8/25/16 8/25/16

Coastal mayors join to oppose Obama administration's 'marine monuments' plan

The Obama administration is running afoul of transparency and openness as it prepares to create offshore marine monuments off California and New England, two mayors including Jon Mitchell are telling the administration.

Mitchell was joined by Monterey, California Mayor Clyde Roberson in sending the Obama White House letters expressing “serious concerns” about the potential economic harm to their ports from the use of executive action by the administration to create new federal marine monuments off the coasts.

A chorus of opposition has been rising from fishermen and fishing communities across the country opposing the creation of marine monuments outside of the existing ocean management processes.

New Bedford is the highest-grossing fishing port in the nation; Monterey is one of the most valuable fishing ports in California.

Writing to Council on Environmental Quality Acting Director Christy Goldfuss, Mitchell praised the successes of the current fishing management process, overseen by NOAA, a process that includes the voices of all ocean stakeholders in its deliberations, according to a release from the The National Coalition for Fishing Communities. “The process is far from perfect, but it affords ample opportunity for stakeholders and the public alike to review and comment on policy decisions and for the peer reviewing of the scientific bases of those decisions,” Mitchell wrote.

By contrast, “The use of a parallel process, however well meaning, which has none of the checks and balances employed in the NOAA process, could leave ocean management decisions vulnerable to political considerations in the long run,” said Mitchell.

Roberson’s letter to President Obama was similarly critical of efforts to declare new monuments by executive fiat. Mayor Roberson emphasized the value of the California seamounts to commercial fishermen and the need to strike a balance between environmental protections and fishing concerns. Reaching this balance requires basing decisions on science rather than politics, he wrote.

“Monterey supports publicly transparent, science-based processes in making ocean management decisions such as the mandate embodied in the federal Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act,” Roberson wrote. “This proposal was developed without public knowledge or participation, much less scientific or economic review and analysis. Certainly there was no transparency. “

Both mayors also expressed serious reservations about the potential impact monument declarations would have on their regions’ commercial fishing industries. “In New England, a monument declaration would devastate the red crab, swordfish, and tuna fisheries, as well as the processors and shore side businesses that depend on them. In California, the albacore tuna fishery would be deeply impacted, as would that of the rockfish, spiny lobster, sea urchins, and white sea bass,” said the release.

Read the original post: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/

8/25/16 8/25/16

MAYORS OF MAJOR EAST AND WEST COAST PORTS EXPRESS CONCERN ABOUT POSSIBLE ECONOMIC HARM FROM MARINE MONUMENT DESIGNATIONS

August 24, 2016 — The following was released by the National Coalition for Fishing Communities:WASHINGTON (NCFC) – In letters sent on Friday to the President and the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), New Bedford, Massachusetts Mayor Jon Mitchell and Monterey, California Mayor Clyde Roberson expressed “serious concerns” about the potential economic harm to their ports from the use of executive action by the Obama Administration to create new federal marine monuments off the coasts of New England and California. The mayors also emphasized the need for “transparency” and “robust stakeholder input.”The letters reflect a growing movement from fishermen and fishing communities across the country opposing the creation of marine monuments outside of the existing ocean management processes. New Bedford is the highest-grossing fishing port in the nation, and Monterey is one of the most valuable fishing ports in California.In his letter to CEQ Acting Director Christy Goldfuss, New Bedford Mayor Mitchell praised the successes of the current fishing-management process, overseen by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – a process that emphasizes including the voices of all ocean stakeholders in its deliberations.“The process is far from perfect, but it affords ample opportunity for stakeholders and the public alike to review and comment on policy decisions and for the peer reviewing of the scientific bases of those decisions,” he wrote.The Mayor went on to contrast this with the much more opaque process that has governed the marine monument debate.“The use of a parallel process, however well-meaning, which has none of the checks and balances employed in the NOAA process, could leave ocean management decisions vulnerable to political considerations in the long run,” he wrote. On the other side of the country, Monterey Mayor Roberson’s letter to President Obama was similarly critical of efforts to declare new monuments by executive fiat. Mayor Roberson emphasized the value of the California seamounts to commercial fishermen and the need to strike a balance between environmental protections and fishing concerns. According to Mayor Roberson, reaching this balance requires basing decisions on science, rather than politics.“[Monterey] supports publically transparent, science-based processes in making ocean management decisions – such as the mandate embodied in the federal Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act,” he wrote. “This proposal was developed without public knowledge or participation, much less scientific or economic review and analysis. Certainly there was no transparency. “Both Mayors also expressed serious reservations about the potential impact monument declarations would have on their regions’ commercial fishing industries. In New England, a monument declaration would devastate the red crab, swordfish, and tuna fisheries, as well as the processors and shore side businesses that depend on them. In California, the albacore tuna fishery would be deeply impacted, as would that of the rockfish, spiny lobster, sea urchins, and white sea bass.Mayor Mitchell also noted that while the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has provided “coordinates of a line seaward of the canyons that is acceptable to the industry” the Administration has not provided a concrete proposal. He noted, “if a proposal actually exists, it has not been shared with any of the stakeholders.”Fishing groups on the East and West Coasts, including many NCFC affiliates, whose members collectively produce the majority of the edible finfish and shellfish harvested from U.S. waters, have expressed opposition to the creation of a new monument via executive order. These organizations include:

Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers
Alaska Scallop Association
American Albacore Fisheries Association
American Bluefin Tuna Association (ABTA)
American Scallop Association
At-Sea Processors Association
Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association
Blue Water Fishermen’s Association
California Fisheries and Seafood Institute
California Lobster & Trap Fishermen’s Association
California Sea Urchin Commission
California Wetfish Producers Association
Coalition of Coastal Fisheries
Coos Bay Trawlers
Directed Sustainable Fisheries
Fisheries Survival Fund
Garden State Seafood Association
Golden King Crab Coalition
Groundfish Forum
Long Island Commercial Fishing Association
Midwater Trawlers Cooperative
National Fisheries Institute
New England Red Crab Harvester’s Association
North Carolina Fisheries Association
Oregon Trawl Commission
Organized Fishermen of Florida
Pacific Seafood Processors Association
Pacific Whiting Conservation Cooperative
Southeastern Fisheries Association
United Catcher Boats
Ventura County Commercial Fishermen’s Association
Washington Trollers Association
West Coast Seafood Processors Association
Western Fishboat Owners Association

Read Mayor Mitchell’s letter here Read Mayor Roberson’s letter here

7/15/16 7/15/16

Ocean monument: Growing momentum for Obama to establish new Pacific marine preserves before leaving office

A new effort to convince President Barack Obama to establish a huge new national monument in the Pacific Ocean off California before he leaves office six months from now is gaining momentum.More than 100 scientists -- including some of the top marine biologists in the world -- and two dozen environmental groups are pushing a proposal that would ban offshore oil drilling, undersea mining and potentially some types of fishing in nine areas between San Diego and the Oregon border.

File photo: Future Pacific Ocean preserve? More than 100 scientists -- including some of the top marine biologists in the world -- and two dozen environmental groups are pushing a proposal that would ban offshore oil drilling, undersea mining and potentially some types of fishing in nine areas between San Diego and the Oregon border. (Don Ryan/Associated Press archives)

