U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–418 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 113–670 

SOUTHEAST REGIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON 

MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT REAUTHORIZATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, 

FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 14, 2013 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Ranking 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

DAN COATS, Indiana 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ELLEN L. DONESKI, Staff Director 

JAMES REID, Deputy Staff Director 

JOHN WILLIAMS, General Counsel 

DAVID SCHWIETERT, Republican Staff Director 

NICK ROSSI, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

REBECCA SEIDEL, Republican General Counsel and Chief Investigator 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, 

AND COAST GUARD 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska, Chairman 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Ranking Member 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

DAN COATS, Indiana 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on November 14, 2013 ...................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Begich .................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Nelson .................................................................................. 2 

Statement of Senator Rubio .................................................................................... 3 

Statement of Senator Scott ..................................................................................... 32 

Statement of Senator Blumenthal .......................................................................... 42 

WITNESSES

Dr. Roy E. Crabtree, Southeast Regional Administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department Of Commerce ............................................................. 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Douglass Boyd, Chairman, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council ......... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

Ben C. Hartig, Chairman, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council .......... 18 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20 

Carlos Farchette, Chairman, Caribbean Fishery Management Council ............. 27 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Hon. Kelly Windes, Commissioner, District Five, Okaloosa County, State 

of Florida, and Owner-Operator, Sunrise Charters .......................................... 38 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

John D. Brownlee, Upper Keys Representative, International Game Fish Association ................................................................................................................ 42 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44 

Captain Robert A. Johnson, Owner-Operator, Jodie Lynn Charters, St. Augustine Florida; Chairman, SAFMC Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel ................ 45 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

William E. ‘‘Bill’’ Tucker, Commercial Fisherman, Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish 

Shareholders Alliance .......................................................................................... 50 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52 

Lee Crockett, Director, U.S. Oceans, The Pew Charitable Trusts ....................... 55 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56 

APPENDIX

Written statement of the Gulf Seafood Institute .................................................. 73 

Letter dated November 18, 2013 to Hon. Mark Begich and Hon. Mark Rubio 

from Matthew Ruby, Commercial Fisherman and President, South Atlantic 

Fishermen’s Association ...................................................................................... 74 

Letter dated December 1, 2013 to Chairman Mark Begich and Fellow Committee Members from Michael S. Merrifield, Cape Canaveral Shrimp Co., 

d.b.a., Wild Ocean Seafood; Sherylanne McCoy, Cape Canaveral Shrimp 

Co., d.b.a., Wild Ocean Seafood; Jim Busse, Seafood Atlantic; Linda Busse, 

Seafood Atlantic; and Jeanna Merrifield, Cape Canaveral Shrimp Co., 

d.b.a., Wild Ocean Seafood .................................................................................. 77 

Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Roy E. Crabtree by: 

Hon. Marco Rubio ............................................................................................. 78 

Hon. Tim Scott .................................................................................................. 80 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Marco Rubio to: 

Douglass Boyd ................................................................................................... 80 

Ben C. Hartig .................................................................................................... 83 

John D. Brownlee ............................................................................................. 87 

(1) 

SOUTHEAST REGIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON 

MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT REAUTHORIZATION 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2013 

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 10:37 a.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Begich, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator BEGICH. This hearing is called to order. This is the U.S. 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard. This is the Southeast Regional Perspectives on Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization. We thank you all 

for being here. We thank the panel as well as others that are going 

to testify shortly. 

Again, welcome to all our witnesses and other guests in the hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee on Oceans, Atmosphere, 

Fisheries, and Coast Guard. This hearing marks the second in a series of hearings we are holding on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act, or otherwise known as the MSA, 

named after two forward-thinking members of this committee, provides the architectural framework for the conservation and management of our Nation’s fisheries. MSA was last reauthorized in 

2006, at which time significant improvements were made, most notably the requirement that fisheries management plans include annual catch limits and measures to ensure accountability if those 

limits are exceeded. 

Another important improvement is the requirement that catch 

limits not exceed the fishing levels recommended to the councils by 

their scientific and statistical committees. The revisions also provided fishermen and the councils with new management tools to 

rationalize fisheries if they wished to do so. 

These reforms, combined with rebuilding plan requirements 

added to the Act in 1996, put us on a firm footing for the sustainable management of our fisheries and our fisheries resources. Many 

now even argue that finfish and shellfish caught under a Federal 

fisheries management plan are by definition sustainably caught. 

2 

The 2006 reauthorization also made important changes to MSA 

aimed at improving the accuracy and reliability of data on the recreational fishing activities so we can better manage fisheries that 

support charter and private recreational fishing as well as commercial fishing. This includes the authorization of the new Marine Recreational Information Program and the National Salt Water Angler 

Registry. 

That said, implementing these reforms has not been easy. This 

comes as no surprise because fish issues have never been easy. Our 

challenge today is how to properly balance the need for responsible 

stewardship of our fisheries for future generations with the needs 

of individuals, businesses, and communities who rely on them. 

Today we will hear testimony from two distinguished panels of witnesses regarding MSA reauthorization from the Southeast regional 

perspective, specifically addressing management issues in the 

South Atlantic, the Caribbean, and the Gulf of Mexico. 

We hope to learn more about the impacts MSA is having on this 

region’s important fisheries and individuals, businesses, and communities who depend upon them and how, if at all, the Act can be 

modified or improved. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses 

today on how these and other changes and updates to MSA are 

being implemented and what effects they’re having. 

Before we start, I know Senator Rubio, the Ranking Member, is 

on his way, so we will continue the meeting, but I’d like to see if 

Senator Nelson has some opening comments, and then we’ll go 

right to the panel until Senator Rubio attends. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Senator Rubio is giving a speech on the floor, 

so I would ask consent that his remarks be entered in the record, 

and then he can be addressed whenever he gets here. 

Senator BEGICH. Without objection. 

Senator NELSON. And I want to thank you for having this hearing as it examines the concerns of fishing and conservation interests in the southeastern U.S. Over and over since I’ve been in the 

Senate, I have been asking this full committee and the Subcommittee, asking the leaders of NOAA and the National Marine 

Fisheries for a full-blown benchmark stock assessment for the managed species in the Gulf and in the South Atlantic. Naturally, I’m 

very pleased that now in 2013 NMFS and the Southeast regions 

have completed a benchmark assessment for Gulf red snapper for 

the first time since 2009. 

Recreational, charter, and commercial sector fishermen all reap 

the rewards of the best science, and that science then translates 

into an acceptable catch. Bottom line: better science means more 

days on the water. So when we were doing the RESTORE Act, 

where was the money going to go once the court decides in New 

Orleans what the fine is for BP? Naturally, I wanted a specific 

source of funding coming from the RESTORE Act to go for data collection for the Gulf. Budgets are tight and the RESTORE Act is 

going to be able to have a dedicated source of funding coming for 

that. 

3 

As we are reviewing these items in the Magnuson-Stevens, I recommend, Mr. Chairman, that we do not take our eyes off the importance of good science. And I look forward to the hearing today. 

Senator Rubio, I’ve already spoken for you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator NELSON. And I’ve already inserted your comments in the 

record. 

Senator BEGICH. There we go. Thank you, Senator Nelson. 

He has spoken about the health of fish, which is important. We 

thank you. 

Senator Rubio, Ranking Member, we’ll go ahead and go to your 

opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator RUBIO. Well, thank you. All kidding aside, one of the 

great advantages in Florida we have is a pretty good partnership 

between Senator Nelson and myself, especially on issues like this— 

it’s hard to be partisan about fishing and the health of our oceans. 

So thank you so much for the opportunity. Thank you, Chairman, 

for holding this hearing. This is the second in our regional hearings 

that we’re doing that I hope guide members of the Subcommittee 

as you work toward reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I 

have to admit that I think this hearing’s my favorite. 

Anyway, I’d like to welcome Dr. Crabtree and the Council Chairman for being here. I’m thankful in particular for several witnesses 

that will be on the second panel who have traveled up from Florida 

to be with us today: Commissioner Windes, Captain Johnson, Captain Tucker, and John Brownlee. Thank you for being here today 

to share Florida’s experience under the Act. 

Let me just say at the outset that I may have to leave for a few 

minutes because I have a bill up before Foreign Relations, but I 

plan to return if that finishes in time. 

