article on Triplicate.com.
California Still Leaving Plenty of Fish in the Sea
Letters to the EditorRe “Fisherman agree: Big fish need little fish” (Viewpoints, June 22):
The article omitted key facts the public should understand about California’s fisheries. Appealing to the Pacific Fishery Management Council to “forestall the harvest of forage species that aren't currently being fished,” the authors cited a Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force study finding that worldwide, forage fish are mostly ground into meal to feed livestock and farmed fish. This is untrue in California. They didn’t point out that according to the same report, we already leave plenty of forage fish in the sea. West Coast forage fisheries harvest only 2 percent of the total forage pool, leaving 98 percent in the ocean. The most important forage species on the West Coast are already well managed. The PFMC recently approved deliberative action, allowing more time for scientific analysis and the development of the most practical, effective management tools. This is a win for all, providing the most cost-effective and timely response to concerns that new fisheries might over-exploit forage species.
-- Diane Pleschner-Steele, executive director, California Wetfish Producers Association
Senate panel hearing set for Magnuson reform
By Richard Gaines | Staff WriterAs he promised the gathering at a national fishermen's rally in March, U.S. Charles Schumer, D-N,Y., has secured a commitment for the Senate Commerce Committee to hold oversight hearings this fall on problems with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.The announcement from the New York senator came last week, after he gained the commitment of Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Mark Begich of Alaska.In a statement, Schumer said he hoped the hearings "will give a national voice" to concerns "about faulty science and excessively strict quotas that are decimating the industry."U.S. Sen. John Kerry is the senior Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee. He has proposed his own legislation, to restore a dedicated funding source for fisheries research and development from seafood import quotas, but also has acknowledged the need to make changes to Magnuson.Also supporting Magnunson reform is Sen. Scott Brown.In April, the Republican-controlled House Natural Resources Committee, where the reform movement is stronger, began drafting "a comprehensive" change to Magnuson, the overriding fisheries management law, in an attempt to ensure that NOAA makes "informed decisions based on sufficient scientific information," Chairman Doc Hastings told the Times.The presidential election and the Democratic control of the Senate all but insures that no substantive action on a rewrite of Magnuson will occur before the expiration of the 112th Congress.House passage of a Magnuson reform bill is considered the highest goal for this year of industry leaders who organized the rally last March and have been pressing to write flexibility into Magnuson.
Sardine population growing significantly
Opinion
By DIANE PLESCHNER-STEELE
Guest Commentary
Reading the recent opinion piece on this page by Oceana, one might think that sardines should be placed on the endangered species list. But in reality, this important fishery is doing just fine thanks to existing precautions.
The Oceana commentary, "Sardine population on verge of crash," bases some of its allegations on a report by two National Marine Fisheries Service scientists. Yet Oceana fails to mention that those scientists deliberately omitted the most recent stock assessment and failed to submit their paper for internal review. That paper and its conclusions were later repudiated by the National Marine Fisheries Service.
The fact is, sardine abundance trended significantly upward in 2011 and that led to the increase in sardine harvest quota in 2012.
California's wetfish industry — named for the fish that were canned wet from the sea — is under attack by extremist groups like Oceana who claim overfishing is occurring. That allegation is false; fishermen have long recognized that a sustainable fishery was good for both people and fish.
Historically, sardines exhibited dynamic swings of a million tons up or down during the first decade of decline. We may be entering another such period, given the 30-year cycle of the stock. But the issue is scale. Sardine management policy is complicated because fishery managers now recognize these dynamics.
The sardines' visionary harvest policy sets annual quotas far lower than the maximum sustainable catch allowed in most fisheries, and subtracts 150,000 metric tons from the population estimate, allowing for forage and uncertainty. According to the 2011 sardine stock assessment, the coast-wide harvest rate including Canada and Mexico was less than 15 percent of the biomass — decidedly NOT overfishing.
This precaution has been recognized by a host of respected scientists, including the "Little Fish, Big Impact" report referenced by Oceana. Another Oceana omission is found in Appendix E of that report:
"In the California Current only 2 percent of the annual production of forage fishes (including fished and unfished stocks) is taken by fishermen and 98 percent of the production goes to the other fishes, birds and marine mammals," notes Richard Parrish, one of the most knowledgeable scientists on the west coast.
Oceana also asserts that fishermen have exceeded the squid quota. While it's true that the total biomass of squid is unknown and likely unknowable (market squid range from Baja California to Alaska), the overfishing allegation is also decidedly false.
Squid are another dynamic stock that live, spawn and die in less than a year. The squid resource is actively managed by California with many precautionary regulations, including both weekend closures and marine reserves that have closed more than 30 percent of traditional squid fishing grounds.
Scientists know the squid's abundance is driven primarily by environmental cycles like the highly productive cold-water conditions experienced in 2010-11. These boom years for squid fishing happen only once in a decade.
California's historic wetfish fisheries are the backbone of our state's fishing economy. In 2010, the wetfish complex — sardine, anchovy, mackerel, market squid — comprised more than 80 percent of the volume of all commercial fishery landings statewide, and 44 percent of dockside value.
The wetfish industry remains the lifeblood of Monterey's fishing community, representing an even higher volume and value of all commercial landings.
The city of Monterey recognizes our precautionary fishery management and supports this historic industry. The City is working alongside California wetfish leaders, reputable environmental organizations, and respected scientists to recommend forage policy guidelines for the Fish and Game Commission.
Our recommendations integrate the protections now afforded these forage stocks by both the state and federal management — and are based on best-available science, rather than innuendo, deception and politics.
Diane Pleschner-Steele is executive director of the California Wetfish Producers Association.
Read the full article online on the Monterey Herald.
Fosmark: Ocean Policy Respite Is Step in Right Direction
By Kathy FosmarkSpecial to Roll CallRecent House passage of an amendment providing for a pause in implementation of the new National Ocean Policy is a welcome development for those seeking to maintain and enhance the productivity of our nation’s marine and inland areas.This action was supported by groups as varied as the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Forest and Paper Association, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Fisheries Institute and the National Ocean Policy Coalition, among many others.Because it is being implemented by executive order rather than statute, the policy has not been subject to the scrutiny that accompanies the legislative process. In turn, significant questions about this initiative, and its potential effects on citizens, businesses and existing laws and processes, have still not been adequately addressed.For example, how will regional fishery management councils effectively carry out their responsibilities under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act when the National Ocean Policy requires federal implementation of potentially inconsistent regional zoning plans developed by regional planning bodies?In addition, the National Ocean Council has disclosed that federal agencies have been directed to prioritize the National Ocean Policy in their budgets and asked how existing resources can be repurposed. With resources already scarce, how will this affect the continuation and improvement of existing authorized activities such as fishery stock assessments that directly affect recreational anglers and commercial fishermen across the country as well as the communities they support?Concerns about potentially repurposing funds across the federal government in support of an initiative that has not been authorized by Congress are underscored by recent headlines surrounding the disclosure that tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds were reprogrammed within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration without Congressional notification.Ocean Conservancy’s May 24 Roll Call op-ed referred to a “gross overreaction” among those who support a time-out and suggested that concerns about prohibitions on fishing activity are unfounded. Concerns about the potential for the policy to lead to new and unnecessary marine access and use restrictions, however, are real and based in part on past experience.
Read the full article on Roll Call