The areas singled out are a collection of underwater mountains, known as seamounts, along with several dormant underwater volcanoes, deep-sea ridges and concentrations of natural vents that spew hot water. Ranging from 45 to 186 miles off the California coast, and plunging more than 1 mile under the ocean's surface, the remote locations are rich with sharks, whales, sea turtles and exotic sea life, including forests of coral, sponges and sea urchins. Many of the species have been discovered only in recent years as deep-sea exploration technology has improved."There are a lot of people who recognize the importance of this," said Lance Morgan, president of the Marine Conservation Institute, a Sonoma County environmental group that has been spearheading the plans. "It's moving forward; people are interested."Roughly 5 to 10 percent of ocean waters from 3 miles offshore to 200 miles offshore would be affected, Morgan said. Some types of fishing, such as bottom trawling and drift gill net fishing, would be banned, he added, although recreational fishing and hook-and-line commercial fishing would likely not be affected.The concept, however, has been drawing suspicion and concern from some fishing groups who say it has largely been drafted in secret."If you are trying to protect these truly iconic places -- and there's no doubt they really need protection -- from things like oil drilling and mining, you have to wonder in what way does fishing adversely affect those areas," said Dan Wolford, president of the Coastside Fishing Club, a recreational fishing organization. "The fishing community says it doesn't."On Thursday, the campaign received a boost when Rep. Sam Farr, D-Carmel, and Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Los Angeles, introduced a bill to establish a new "California Seamounts and Ridges National Marine Conservation Area," which would include most of the areas the supporters have highlighted. The measure would require the U.S. interior and commerce secretaries to draw the precise boundaries after consulting with fishing groups and other interested parties.The measure would ban oil drilling, dredging, mining and undersea cables in the areas but would not restrict military activities, scientific research, recreational fishing or commercial tuna fishing."These are extraordinary places," said Jane Lubchenco, a professor of zoology at Oregon State University who sits on the board of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation in Palo Alto. She called the areas "a vital frontier for scientific discovery."The bill, however, has virtually no chance of passage in the Republican-led Congress.Such bills are commonly introduced when environmental groups and the lawmakers supporting them are pushing a president to declare a national monument without congressional approval, using his authority under the 1906 Antiquities Act.When conservatives protest, the supporters often say that they tried through the normal legislative process, but their bills were not given a hearing, leaving them no chance but to go to the White House.Nearly every president has used the law, since it was first signed by President Theodore Roosevelt, to establish new national monuments on land. Roosevelt used it to set aside the Grand Canyon, Bill Clinton used it to protect California's Giant Sequoias, and in 2006, President George W. Bush used it to establish the Northern Hawaiian Islands National Monument, a vast section of ocean that includes 10 remote islands and atolls, including Midway, over 140,000 square miles.The Obama administration hasn't said much about the proposal. Kaelan Richards, a White House spokeswoman, on Thursday did not comment when asked if the president was considering using his executive authority to establish a new monument.On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed an amendment by Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-New York, to ban funding for the designation of any new marine monuments by Obama. The language, attached to the fiscal year 2017 Interior Department budget bill, passed by a vote of 225-202. It came in response to controversy from the fishing industry over several proposals to establish new marine monuments on the East Coast.The bill goes now to the U.S. Senate. If the amendment survives, it would not ban Obama from establishing new marine monuments but would ban federal funds from being spent to draw up and enforce rules in them.Paul Rogers covers resources and environmental issues. Contact him at 408-920-5045. Follow him at Twitter.com/PaulRogersSJMN.

Read the original post: http://www.mercurynews.com/

7/14/16 7/14/16

Ninth Circuit revives fishermen’s lawsuit for abalone protection

SAN FRANCISCO, CA; July 13, 2016: Overruling a trial court, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday reinstated Pacific Legal Foundation’s lawsuit to protect abalone and other shellfish resources — and the industries dependent on them — from being ravaged by sea otters in the waters off the Southern California coast.

The lawsuit — California Sea Urchin Commission et al. v. Jacobson et. al. — targets the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for illegally eliminating a “sea otter management zone” (i.e., a zone of protection for shellfish off the Southern California coast) which Congress established under a 1986 statute.PLF attorneys represent fishermen, a California state commission, and several nonprofit organizations with a direct interest in maintaining healthy populations of shellfish.A trial court had ruled that the lawsuit, filed in 2013, came too late, and should have been filed two decades earlier, when regulators first claimed they had authority to set aside the sea otter management zone — not when they actually took that step four years ago.But the Ninth Circuit has now reversed that decision, holding that “an agency should not be able to sidestep a legal challenge to one of its actions by backdating the action” to an earlier time when it merely published an assertion that it could take such an action.“The Ninth Circuit’s ruling is a victory for the California fishermen who want to protect California abalone and other shellfish, and it is also a victory for everyone who values the rule of law,” said PLF attorney Jonathan Wood. “The Ninth Circuit struck a blow for the rule of law and agency accountability. The decision makes clear that every final agency action may receive judicial review. Scofflaw bureaucrats cannot avoid scrutiny by citing times they got away with violating the law in the past.”