Let me go on to say, Mr. Chairman, that I know that I benefit 

from reading the testimonies of all of you that are here today, and 

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to continue this dialogue with 

the three industries from Florida represented here today on the 

issues we need to address in the next reauthorization. Many of the 

issues raised in your testimony are issues that I’ve raised before 

in this subcommittee and so has Senator Nelson, issues such as the 

accurate and up to date data, up to date science, which is so fundamental to proper fishery management, and the need for greater 

flexibility in management that accounts for not only the economic 

costs of regulating an industry, but also the different ecosystems 

and the species that are federally managed. 

These are both issues I raised at the first hearing we held and 

are issues I’m committed to addressing in the next reauthorization. 

However, each region has its own unique fisheries and its own 

unique set of issues. The Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic are 

no exception. I think the biggest takeaway from the testimony that 

you will give today is that Magnuson-Stevens as currently drafted 

simply does not work for the recreational fishing community. The 

Southeast Region, blessed with generally beautiful weather and 

several different stocks, probably has the largest recreational fishVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:11 Jul 13, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\95418.TXT JACKIE
4 

ing industry in the entire United States. In Florida saltwater fishing generates about $7.1 billion and it supports thousands of jobs 

both directly and indirectly across the state. 

Yet, faced with concerns over allocation and uncertainty in the 

seasons, in some cases in the South Atlantic no season at all, our 

recreational fishermen have lost any semblance of faith in the Federal management system. Their concerns are so wide-reaching that 

it’s led some Members of Congress to introduce legislation that 

shifts management away from NOAA to the states and has even 

been recently vocalized by Senator Vitter’s temporary hold on Dr. 

Sullivan’s nomination. 

So it’s clear that the issues of the recreational community cannot 

be ignored in the next iteration of Magnuson-Stevens, and I’m committed to reforming the law so that it works for every fisherman 

in Florida and across the United States, the commercial fishermen, 

the recreational fishermen, and charter fishermen, all alike. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to close by offering a few policy 

priorities that I’m examining and I would like to discuss in more 

detail during our question period if, God willing, I’m around. With 

regard to the science, we need to make sure that funding levels are 

adequate and we need to explore ways to make fishermen a larger 

part of data collection so what they see on the water is appropriately reflected in a fishery management plan. 

Notably, the law calls for the ‘‘best available science,’’ but, as 

we’ll hear today, sometimes the science is simply not available. As 

we work to address this shortcoming, we should consider in these 

data-poor cases whether or not it is prudent to require annual 

catch limits for certain stocks. 

We also need to look at the arbitrary ten-year rebuilding time 

line under the Act. Every council chair that has appeared before 

this subcommittee has stated that they need increased flexibility in 

rebuilding stocks. Their call was recently mirrored by a National 

Research Council study recommending alternative management 

strategies for rebuilding. 

I think addressing flexibility in management should be a top priority in reauthorization. Also, we need to focus in particular on innovative ways not only to account for our recreational fishermen 

and their catch, but to do so in a way that provides a more consistent and longer season, both in the Gulf and in the South Atlantic. 

Finally, we need to ensure that the economic well-being of commercial, recreational, and charter fishermen alike and the communities they support is prioritized among national standards that 

guide fishery management in the United States. 

Mr. Chairman, if I had to name another state where the fishing 

industry is as important as it is in Florida, that state would be 

Alaska. I know that you are a strong advocate for the fishermen 

in your state. I think together we can work toward a reauthorization that reflects the several interests that have been and will be 

represented throughout these hearings and I’m confident that we 

can work together toward another bipartisan Magnuson-Stevens 

Act that will fit the needs of all. 

So thank you for holding this hearing. As I said earlier, I may 

have to step away because I have a bill before Foreign Relations. 

5 

But I’ve read your testimony and I look forward to being back in 

time for the questions. 

As I said, it may not be a perfect law, but it certainly has had 

some substantial success, and I look forward to perfecting it with 

you, Mr. Chairman. So thank you. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator 

Rubio. And it is a great partnership when you think of Alaska and 

Florida. We may be literally across the country from each other; 

the issues that we face are pretty important with regards to our 

fish and how they impact us on an economic standpoint. So I’m 

looking forward to—and I do believe that this subcommittee has 

been known to bring the bills forward, as we did last year on Coast 

Guard, in a bipartisan approach with strong support. So I’m looking forward to this. 

It’s a little slower, to be frank with you, than the House because 

they’ve laid down a bill. But we’re trying to take a much more methodical look at every issue before we put a piece of legislation 

down. So, Senator Rubio, thank you for you and your staff, for the 

work that you’ve been doing already. 

Senator Scott, do you want to say any opening remarks before I 

go right to the members? 

Senator SCOTT. No, go ahead. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. Thank you very much. Thank you for attending. 

What I’m going to do if that’s okay, Dr. Crabtree, I’m going to 

go from this side down and, again, I’ll introduce you as your time 

comes up for your presentation. Again, we have two panels today 

and the first panel—again, Dr. Crabtree is the Regional Administrator of the Southeast Regional Office, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This is 

why we always abbreviate everything on this end of the equation. 

But we’re very happy to have you here. So please, your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DR. ROY E. CRABTREE, SOUTHEAST 

REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE NATIONAL MARINE 

FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC AND 

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

COMMERCE 

Dr. CRABTREE. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Begich, 

Ranking Member Rubio, and members of the Committee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Roy 

Crabtree and I am the Southeast Regional Administrator for 

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Fisheries such as snapper and grouper in the Southeast are vital 

to the prosperity and cultural identity of our coastal communities. 

They also play an enormous role in the economy. Recreational fishing is an important social activity for individuals, families, and 

communities and is a critical economic driver both locally and nationally. Commercial fishing supports fishermen and their communities and provides Americans with a sustainable, healthy food 

source. 

Since its initial passage in 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Act has 

charted a groundbreaking course for sustainable fisheries. Today 

6 

the law requires rebuilding plans for overfished stocks and annual 

catch limits and accountability measures to prevent overfishing. 

Ending overfishing and rebuilding depleted fisheries brings significant biological, economic, and social benefit. But doing so takes 

time, persistence, and sacrifice and adherence to scientific information. 

While significant progress has been made since the last reauthorization, we recognize that this progress has not come without a cost 

and that challenges remain. Fishermen, fishing communities, and 

the councils have had to make difficult decisions and many areas 

have had to absorb the costs of conservation and investment in 

long-term sustainability. 

In some cases, as with the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery, 

we have achieved biological success, but it has not led to the increased fishing opportunities that recreational fishermen value. In 

these cases, we need to address management challenges and explore new opportunities in a holistic, deliberative, and thoughtful 

way. 

There are many examples of what fishermen, scientists, and 

managers can do by working together. In the Southeast Region, 

NOAA, the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic and Caribbean councils, 

the fishing industries, recreational anglers and other partners have 

successfully ended overfishing and rebuilt a number of stocks. We 

continue to see remarkable progress in rebuilding other stocks, including the Gulf of Mexico red snapper. 

Both fishermen and scientists agree, and the most recent stock 

assessment confirms this, there are more red snapper in the Gulf 

of Mexico today than there has been in decades. This is because the 

rebuilding measures put in place for red snapper in 2007 are working. The stock is rapidly recovering and now supports the largest 

combined commercial and recreational catch quota ever specified. 

Commercial fishermen directly benefit by receiving additional 

pounds of quota. But recreational fishermen, who simply desire the 

opportunity to fish, have seen seasons grow shorter because they’re 

able to reach their quota in fewer and fewer days. This has contributed to a very polarized atmosphere for dealing with issues of red 

snapper management. 

However, there are innovative ideas currently under consideration that could provide relief. For example, all five Gulf Coast 

States have expressed support for moving to a regional management strategy. Such a system could provide States greater flexibility in tailoring management to meet constituent needs. The 

council is also considering reallocating red snapper catches between 

the commercial and recreational sectors and exploring other innovative approaches, such as inter-sector trading and establishing 

separate sub-quotas for for-hire and private boat fishermen. 