Background: regulators disobey Congress, putting shellfish — and fishing families — at risk

At issue is the Service’s violation of the terms of Public Law 99-625, the 1986 statute that authorized regulators to set up an experimental population of the California sea otter on San Nicolas Island, approximately 65 miles southwest of Point Mugu in Ventura County. It included requirements that sea otters be restricted from spreading to surrounding waters, and that fishermen be exempted from Endangered Species Act (ESA) liability for accidentally catching or harming an otter during their work.The Service accepted this compromise in the late 1980s, by moving otters to San Nicolas Island and adopting a regulation to implement the protections for the surrounding fishery.However, the Service included in its regulation an assertion that it has authority to terminate these protections (even though Congress said it “must” adopt and “shall implement” them).Nearly 20 years later, in 2012, the Service did precisely that — unilaterally reneging on the deal and repealing all of the protections for shellfish and the fishing industry.In challenging the Service’s violation of its legal mandate to contain the sea otter population, PLF attorneys represent:

The California Sea Urchin Commission, a state panel, created by the Legislature, to promote sustainable sea urchin harvests, balance sea urchin harvests with environmental protection, and foster education about the high nutritional value of sea urchin.
The California Abalone Association, a nonprofit corporation with a mission to restore and steward a market abalone fishery in California that utilizes modern management concepts, protects and enhances the resource, and guarantees a sustainable resource for the future.
The California Lobster and Trap Fishermen’s Association, a nonprofit association that advocates for a sustainable lobster resource, and for the fishermen and communities that depend on the resource. The organization is gravely concerned about unregulated otter expansion that threatens the lobster population, and the loss of fishermen’s exemption from “incidental take” liability under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), because of the risks that fishermen’s traps will unintentionally “take” otters.
Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara, a nonprofit corporation organized to integrate regional efforts of fishing communities with the aim of improving the economic and biological sustainability of fisheries. The organization is seriously concerned about unregulated otter expansion, due to the threat to shellfish and other species. The organization is also concerned about fishing operations being exposed to ESA liability in the event of unintentional harm to sea otters.

Responding to this week’s Ninth Circuit ruling, David Goldenberg, Executive Director of the California Sea Urchin Commission, said, “This victory is an important step toward defending Southern California’s fishermen pursuing their livelihoods. The decision recognizes that we have a right to have our day in court, and agency bureaucrats are not above the law.”Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the lawsuit is entitled, California Sea Urchin Commission et al. v. Jacobson et. al. More information, including the complaint, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, a video, and podcast, may be found at PLF’s website: www.pacificlegal.org.About Pacific Legal FoundationDonor-supported PLF is a watchdog organization that litigates for limited government, property rights, and a balanced approach to environmental regulations, in courts nationwide. PLF represents all clients without charge.

Read the original release: https://www.pacificlegal.org/

7/12/16 7/12/16

Opposition to California Offshore Monuments Mounts After Draft Proposal Leaked

— Posted with permission of SEAFOODNEWS.COM. Please do not republish without their permission. —

SEAFOODNEWS.COM by Susan Chambers - July 12, 2016What do creation of national monuments have in common? A lack of transparency when it comes to discussing the potential access restrictions with stakeholders. That same closed-door effort is happening off of California, as effort mounts to create offshore monuments on both west and east coasts.California sport and commercial interests first became aware of the proposal to establish monuments around nine seamounts, ridges and banks (SRBs) as rumors a few months ago. In June, the industry got a look at the first proposal draft. Washington State Sen. Kevin Ranker, D-Orcas Island, was urging California state lawmakers and West Coast members of congress in Washington, D.C., to support the proposal that could make the nine areas off-limits to commercial fishing but remain open to all recreational fishing, including charter boats.Diane Pleschner-Steele, one of the signatories to an opposition letter, noted the proponents argue the nine areas are not significant commercial fishing areas.“However, the fishermen I’ve spoken with hotly contest that,” Pleschner-Steele, Executive Director of the California Wetfish Producers Association, said in an email. “Those are productive fishing grounds and to lose them forever would be a huge economic blow to many fishermen, processors and local communities.”Ranker is no stranger to proposed monuments. As a co-chair of the president’s National Ocean Council’s Governance Coordinating Committee, he is one of the advisers to the NOC that provide guidance on the development of strategic action plans, policy and research priorities. In 2013, he worked with Washington leaders to create a national monument in the San Juan Islands.Nearly 40 people representing sport and commercial fisheries signed on to a letter opposing the designation of monuments that could include Gorda Ridges and Mendocino Ridge off of northern California; Gumdrop and Pioneer seamounts, Guide Seamount and Taney Seamounts off of central California; and Rodriguez Seamount, San Juan Seamount, Northeast Bank and Tanner and Cortes Banks off of southern California.“We oppose the designation of California offshore marine monuments that prohibit fishing under the Antiquities Act because monument status is irreversible and the Antiquities Act process involves no public peer-reviewed scientific analysis, no NEPA analysis, no public involvement or outreach to parties most impacted – no transparency,” the opponents wrote in the July 6 letter to President Obama, the Council on Environmental Quality, the secretaries of Commerce and Interior and a number of senators and congressmen.A joint letter from the American Albacore Fishing Association and Western Fishboat Owners Association further note that some of the proponents’ data about the economic importance of the seamounts, ridges and banks is old and outdated. Some fisheries expanded their use of the offshore areas when California imposed marine protected areas in southern California in 2012.The groups also note the Council Coordination Committee that includes members of the eight regional fishery management councils recently made a resolution that says, “therefore be it resolved, the CCC recommends that if any designations are made in the marine environment under authorities such as the Antiquities Act of 1906 that fisheries management in the U.S. EEZ waters continue to be developed, analyzed and implemented through the public process of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.”“in the even this proposal moves forward, we strongly support maintaining management of fisheries under the MSA, through the [Pacific Fishery Management Council],” AAFA and WFOA wrote.The proponents state the sites are “for discussion purposes only; specific sites, boundaries and regulations will be determined through a robust public consultation process that includes tribes, fishermen and stakeholders. There is a full commitment to working with these interests to better understand the activities occurring in these areas and mitigate potential concern.”Meanwhile, other groups also are preparing written comments in an effort to fend off the threat of limited access to the nine offshore areas as the opposition grows. It’s unlikely anyone from the seafood industry is fooled by some of the behind-the-scenes political maneuvering that is taking place to create the monuments.“In our opinion, which is informed by the lack of any attempt at collaboration with industry, this proposal is no more than legacy, political ambition and preservation being prioritized over the best available science and a multi-lateral, collaborative political process in the design of marine conservation measures,” AAFA and WFOA said in their letter.Click here to read the letter sent to Congressman Huffman.Click here to read the letter by Sandy Smith of the Ventura County Economic Development Association.Click here to read the oppositon letter from the National Coalition for Fishing Communities.

7/9/16 7/9/16

Fishers balk at proposal to designate Pacific Ocean national monuments

Fishing has long been a vital part of San Pedro’s history. Fishing boats still line the wharf near Ports O’ Call. (Scott Varley / Staff Photographer)