NMFS fully supports the consideration of management options 

that have broad stakeholder support and provide the fishery greater stability while meeting conservation objectives. However, a lasting management strategy for red snapper in the Gulf, and indeed 

for all of our stocks, requires broad agreement, equitable application, and support at both State and Federal levels. 

Another issue we face in the Southeast is the number of fisheries 

that are extremely data-limited. This makes it challenging to manVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:11 Jul 13, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\95418.TXT JACKIE
7 

1See NOAA Annual Commercial Fisheries Landings Database, available at http://www 

.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercialfisheries/commercial-landings/annual-landings/index 

age and monitor annual catch limits. A primary goal for the Southeast Region is to bring more stability to recreational fisheries and 

ensure the fishery managed response to recreational catch trims is 

appropriate. 

A key component of our efforts to improve the ways—a key component will be our efforts to improve the ways we collect and use 

recreational catch data. We understand that we must continue to 

improve the quality and quantity of scientific data and that is why 

we so highly value the partnerships we have formed with the 

States, fishermen, and other interest groups. We’ll continue to 

work with them and the council to achieve the best possible alignment of science and management for each fishery. 

With some of the largest and most successful fisheries in the 

world, the U.S. has become a global model of responsible fishery 

management. This is a critical time and we must move forward in 

a thoughtful and disciplined way to ensure our Nation’s fisheries 

are able to meet the needs of both current and future generations. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today 

and I’m happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Crabtree follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. ROY E. CRABTREE, SOUTHEAST REGIONAL

ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL

OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Introduction 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Roy Crabtree and I am the 

Southeast Regional Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). NMFS is dedicated to the stewardship of living marine resources through science-based conservation and management. Much of this work occurs under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), which sets forth 

standards for conservation, management and sustainable use of our Nation’s fisheries resources. 

Marine fish and fisheries, such as red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico and salmon 

in the Pacific Northwest, have been vital to the prosperity and cultural identity of 

coastal communities in the United States (U.S.). U.S. fisheries play an enormous 

role in the U.S. economy. Commercial fishing supports fishermen and fishing communities, and provides Americans with a sustainable, healthy food source. Recreational fishing is an important social activity for individuals, families and communities, and is a critical economic driver of and contributor to local and regional 

economies, as well as the national economy. Subsistence fishing provides an essential food source and is culturally significant for many people. Our most recent estimates for 2012 show that the amount landed and the value of commercial U.S. 

wildcaught fisheries remained near high levels posted in 2011 while recreational 

catch remained stable.1

The Federal fishery management system is effectively rebuilding overfished fisheries. We continue to make progress towards long-term biological and economic sustainability and stability. Since its initial passage in 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

has charted a groundbreaking course for sustainable fisheries. When reauthorized 

in 2007, the Act gave the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils) 

and NMFS a very clear charge and some new tools to support improved science and 

management. Key requirements mandated the use of science-based annual catch 

limits and accountability measures to prevent and end overfishing, provided more 

explicitly for market-based fishery management through Limited Access Privilege 

Programs, and addressed the need to improve the science used to inform fisheries 

management. 

8 

The U.S. now has effective tools to address marine fisheries management and, as 

we look to the future, we must look for opportunities to increase flexibility in our 

management system. While significant progress has been made since the last reauthorization, we recognize this progress has not come without a cost and that challenges remain. Fishermen, fishing communities, and the Councils have had to make 

difficult decisions and many areas have had to absorb the cost of conservation and 

investment in long-term economic and biological sustainability. In some cases, as 

with the Gulf of Mexico recreational red snapper fishery, such investment has produced the expected biological benefits in the form of many more and larger fish, but 

has not produced the expected socioeconomic benefits in the form of increased fishing opportunities. We need to address management challenges and explore new opportunities in a holistic, deliberative and thoughtful way that includes input from 

the wide range of stakeholders who care deeply about these issues. 

My testimony today will focus on NMFS’ progress in implementing the MagnusonStevens Act’s key domestic provisions, and some thoughts about the future and the 

next reauthorization. 

Implementing the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act created broad goals for U.S. fisheries management 

and a unique, highly participatory management structure centered on the Councils. 

This structure ensures that input and decisions about how to manage U.S. fisheries 

develop through a ‘‘bottom up’’ process that includes fishermen, other fishery stakeholders, affected states, tribal governments and the Federal Government. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act guides fisheries conservation and management 

through 10 National Standards. These standards, which have their roots in the 

original 1976 Act, provide a yardstick against which all fishery management plans 

and actions developed by the Councils are measured. National Standard 1 requires 

that conservation and management measures prevent overfishing while achieving, 

on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery. Optimum yield is the 

average amount of fish from a fishery that, over the long-term, will provide the 

greatest overall benefits to the Nation, particularly by providing seafood and recreational opportunities and affording protection to marine ecosystems. 

The Councils can choose from a variety of options to manage fish stocks and meet 

this mandate—catch shares, area closures, gear restrictions, etc.—and also determine how to allocate fish among user groups. These measures are submitted to the 

U.S. Secretary of Commerce for approval and are implemented by NMFS. Thus, the 

Councils, in developing their plans, must carefully balance fishing jobs and conservation, while ensuring that overfishing is eliminated and overfished stocks are 

rebuilt. Other National Standards mandate that conservation and management 

measures be based upon the best scientific information available, not discriminate 

between residents of different states, take into account variations in fisheries and 

catches, minimize bycatch and promote the safety of human life at sea. 

Central to many of the Council decisions are fishing jobs. Fishing-related jobs, 

both commercial and recreational, are the lifeblood of many coastal communities 

around our Nation. Fishermen and fishing industries rely not only on today’s catch, 

but the predictability of future catches. Under the standards set in the MagnusonStevens Act, and together with the Councils, states, tribes and fishermen, we have 

made great strides in ending overfishing, rebuilding stocks and building a sustainable future for our fishing dependent communities. Thanks in large part to the 

strengthened Magnuson-Stevens Act and the sacrifices and investment in conservation by fishing communities across the country, the condition of many of our most 

economically important fish stocks has improved steadily over the last decade. 

We all share the common goal of healthy fisheries that can be sustained for generations. Without clear, science-based rules, fair enforcement and a shared commitment to sustainable management, short-term pressures can easily undermine 

progress toward restoring the social, economic and environmental benefits of a 

healthy fishery. Though challenges remain in some fisheries, the benefits for the resource, the industries it supports, and the economy are beginning to be seen as fish 

populations grow and catch limits increase. 

Progress in Implementation 

Working together, NMFS, the Councils, coastal states and territories, and a wide 

range of industry groups and other stakeholders have made significant progress in 

implementing key provisions of this legislation. 

Ending Overfishing, Implementing Annual Catch Limits and Rebuilding 

One of the most significant management provisions of the 2007 reauthorization 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act was the mandate to implement annual catch limits, 

including measures to ensure accountability and to end and prevent overfishing in 

9 

2See Fish Stock Sustainability Index. This report was the source for the underlying data, but 

the numbers presented here were compiled specifically for this hearing. Available at: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/2012/fourth/Q4%202012%20FSSI%20Summary%20 

Changes.pdf 3See Fish Stock Sustainability Index. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/status 

offisheries/2012/fourth/MapRebuiltStocksCYlQ4l2012.pdf 4 Regulatory Amendment 19 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region. Available at: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainablelfisheries/ 

slatl/sg/2013/reglam19/documents/pdfs/salreglam19lappen.pdf 

federally managed fisheries by 2011. An annual catch limit is an amount of fish that 

can be caught in a year such that overfishing does not occur. Accountability measures are management controls to prevent annual catch limits from being exceeded, 

and to correct or mitigate overages of the limits if they occur. Now, when developing 

a fishery management plan or amendment, the Councils must consider the actions 

that will occur if a fishery does not meet its performance objectives. As of December 

31, 2012, assessments demonstrated that overfishing ended for 58 percent of the 38 

domestic U.S. stocks that were subject to overfishing in 2007 when the MagnusonStevens Act was reauthorized.2 Annual catch limits designed to prevent overfishing 

are in place for all stocks, and we expect additional stocks to come off the overfishing list as stock assessments are updated in the coming years. The MagnusonStevens Act also includes requirements to rebuild any overfished fishery to the level 

that can support the maximum sustainable yield, and we have rebuilt 33 stocks nationally since 2000.3

There are many examples of what fishermen, scientists and managers can do by 

working together to bring back a resource that once was in trouble. In the Southeast 

Region, NOAA, the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, the fishing industries, recreational anglers and other partners have successfully 

rebuilt a number of once overfished stocks, including red grouper and king mackerel 

in the Gulf of Mexico, black sea bass in the South Atlantic, and yellowtail snapper, 

which is shared by both the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic regions. These and 

other conservation gains enabled NMFS to increase catch limits for six stocks or 

stock complexes and eliminate or reduce two fixed seasonal closures over the last 

year. The additional harvest opportunities attributed to rebuilding the South Atlantic black sea bass stock alone have increased annual consumer surplus for recreational anglers, annual ex-vessel revenues for commercial fishermen and annual 

profits for for-hire vessels by about $13 million, $1 million and $350,000, respectively.4 And we continue to see remarkable progress in rebuilding other stocks, including the iconic Gulf of Mexico red snapper. Both fishermen and scientists agree, 

and the most recent stock assessment confirms, there are more red snapper in the 

Gulf of Mexico today than in decades. 