West Coast fishers, including those that supply Los Angeles and Long Beach with local seafood, are incensed at a “secret” proposal from environmentalists asking President Barack Obama to create new national monuments in the Pacific Ocean.Dozens of California fishing businesses and their representatives signed a letter this week asking Obama to ignore suggestions to block fishing in open-ocean areas rich with sea life by designating them as offshore marine monuments.Environmental groups made the proposal in a “secret effort” to lobby the president to declare that many Pacific Ocean seamounts, ridges and banks are national landmarks, according to the letter.The five-page environmental proposal, “The Case for Protecting California’s Seamounts, Ridges and Banks,” argues that these parts of the ocean should be preserved for scientific research. Seamounts and ridges are craggy underwater mountains, and banks are shallow areas near deep ocean drop-offs.“These special places are home to thousand-year-old corals thriving against all odds in the dark, cold depths,” the proposal states. “And they attract a remarkable variety of migratory predators such as sharks, tuna, billfishes, seabirds, and endangered sea turtles, which congregate to fuel up on the food produced by nutrient-rich upwelling currents.”Similar proposals have been made for the waters off the East Coast and Hawaii.“We’re trying to head it off before the president considers nominating these as national monuments,” said Mike Conroy, president of West Coast Fisheries Consultants. “A lot of environmental groups are pushing this. And it’s his last year in office so he’s looking to make his legacy.“If this proposed action is taken, many local harvesters will be impacted. Loss of access to their fishing grounds, without a public process, will likely cause irreparable harm to the San Pedro fishing community and the consumers they serve.”Obama has taken up progressive environmental initiatives to combat climate change and transition to energy sources that don’t rely on fossil fuels. He also has designated dozens of new national land monuments — most recently, the Stonewall Inn in New York City, the site of a police raid that sparked the LGBT-rights movement. But it’s not yet clear whether he will move on this issue.Craig Jacobs, a Long Beach fisherman who has also delivered to the South Bay region since the 1990s, said the proposal would devastate his business. He often spends several days a week fishing in the Cortes and Tanner Banks some 110 miles west of San Diego for lobster, California sheephead, rock crabs, cabezon, halibut, white sea bass, yellowtail and other species.“It’s going to put so much more pressure on all the Channel Islands” if these oceanic national monuments are created,” he said. “Everyone that fishes at Cortez and Tanner banks will have to go somewhere else and there’s already too much compaction with the marine-protected areas.”California was the first state to block fishing in 2012 at designated marine-protected areas, which include Point Vicente and Abalone Cove off the Palos Verdes Peninsula. The protected areas forced Jacobs and others to fish farther out to sea and to look for new species to target.“I used to just stay in the Los Angeles and Long Beach area and occasionally go out to Catalina,” Jacobs said. “Now I have to fish offshore. And now they have this seamount closure hanging over us. That’d be right up there with disastrous.”

Tuna pile up on the deck of the Captain Kevin fishing vessel after returning to San Pedro from a longline fishing run. (Daily Breeze staff file photo)

Read the original post: http://www.dailybreeze.com/

7/8/16 7/8/16

WEST COAST GROUPS UNITE TO FIGHT OFFSHORE MONUMENTS THAT PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL FISHING

July 7, 2016 — The following was released by the National Coalition for Fishing Communities:A collection of more than 40 West Coast commercial and recreational fishing groups, working in conjunction with the National Coalition for Fishing Communities, has written to the White House, the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior, and officials in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, opposing the proposed designation of marine monuments off the coast of California that prohibit commercial fishing.The letter is in direct response to a recent proposal calling on President Obama to declare virtually all Pacific seamounts, ridges, and banks (SRB’s) off the California coast as National Monuments using his executive authority under the Antiquities Act. If enacted by executive order, the new monuments would permanently close virtually all of California’s offshore SRB’s to commercial fishing.“[This proposal] was drafted and advanced behind closed doors with no public peer-reviewed scientific analysis, no [National Environmental Policy Act] analysis, and virtually no public engagement,” the letter to the White House states. “The initial justification for this proposed action is filled with sensational, inaccurate statements and omissions. The economic analysis for the proposed closures grossly understates the importance and value of the identified [SRB’s] to fisheries and fishing communities.”“Fisheries provide healthy food for people, and our fisheries are a well-managed renewable resource,” the letter continues, noting that California already has the most strictly managed fisheries in the world.Among the areas proposed for monument status are Tanner and Cortes Banks in southern California, which are critically important for many fisheries including tuna, swordfish, rockfish, spiny lobster, sea urchin, white seabass, mackerel, bonito, and market squid.The proposal also called for the closures of Gorda and Mendocino Ridges in northern California, which are important grounds for the albacore tuna fishery.As the letter states, closure of these important areas to commercial fishing would cause disastrous economic impacts to fishermen, seafood processors and allied businesses, fishing communities and the West Coast fishing economy. Even more important than the value of the fisheries is the opportunity cost of losing these productive fishing grounds forever.Unilateral action under the Antiquities Act would also contradict the fully public and transparent process that currently exists under the federal Magnuson-Stevens Act. Such a designation would also conflict with the President’s own National Ocean Policy Plan, which promises “robust stakeholder engagement and public participation” in decision-making on ocean policy.“We ask you stop the creation of these California offshore monuments under the Antiquities Act because monument status is irreversible, and the Antiquities Act process involves no science, no public involvement nor outreach to the parties who will be most affected by this unilateral action – no transparency,” the letter concludes.