But meeting mandates to end overfishing, implement annual catch limits and rebuild overfished stocks can be challenging and we recognize the importance of learning from our past actions and making adjustments as needed. With that in mind, 

the agency has already begun the process of reviewing the National Standard 1 

guidelines, which were last modified in 2009 to focus on implementing the requirement for annual catch limits. This was a major change in how many fisheries were 

managed, and we want to ensure the guidance we have in place reflects current 

thinking on the most effective way to meet the objectives of National Standard 1, 

and builds on what we and the Councils have learned in applying the latest requirements of the Act. An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in May 

2012, which was followed by an almost 6-month public comment period where we 

asked the public for input on 11 topics addressed in National Standard 1. We received a significant amount of input, and are in the process of working through the 

comments and developing options for moving forward, be it through additional technical guidelines, regulatory changes, or identifying issues for discussion as part of 

a reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Improvements to Science and Recreational Fishing Data 

Without high quality fishery science, we cannot be confident the Nation is attaining optimum yield from its fisheries, or that we’re preventing overfishing and harm 

to ecosystems and fishing communities. Attaining optimum yield requires investing 

in information about fish stocks, their fisheries and their ecosystems, including 

habitat requirements. NMFS is committed to generating the best fishery science to 

support the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Increasingly, we are conducting research and analyses to understand the environmental and habitat factors affecting 

the sustainability of fish populations. Today, we know more about our fish stocks 

than ever before, and it is vital that our science not regress, as this would inevitably 

10 

lead to increased uncertainty and potentially reduced annual catch limits, resulting 

in lost economic opportunities. 

The importance of increasing the frequency of stock assessments, improving the 

quality of fisheries science with a better understanding of ecosystem factors, and enhancing our engagement with fishermen cannot be stressed enough. The SouthEast 

Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) is a cooperative process initiated in 2002 

to improve the quality and reliability of Southeast Region stock assessments, and 

to increase stakeholder participation in the process. SEDAR is managed by the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils in coordination with NMFS and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions. 

SEDAR emphasizes stakeholder participation in assessment development, transparency in the assessment process, and a rigorous and independent scientific review 

of completed stock assessments. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act required improvements to recreational fisheries data 

collected by NMFS for use in management decisions. In October 2007, NMFS established the Marine Recreational Information Program, a new program to improve recreational fishery data collection efforts, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

requirement and the 2006 recommendations of the National Research Council. The 

Marine Recreational Information Program is a national system of coordinated regional data collection programs designed to address specific needs for improved recreational fishing information. One major component of the Marine Recreational Information Program is the development of a national registry of anglers that, in the 

Southeast Region, relies on data from state-issued fishing licenses. Also required by 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act, that registry is being used in a series of pilot studies 

to test more efficient mail and telephone surveys for the collection of data on recreational fishing activity. Based on the results of these studies, NMFS expects to 

be ready to implement new registry-based survey designs on all coasts in 2015. 

The Marine Recreational Information Program is also developing and implementing numerous other survey improvements to address the National Research 

Council’s recommendations, including improved estimation methodologies, improved 

shoreside survey design, and improvements in for-hire fishery data collections. We 

are now integrating the more accurate and precise catch estimates produced by the 

survey into stock assessments and management decision making for fish stocks in 

the Southeast Region with recreational catches. Also, we are working with the 

states to address unique or specialized needs like those of pulse fisheries such as 

Gulf of Mexico red snapper, which may open and close before data are available to 

monitor or evaluate catches. The Marine Recreational Information Program is not 

currently designed to support real-time monitoring or management of recreational 

fisheries, as it delivers data in two-month increments and does not cover all areas 

of the country, including the U.S. Virgin Islands in the Southeast Region. In addition, we are implementing electronic reporting requirements for Gulf of Mexico and 

South Atlantic headboat vessels and are considering extending those requirements 

to charter vessels to help to get recreational data into scientists’ and managers’ 

hands more quickly. 

Adequate observer coverage also is critical for improving data collection related 

to bycatch. National standard 9 requires fishery management plans to take into account fishery impacts on bycatch, particularly for protected species. NMFS continues 

to work with the Councils and through take reduction teams established under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act to identify measures to minimize bycatch and other 

impacts on sea turtles, corals, dolphins and other protected species in Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic and U.S. Caribbean waters. 

Limited Access Privilege Programs (LAPPs) 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act authorizes the use of LAPPs, which dedicate a secure 

share of fish to fishermen for their exclusive use via a Federal permit. NMFS has 

implemented LAPPs in multiple fisheries nationwide and additional programs are 

under development. Both in the U.S. and abroad, such programs are helping to 

achieve annual catch limits, reduce the cost of producing seafood, extend fishing seasons, increase revenues and improve fishermen’s safety. 

NMFS has three LAPPs in the Southeast Region, including a South Atlantic commercial wreckfish individual transferable quota program implemented in 1992, a 

Gulf of Mexico commercial red snapper individual fishing quota program implemented in 2007 and a Gulf of Mexico commercial grouper and tilefish individual 

fishing quota program implemented in 2010. While the grouper and tilefish program 

is too young to fully evaluate, recent reviews of the wreckfish and red snapper programs demonstrate they are working as intended. The wreckfish program eliminated excess fleet capacity and the race to catch fish and reduced gear and fishing 

area conflicts. The red snapper program is better aligning the capacity of the fleet 

11 

with the commercial catch limit, mitigating short fishing seasons, improving safety 

at sea and increasing the profitability of the fishery. Individual fishing quota participants are targeting red snapper year round, compared to an average of 121 day 

seasons prior to implementation of the LAPP. And the average ex-vessel price of red 

snapper in 2012 was 27 percent greater than the average inflation adjusted ex-vessel price in 2007. While limited access privilege programs are just one of many management options the Councils can consider, they have proven to be effective in meeting a number of management objectives when they have broad stakeholder support. 

Looking to the Future 

Remaining Challenges 

Even with these successes, we know that challenges remain. The Southeast Region has made remarkable progress ending overfishing and rebuilding overfished 

stocks in recent years. But we face formidable challenges managing recovering 

stocks to benefit both commercial and recreational user groups with fundamentally 

different goals and objectives. This is perhaps most evident in the Gulf of Mexico 

red snapper fishery. Rebuilding measures put in place in 2007 are working. That 

stock is rapidly recovering and now supports the largest combined commercial and 

recreational catch quota ever specified for this stock. Commercial individual fishing 

quota program participants directly benefit from stock recovery by receiving additional pounds of quota that can be fished more efficiently as catch rates and fish 

size increase over time. But recreational fishermen who simply desire the opportunity to fish are seeing that opportunity progressively restricted as the stock recovers because they are able to reach their quota in fewer and fewer days. Also, inequities created by state jurisdictional and regulatory inconsistencies have affected the 

distribution of recreational fishing opportunities and rebuilding benefits, deeply polarizing the Gulf Council on critical decisions needed to effectively address longstanding issues. A lasting red snapper management strategy will require broad 

agreement, equitable application and management support at both state and Federal levels. 

Currently, all Gulf Coast states have expressed support for moving to a regional 

red snapper management strategy which could provide greater flexibility in tailoring 

the recreational fishing season, bag limit and minimum size limit to meet constituent needs. The Gulf Council is working toward implementing such a regime in 

the recreational fishery for the 2015 fishing year. NMFS fully supports this and any 

other management option that has broad stakeholder support and provides the fishery greater stability, while meeting conservation objectives. The Council also is considering reallocating red snapper catches between the commercial and recreational 

sectors, and exploring other innovative approaches, such as authorizing recreational 

participation in the commercial individual fishing quota program through intersector trading, and separate management of the for-hire and private sectors, commonly known as sector separation. But the potential benefits of all these approaches 

are limited by several outdated and unique statutory requirements specific to Gulf 

of Mexico red snapper. For example, section 407(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

provides specific criteria for identifying participants in, and weighing votes cast, in 

referenda conducted in the fishery based on participation in the fishery between 

1993 and 1996, restricting our ability to conduct fair and meaningful referenda on 

current management proposals. And section 407(d) of the statute requires the Gulf 

Council and NMFS to establish a separate catch limit for the recreational fishery 

to apply to both for-hire and private participants, and to close that fishery inseason 

when we determine the catch limit has been reached. 

Many fish stocks in the Southeast Region are managed together with other stocks 

in mixed stock complexes. The requirement to end overfishing of all stocks in mixedstock fisheries has protected less productive species but could reduce the yield of 

healthy stocks in the same complex. Also, a number of fisheries in the Southeast 

Region are extremely data limited, making it challenging to manage and monitor 

annual catch limits in the way Congress envisioned when they last reauthorized the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act in 2007. In the U.S. Caribbean, data are too limited to 

produce meaningful stock assessments. Looking ahead, we must continue to improve 

the quality and quantity of scientific data, continue progress made on addressing 

overfishing and rebuilding stocks, continue to explore new and innovative management tools, and better address the difficult transitions that can come with management changes leading to more biologically and economically sustainable fishery resources. 

Improvements to our stock assessments and monitoring efforts will lead to more 

effective annual catch limits and accountability measures. Ensuring solid, sciencebased determinations of stock status and responsive management will also require 

better linkages to ever-shifting biological, socio-economic and ecosystem conditions. 

12 

U.S. fisheries are extraordinarily diverse in value, participation and science needs. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides flexibility in adapting management plans to the 

life history differences among species and nuances of particular fisheries, as well as 

to the unique regional and operational differences among fisheries and in the fishing 

communities that they support. 

We value the important partnerships we have formed with the states, fishermen 

and other interest groups in helping address these challenges. These partnerships 

are critical to developing successful management strategies. Together with our partners, we continue to explore alternative and innovative approaches that will produce 

the best available information to incorporate into management. 

It is also increasingly important that we better understand ecosystem and habitat 

factors, such as the effects of climate change, hurricanes, large-scale flooding and 

drought events, and oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico, and incorporate them into our 

stock assessments and management decisions, because resilient ecosystems and 

habitat form the foundation for robust fisheries and fishing jobs. The Gulf of Mexico 

has experienced an unprecedented number of natural and man-made disasters over 

the last decade, all of which have impacted commercially and recreationally important species and their habitats. Most recently, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny 

Pritzker declared a commercial fishery failure for the oyster fishery along the west 

coast of Florida, which was impacted by excessive drought conditions in Apalachicola Bay and elsewhere in the Florida panhandle during the 2012–2013 winter fishing season. Similarly, it is important that we meet our responsibilities under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act in concert with related legislation, such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act, to reduce bycatch of protected 

species to mandated levels. As we end overfishing and rebuild stocks, the strategic 

alignment of habitat and protected species conservation efforts with rebuilding and 

managing fish stocks will be a key component of NOAA’s success. 

NOAA supports the collaborative and transparent process embodied in the Councils, as authorized in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and strongly believes that all viable management tools should continue to be available as options for the Councils 

to consider when developing management programs. 

It is critical that we maintain progress towards meeting the mandate of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to end overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks. Annual catch 

limits have been an effective tool in improving the sustainability of fisheries around 

the Nation, but managing fisheries using annual catch limits and accountability 

measures was a major change for some fisheries, and the initial implementation has 

identified some areas where we can improve that process. We will continue to work 

with the Councils to achieve the best possible alignment of science and management 

for each fishery to attain the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. A primary goal 

in the Southeast Region is to bring more stability to recreational fisheries and ensure the fishery management response to recreational catch trends is appropriate. 

Also, we want to ensure that fishermen are motivated to provide timely, accurate 

catch data. 

The Next Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

With some of the largest and most successful fisheries in the world, the U.S. has 

become a global model of responsible fisheries management. This success is due to 

strong partnerships among the commercial and recreational fishing, conservation, 

and science and management communities. Continued collaboration is necessary to 

address the ongoing challenges of maintaining productive and sustainable fisheries. 

The Managing Our Nation’s Fisheries 3 conference—co-sponsored by the eight 

Councils and NMFS—brought together a broad spectrum of partners and interests 

to discuss current and developing concepts addressing the sustainability of U.S. marine fisheries and their management. The conference was developed around three 

themes: (1) improving fishery management essentials; (2) advancing ecosystembased decision making; (3) and providing for fishing community sustainability. 

We were excited to see a wide range of stakeholders represent many points of 

view, from commercial and recreational fishing, to the conservation and science and 

management communities. Before the last reauthorization, we co-sponsored two of 

these conferences, and they played an important role in bringing people together 

and creating an opportunity to present ideas and understand different perspectives. 

We expect the ideas that emerged from this event to inform potential legislative 

changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, but the benefits are much greater than that. 

The communication across regions and Councils provided an opportunity to share 

best practices and lessons learned, and could also inform changes to current policy 

or regulations that can be accomplished without statutory changes. 

13 

Conclusion 

Because of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the U.S. has made great progress in ending overfishing in federally-managed fisheries, rebuilding overfished stocks, and ensuring conservation and sustainable use of our marine fisheries. Fisheries harvested 

in the U.S. are scientifically monitored, regionally managed, and enforced under 10 

national standards. But, we did not get here overnight. Our Nation’s journey toward 

sustainable fisheries has evolved over the course of 35 years. 

In 2007, Congress gave NOAA and the Councils a clear mandate, new authority, 

and new tools to achieve the goal of sustainable fisheries within measurable timeframes. Notable among these were the requirements for annual catch limits and accountability measures to prevent, respond to, and end overfishing—real game 

changers in our national journey toward sustainable fisheries, and ones that are 

rapidly delivering results. 

This progress has been made possible by the collaborative involvement of our U.S. 

commercial and recreational fishing fleets and their commitment to science-based 

management, improving gear-technologies and application of best-stewardship practices. We have established strong partnerships among NOAA, the states, the Councils and the fishing industries. By working together through the highly participatory 

process established in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we will continue to address management challenges in a changing environment. 

It is important to take time and reflect on where we have been to understand 

where we are. We have made great progress but our achievements have not come 

easily, nor will they be sustained without continued attention. This is a critical time 

in the history of Federal fisheries management, and we must move forward in a 

thoughtful and disciplined way to ensure our Nation’s fisheries are able to meet the 

needs of both current and future generations. We will take the recommendations 

from the Managing Our Nation’s Fisheries 3 conference, and look to the future in 

a holistic, comprehensive way that considers the needs of the fish and the fishermen, and the ecosystems and communities. We look forward to these discussions. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss implementation progress of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. I am available to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Next we have Douglass Boyd, Chairman, Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council. Mr. Boyd, I have to step out for about 

a minute here, so I apologize. But please go ahead and start your 

testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLASS BOYD, CHAIRMAN, GULF OF 

MEXICO FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 

Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Begich, Ranking 

Member Senator Rubio, and Subcommittee members: Thank you 

for this opportunity to share with you the perspectives of the Gulf 

of Mexico Fishery Management Council relevant to the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. My name is Douglass Boyd 

and I’m the current Chairman of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and I’m in my fourth year as a member. 

The Gulf Council currently has six fishery management plans 

that actively manage 40 finfish and shellfish species, plus numerous species of corals. Four of our fishery management plans are 

multi-species, including reef fish, coastal migratory pelagics, corals, 

and shrimp. The single-species fishery management plans include 

spiny lobster and red drum. Nineteen of our managed 40 species 

have been evaluated by formal stock assessments. 