Read [download] the full letter here

About the NCFC The National Coalition for Fishing Communities provides a national voice and a consistent, reliable presence for fisheries in the nation’s capital and in national media. Comprised of fishing organizations, associations, and businesses from around the country, the NCFC helps ensure sound fisheries policies by integrating community needs with conservation values, leading with the best science, and connecting coalition members to issues and events of importance.

Read the original post: http://www.savingseafood.org/ A copy of the letter (PDF) has also been archived here.

5/3/16 5/3/16

One North Coast "Hot Crab" Pushes California's Fishery Officials to Reconsider Opening Protocols

— Posted with permission of SEAFOODNEWS.COM. Please do not republish without their permission. —

SEAFOODNEWS.COM by Susan Chambers - April 29, 2016

If anyone has a right to be crabby about the Dungeness crab season in California, it's the fishermen and processors in Northern California.Persistent levels of domoic acid in the crab in California delayed the Dungeness and rock crab along the whole coast and have allowed limited, incremental openings of sport and commercial fisheries in certain areas. The industry anxiously awaited word on the last hold-out area, at Trinidad, in Humboldt County, Thursday, but the April 28 test returned one "hot" crab that had levels exceeding 30 ppm.California Department of Fish and Wildlife's Pete Kalvass said Thursday the department was going to have internal discussions and solicit feedback from the industry about what, if anything, could be done to open the fishery on the North Coast.Recreational fisheries are open from Humboldt Bay entrance to the California/Mexico border. Commercial Dungeness fisheries are open from the Mendocino/Sonoma county line south. That leaves three counties, Mendocino, Humboldt and Del Norte, that remain closed to commercial crabbing.Coincidentally, Sen. Mike McGuire, D-North Coast and chairman of the Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture, held a hearing the same day to get an update on the crab disaster declaration and domic acid ocean conditions.Mike Lucas, president of North Coast Fishers Inc., was one of the panelists."We saw markets disappear," he said, noting that more localized issues, like crab feeds, also disappeared or were reduced. These are the biggest fundraisers of the year for some organizations, he said. "There have been boats lost, families split, homes lost and communities have suffered," he said in his written comments.Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations Executive Director Tim Sloane mentioned similar circumstances."Two board members tell me they're getting out of fishing as a direct result of this closure," he said.McGuire had proposed forming a shellfish council -- similar to the Oregon Dungeness Crab Commission -- to take on some of the marketing and public relations issues that overwhelmed the industry and agencies this year. Panelists generally supported the idea, especially since changing ocean conditions may mean similar upheavals in the progression of the crab season in the future."Things are really changing for us," Sloane said.And while getting disaster aid and forming a marketing council are good ideas, clear protocols for testing is most important, some of the panelists said. Sloane said written and enforceable protocols for domoic acid testing and management, which include timing, notification procedures and opening protocols, are necessary. Lucas also mentioned the potential for crab quality testing after the Jan. 15 cutoff date should be part of the testing plan. This would ensure the public gets quality crab and the resource isn't damaged by fishing on crab in softshell conditions, he said.Some of the other suggestions included:- Coordinating a media message and engaging all of the state departments and industry in the message to assure the public that crab testing is being done and, once the crab are clear, consumers should have no fear in buying and eating crab;- Research into whether the 30 ppm threshold is accurate;- Looking more closely at the 30-day fair start provisions;- Consider a November-April season, so fishing on softshell crab is avoided.McGuire said he'd continue to work with state agencies on protocols and would like to get the shellfish council up and running before 2017. In addition, McGuire plans to hold another, shorter hearing in July or August to hear about ocean and industry updates over the summer and a fifth hearing after the season opening in the fall.

Subscribe to SEAFOODNEWS.COM

Background: regulators disobey Congress, putting shellfish — and fishing families — at risk

REPRESENTING CALIFORNIA’S HISTORIC FISHERY