The Gulf Council is dedicated to managing fish as a primary 

goal, but must balance competing science, social, and economic objectives, as stated in the ten national standards. The council strives 

to manage our fisheries for the greatest overall benefit to the Nation in a fair and equitable manner while addressing the best availVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:11 Jul 13, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\95418.TXT JACKIE
14 

able science, socioeconomic communities, economic efficiency, and 

our changing environmental conditions. 

The Gulf Council feels that, while the Act is sound in basis, improvement could be considered during reauthorization in areas of 

administration, science, and management application. Specifically, 

an ongoing challenge in rebuilding timeframes for the Gulf Council 

is a lack of flexibility. The rebuilding of a particular stock as quickly as practical is desirable. However, the current mandated rebuilding times are inflexible and at times contradictory. Rebuilding 

times should have the flexibility to be tailored to the biological and 

socioeconomic characteristics of each stock. Statutory refinement in 

this reauthorization could provide greater flexibility regarding rebuilding plans by requiring overfished stocks to be rebuilt to MSY, 

or optimum yield, as quickly as possible and in a manner that protects an overfished stock from further decline. 

One of the more complex issues facing the Gulf Council is the 

management of our mixed use fisheries and balancing competing 

interests between commercial and recreational sectors. We encourage the Committee to consider new approaches to managing recreational fisheries, as they considered in the last reauthorization 

innovative ways to manage commercial fisheries. Consideration 

could be given to successful management techniques employed in 

State management of recreational fisheries. 

Science is the foundation for fisheries management. The demand 

for science in stock assessments from the three Southeast regional 

councils is greater than our science centers’ capacity, production capacity. The loss of experienced personnel and the training time for 

stock analysts, along with reduced funding, has resulted in a competitive process for science center resources. Continued and additional financial investment in stock assessment capability is of the 

greatest importance in this reauthorization process. 

Cooperative research programs provide a means to improve the 

accuracy of stock assessments and engage stakeholders in the research process. Many of these important programs face inadequate 

or uncertain funding from year to year. Reauthorization should include provisions for funding cooperative research programs. 

Councils depend on effective monitoring and reporting systems to 

help inform and corroborate catch and bycatch estimates and dictate potential problems as early as possible. An amendment to the 

Act should contain specific provisions securing long-term funding 

for monitoring and reporting systems. 

Section 407 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act pertains to the management of Gulf red snapper. This section needs updating and revision. Specifically, the referendum requirements for individual fishing quota programs are inconsistent for referenda across the various regional councils and IFQ programs implemented in the Gulf 

region. 

Specific portions of the section are outdated. Reauthorization 

should revisit Section 303(a)(6)(D) and Section 407. As currently 

used in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the terms of ‘‘overfishing’’ and 

‘‘overfished’’ are sometimes treated the same and used interchangeably, leading to confusion of intent. In reauthorization Congress 

could provide clear definitions as to separate criteria for excessive 

fishing rates and poor stock health respectively. 

15 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity of speaking with 

you today. I’d be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Boyd follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOUGLASS BOYD, CHAIRMAN, GULF OF MEXICO FISHERY

MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

Introduction 

Chairman Senator Mark Begich, Ranking Member Marco Rubio and Subcommittee members, thank you for this opportunity to share with you the experiences and perspectives of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Gulf 

Council) relevant to the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (Magnuson-Stevens Act). 

My name is Douglass Boyd and I am the Chair of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council and currently in my fourth year as a member. 

The Gulf Council has six fishery management plans that actively manage 40 

finfish and shellfish species plus numerous species of corals. Nineteen or roughly 

half of our managed species have been evaluated by formal stock assessments. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act established a framework for sustainable fishery management which has contributed to the rebuilding of many depleted U.S. fisheries 

and serves as an example of proactive management for the world. As we prepare 

for the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, I think it is important to ensure that its requirements will position the regional fishery management councils 

to manage fisheries for the greatest overall benefit of the nation, across the full 

spectrum of stock assessment characteristics, stock conditions, and dynamic environmental conditions. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act delegates a portion of decision-making authority to 

the individuals on Councils who are most familiar with each region’s fisheries. As 

such, this allows management plans to be tailored to the specific characteristics of 

each fishery. During this past year in discussions about reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, it has become apparent that the Councils need more flexibility 

to make the decisions that are best for each species and respective fisheries. 

My testimony today will outline the progress we have made in the Gulf of Mexico 

since 2006 and will identify several critical challenges and opportunities. During 

this reauthorization to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Gulf Council believes there 

are opportunities to make small, targeted changes that can provide major long-term 

improvements in our ability to manage adaptively without jeopardizing the sustainability of our fisheries. 

Relative to overfishing status, in 2006 we had five Gulf of Mexico federally managed species that were undergoing overfishing; however, today we have no species 

classified as undergoing overfishing. We are proud of this achievement and partly 

credit the 2006 reauthorization. 

Relative to overfished status, in 2006 we had red snapper and greater amberjack 

were our only overfished species. Today we have four species considered to be overfished. Of the two new overfished species one is the result of changing environmental conditions and the other due to unique life history characteristics making 

it more susceptible to becoming overfished. 

The 2006 reauthorization, combined with several natural and man-made events, 

have altered management in ways that could not have been foreseen. The hurricane 

seasons of 2004 and 2005 were among the most active and destructive in Gulf of 

Mexico history, causing widespread damage to fishing communities and vessels 

around the coast. In 2010 the Deepwater Horizon oil spill resulted in a closure to 

fishing of approximately a third of the Gulf of Mexico for most of the summer. Even 

in areas not directly impacted by the closure, fishing activity suffered as tourists 

avoided the Gulf of Mexico and greatly reduced consumption of safe and previously 

valued finfish and shellfish. While stocks managed by the Gulf Council appear to 

have escaped immediate damage, the long-term effects on fish and habitat remain 

to be determined. 

The 2006 reauthorization introduced several changes to the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. From a management perspective, the most significant changes were: 

• The requirement that rebuilding plans end overfishing immediately. 

• The requirement that all managed stocks have annual catch limits. 

• The addition of a limited access privilege program referendum process for stocks 

other than red snapper. 

16 

Prior to 2006, the Magnuson-Stevens Act required that rebuilding plans end overfishing but did not require that they do so immediately. Whereas previously we 

could implement a gradual reduction in fishing mortality to balance conservation 

with socio-economic needs, currently we are forced to end overfishing immediately 

with no leeway to take into account short-term socio-economic impacts. 

Rebuilding Timeframes 

Challenges 

One of the ongoing challenges of the rebuilding timeframes for the Gulf Council 

is lack of flexibility. The Gulf Council understands that a healthy stock provides 

higher catch levels than one that is overfished and thus provides greater long-term 

socio-economic benefits. Therefore, rebuilding a stock as quickly as practicable is desirable. However, the current Congressional mandated rebuilding timelines are inflexible and, at times, contradictory. For example, a stock that takes less than 10 

years to rebuild in the absence of fishing mortality requires more restrictive management than a stock that is more severely overfished and takes more than 10 years 

to rebuild. 

Tools, Resources, and Statutory Refinement Needs 

One suggestion for statutory refinements to the Magnuson-Stevens Act would be 

to have greater flexibility for the Councils regarding rebuilding plans. Rather than 

a fixed 10-year maximum rebuilding period, rebuilding times should have the flexibility to be tailored to the biological and socio-economic characteristics of each stock. 

By allowing the Councils greater flexibility, we would be afforded the opportunity 

to design rebuilding plans and respond to ending overfishing that would be more 

appropriate for the life history of a particular stock. Greater flexibility would also 

allow a council to reduce severe short-term social and economic impacts without 

jeopardizing the ability of a stock to rebuild to maximum sustainable yield (MSY). 

Congress can still provide appropriate guidance by requiring overfished stocks to be 

rebuilt to MSY or optimum yield (OY) as quickly as practicable, and in a manner 

that protects an overfished stock from further decline. 

Establishing Annual Catch Limits 

Challenges 

Annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) have the potential 

to be powerfully effective management tools, but their utility depends on the quality 

of the data used to assess stock size and to set appropriate catch limits. The new 

system of ACLs and AMs has worked well in fisheries that have moderate to high 

levels of data and stock assessments upon which to establish an appropriate ACL, 

but establishment of ACLs for data-poor fisheries and mixed stock fisheries has 

been challenging. These fisheries often lack the life history information (e.g., age 

and growth, size at reproductive maturity, and reproductive potential) and, in some 

cases adequate catch and effort data that are needed to scientifically estimate ACLs 

or to manage them effectively with AMs. This lack of basic fishery data precludes 

or complicates the application of any scientific method for establishing ACLs for 

data poor stocks. Conversely, stocks that have been well studied with enough information to complete a stock assessment have the scientific basis for establishing appropriate ACLs. 

The biggest ACL-related challenges encountered by the Gulf Council is establishing ACLs for its reef fish species that constitute incidental catches within the 

grouper and snapper targeted fisheries. For multi-species targeted fisheries, the 

mandate to establish ACLs for incidental species can lead to closures that cause unnecessary economic losses relative to the harvest of the targeted species and with 

minimal biological gain for either the targeted or incidental species. In other instances, it may be very important to control incidental fishing mortality on a stock 

in a mixed fishery. The councils should have the ability to determine the appropriate measure to use depending on the particular characteristics of a fishery in 

order to achieve their management objectives. Undesirable closures of target fisheries due to ACLs established for incidental species usually result in unnecessary 

economic losses relative to the harvest of the targeted species and minimal biological benefits. 

Tools, Resources, and Statutory Refinement Needs 

The 2006 reauthorization required ACLs and AMs for all managed stocks. The implementation of recreational AMs, including paybacks for overages, has been difficult in some instances. The Councils need flexibility to determine which fishery 

and in which circumstances an ACL is most appropriate. Many fisheries are appropriately managed with ACLs but there are instances when ACLs are not the optiVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:11 Jul 13, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\95418.TXT JACKIE
17 

mal management strategy and there are no clear benefits achieved by establishing 

them. 

A first step in this direction would be for Congress to maintain the overall language for ACLs but to give the Councils the flexibility to apply ACLs, where practicable. We need the flexibility to decide when an ACL for a data poor or mixed species stock may not be appropriate based on current management and monitoring 

programs. The Councils need additional flexibility to more effectively manage small 

scale, incidental, or data-poor fisheries that may be managed more effectively using 

management tools other than ACLs and AMs. Another area of flexibility Congress 

could provide would be to give the Councils discretion to make Scientific and Statistical Committee catch advice on data-poor stocks advisory rather than binding, if 

certain conditions are met. 

Preventing and Ending Overfishing Immediately 

Challenges 

In the Gulf of Mexico the greatest economic hardship has resulted from the requirement to end overfishing immediately. The requirement of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to end overfishing immediately can have destabilizing effects on some fisheries. The red snapper and gag grouper fisheries have been dramatically impacted 

by this requirement. Specific flexibility to eliminate overfishing under certain circumstances over a multi-year period would allow the Councils to substantially mitigate short-term social and economic dislocation in our managed fisheries. The Gulf 

Council has a good track record for reducing overfishing. Even prior to the 2006 reauthorization, we rebuilt the king mackerel and Spanish mackerel fisheries in the 

Gulf of Mexico within a generation time and still allowed a viable fishery to operate. 

There also may be some cases where a stock is overfished that some transient 

overfishing could be tolerated during stock rebuilding without jeopardizing the 

stock’s ability to recover or to produce MSY or OY on a continuing basis. The fishing 

public can understand the need to fish at or below a rate that allows a population 

to replace itself. However, problems occur when their fisheries are forced to endure 

the very low exploitation rates that are often necessary to achieve MSY on a longlived, slow growing stock. The ability to end overfishing over a period of time provides the flexibility to implement a rebuilding plan in balance with potential negative economic impacts. 

Tools, Resources, and Statutory Refinement Needs 

Overfishing should be managed as a transient condition (i.e., a rate) that can 

occur on both overfished stocks and stocks that are not overfished. Temporary or 

short-term overfishing on a non-overfished stock, which can often be corrected in a 

relatively short period of time, does not jeopardize the long-term ability of a stock 

to achieve MSY or OY on a continuing basis. By comparison, an overfished stock 

is the result of years of overfishing or environmental changes that can typically only 

be corrected over a longer time period. The current requirement to end overfishing 

immediately, regardless of whether the fishery is actually overfished, has likely 

caused undue and severe economic impacts in U.S. fisheries. Obviously, if overfishing is allowed to continue over a long enough time it will result in an overfished 

stock, but overfishing, per se, is not as serious of a management problem as is an 

overfished stock because overfishing over a short period of time does not jeopardize 

the long-term ability of a stock to achieve MSY or OY on a continuing basis. Providing for a multi-year reduction in fishing rates to eliminate transient overfishing 

conditions, particularly in cases where the stock is healthy, would enhance regulatory 

stability. 

Additional Tools, Resources, and Statutory Refinement Needs 

Definitions of Overfishing and Overfished 

An additional suggestion for reauthorization is for Congress to provide clear definitions of ‘‘overfishing’’ and ‘‘overfished’’ as separate criteria for excessive fishing 

rate and poor stock health, respectively. As currently used in the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, the two criteria are treated the same and used interchangeably, sometimes 

leading to confusion as to intent. Overfishing is a transient condition (i.e., a rate) 

that can occur on both a healthy and an overfished stock and that can be corrected 

in a relatively short period of time. However, an overfished stock is the result of 

years of overfishing or environmental changes that typically can only be corrected 

gradually over a longer time period. 

Section 407 Red Snapper Mandates 

Those parts of Section 407 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that pertain to Gulf of 

Mexico red snapper management need revision to improve the management of red 

18 

snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. Specifically, Sections 407(b) and (c) should be removed because a red snapper limited access privilege program has since been implemented in the Gulf of Mexico. Referendum requirements in Section 407(c) should 

be eliminated since Section 303A(c)(6)(D) now provides sufficient guidance regarding 

referendum requirements for modifying existing programs. Referendum requirements for limited access privilege programs, in general, are inconsistent across the 

regional Councils and should be revisited during this reauthorization. 

Also, Section 407(d) should be eliminated to afford more flexibility in managing 

recreational red snapper quotas to allow for more appropriate AMs rather than inseason closures. As written, 407(d) prohibits the retention of red snapper by all components of the recreational sector once the recreational quota is determined to have 

been met, including charter fishing. An example of how this mandate complicates 

creative management solutions is seen in the recently approved pilot study for a cooperative of headboat operators that will test the efficacy of a for-hire headboat 

tradable quota system over the next two years. However, due to 407(d), study participants must forfeit any remaining quota assigned under the program for a given 

year, should the total recreational quota be determined to have been harvested prior 

to the end of the year. 

Fishery Data and Funding 

Science is the foundation for fishery management. The ACL requirements have 

increased the demand for assessment products from the regional science centers. 

The effectiveness of the regional Councils is integrally linked with the availability 

of quality fishery data at adequate frequencies. In particular, additional scientific 

resources are needed to bring data-poor stocks up to an adequate assessment level. 

The demand for science and stock assessments from the three Southeast Region 

Councils is greater than our science center’s production capacity. A loss of experienced personnel and the training time for stock analysts along with reduced funding 

has resulted in a competitive process for science center resources. Continued and additional financial investment in stock assessment capacity is of the greatest importance in this reauthorization process. 

Cooperative research programs provide a means to improve the accuracy of stock 

assessments while engaging stakeholders in the research process. Despite the importance of these programs, many of them face inadequate or uncertain funding 

from year to year. The reauthorization should include provisions for funding of cooperative research programs around the country. 

The Councils depend on having effective monitoring and reporting systems in 

place to help inform catch and bycatch estimates and to detect potential problems 

in a fishery as early as possible. Not only do these programs require adequate funding to operate, but they require consistent funding from one year to the next. Given 

the critical nature of these programs, an amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

should include specific provisions securing long-term funding for necessary monitoring and reporting programs. 

Congress should avoid adding any new unfunded mandates and should ensure 

that appropriate funds are available for the Councils to meet the existing requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Continued investment in stock assessment capacity is of paramount concern in this reauthorization process. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. I apologize, I had to step 

out for a call there. 

Next on the list is Ben Hartig, Chairman of the South Atlantic 

Fisheries Management Council. Thank you very much again for 

being here. 

STATEMENT OF BEN C. HARTIG, CHAIRMAN, SOUTH ATLANTIC 

FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 

Mr. HARTIG. Chairman Begich, members of the Committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to—— 

Senator BEGICH. Is your mike on? 

Mr. HARTIG. Chairman Begich, members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the South Atlantic perspective regarding the reauthorization 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act. My name is Ben Hartig. I’m a commercial representative from 

19 

the State of Florida and current Chairman of the South Atlantic 

Council. I’m also a full-time commercial fishermen, fishing off the 

Southeast coast of Florida for over 36 years. We have addressed 

the questions posed and have provided the information Chairman 

Rockefeller requested in our written testimony. 

It is important to realize that not all of the successes in the 

South Atlantic in ending overfishing and rebuilding stocks should 

be attributed to the 2006 reauthorization. Some of our successful 

rebuilding efforts that are paying dividends today were implemented prior to the reauthorization’s legal mandates. However, 

there is no question that the current reauthorization is working for 

the fish. Overfishing has ceased for most of our assessed species, 

stocks are ahead or meeting the rebuilding time frames in most 

cases, and fishermen are seeing population increases in size and 

abundance for some species that have not been observed in a decade or more. 

We are recommending five areas be addressed in the current reauthorization: flexibility in ending overfishing, flexibility in rebuilding overfished stocks, defining ‘‘overfishing’’ on the basis of the 

recruitment overfishing level and not MSY, harvest moratoriums, 

specifying maximum sustainable yield for stock complexes. 

We’ve established that the 2006 reauthorization is working for 

the fish, but what about the fishermen? Consideration of the 

human element of fisheries management has all but disappeared 

since the 2006 reauthorization and must be reintroduced back into 

the management process. Some balance needs to be restored between the needs of the fish and the needs of the fishermen. 

In the South Atlantic, the requirement to end overfishing immediately is the significant problem. The Act should be amended to 

allow the council latitude to phase in the reductions to end overfishing over a longer timeframe and to recognize that overfishing 

has multiple biological definitions. 

We have actually used the approach of phasing in reductions necessary to end overfishing over a three-year period for two of our important species, Black sea bass and snowy grouper. Both species 

were assessed this year. black sea bass was completely rebuilt 

within its rebuilding schedule and the ABC was double. For snowy 

grouper overfishing is no longer occurring and, while still overfished, it is 10 years ahead in its rebuilding schedule. Phasing in 

of catch restrictions allowed fishermen time to adjust their business plans to catch reductions, reducing the social and economic 

impacts that occur with the current requirements of ending overfishing immediately. The South Atlantic Council believes that this 

is strong evidence to support the consideration of longer timeframes to end overfishing. 

There must be more flexibility in rebuilding overfished stocks by 

eliminating the arbitrary 10-year requirement and using the current biologically based rebuilding period alternative of fishing mortality, F equals zero plus one generation time. Using MSY as a 

basis for establishing harvest limits is problematic. Estimating 

MSY and the exploitation rate that provides it is difficult. The true 

danger to a fish stock comes when exploitation exceeds the recruitment overfishing level. 

20 

Our solution would be to amend the Act to set maximum fishing 

mortality threshold at the recruitment overfishing level. This 

would allow managers to balance foregone yield against social, economic, and ecosystem concerns when establishing exploitation targets and preventing overfishing. 

Moratoriums that result from ending overfishing immediately 

should be avoided at all costs. They should not be implemented 

where stocks have demonstrated improvement with past management controls. Both king and Spanish mackerel were severely overfished in the past. Both stocks were rebuilt within one generation 

without having to close the fisheries and have been sustainably 

managed for almost 20 years. 

Mixed species fisheries cannot be adequately managed by simplistic application of single-stock principles such as MSY. Stocks in 

a complex will vary in abundance over time. It is impossible for all 

to be at high abundances at the same time. 

Annual catch limits should not be required for unassessed stocks 

due to the fact that historical landings are uninformative for estimating stock abundance. Basing ACL’s for unassessed stocks on 

the quantitative portion of historical landings under the guise of 

the precautionary principle results in ACL’s with little scientific 

basis. 

The South Atlantic Council has faced significant challenges implementing the statutory mandates resulting from the 2006 reauthorization, particularly in ending overfishing immediately. We 

have implemented substantial reductions in ACL’s for some species 

and essentially closed one of the most important fisheries, red 

snapper, based on ending overfishing. This has come at a high cost 

to recreational and commercial fishermen and the business-related 

infrastructure they support. 

Based on management successes in the past, council believes 

that there is ample evidence to support extending the time-frame 

to end overfishing without impacting rebuilding schedules. We respectfully ask that you give due consideration to our recommendations so all fishermen in the South Atlantic will benefit from your 

decisions. 

Thank you for allowing me to appear before you today on behalf 

of the Council. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hartig follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BEN C. HARTIG, CHAIRMAN, SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERY

MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

Chairman Begich, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today to discuss the South Atlantic perspective regarding the 

Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (MSA or Act). My name is Ben Hartig; I am the commercial representative from 

the State of Florida and current Chairman of the South Atlantic Council. I am also 

a full time commercial fisherman, fishing off the Southeast coast of Florida for over 

36 years. We have addressed the questions posed and have provided the information 

Chairman Rockefeller requested in our written testimony. 

I would like to take this opportunity to thank both the House and Senate for dedicating time and resources for the exhaustive review regarding the successes and 

challenges of the 2006 MSA Reauthorization. I felt strongly enough about the severe 

economic consequences experienced by both recreational and commercial fishermen 

in the South Atlantic that I attended both of the fishermen’s rallies that occurred 

several years ago. My hope was that a fair hearing of the problems experienced by 

fishermen due to the 2006 Reauthorization would be held. While the timeliness can 

21 

be questioned, the number of hearings, the caliber and diversity of the witnesses 

and the commissioning of the National Research Council (NRC) study has exceeded 

my expectations. 

It is important to realize that not all of the successes in the South Atlantic in 

ending overfishing and rebuilding stocks should be attributed to the 2006 Reauthorization; some of our successful rebuilding efforts that are paying dividends today 

were implemented prior to the reauthorization’s legal mandates (e.g., black sea bass, 

king mackerel, Spanish mackerel). However, there is no question that the current 

Reauthorization is working for the fish. Overfishing has ceased for most of our assessed species; stocks are ahead of or meeting their rebuilding timeframes in most 

cases and fishermen are seeing population increases in size and abundance for some 

species that have not been observed in a decade or more. Red snapper is a prime 

example yet the fishery is still essentially closed. We were only able to allow two 

3-day seasons last year and 1 3-day season this year for the recreational sector 

while the commercial fishery was limited to 50 and 75 pound bycatch trip limits 

with low commercial Annual Catch Levels (ACLs), that closed harvest when the allocation was met. Even though the seasons were short, a significant portion of the 

landings of both recreational and commercial fisheries was sampled by an unprecedented state, Federal and public cooperative effort. Those efforts are vitally important for the next stock assessment. 

The South Atlantic Council has identified five areas we propose be addressed in 

the current reauthorization: 

(1) Flexibility in ending Overfishing. 

(2) Flexibility in Rebuilding Overfished Stocks. 

(3) Define Overfishing on the Basis of the Recruitment Overfishing Level and not 

MSY. 

(4) Restrictions on Applying Harvest Moratoriums. 

(5) Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) Specification for Stock Complexes. 

We’ve established that the 2006 Reauthorization is working for the fish, but what 

about the fishermen? Consideration of the ‘‘human element’’ of fisheries management has all but disappeared since the 2006 Reauthorization and must be reintroduced back into the management process. One example is that National Standard 

1 (NS 1) trumps National Standard 8 (NS 8), and social and economic considerations 

are no longer allowed in the context on ending overfishing and rebuilding timelines. 

Qualitative changes in stock abundance are no longer relevant, anecdotal observations from fishermen no longer considered and the Council has been completely removed from the Allowable Biological Catch (ABC) selection process once the ABC 

control rule is established. {NS 1: Conservation and management measures shall 

prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from 

each fishery for the United States fishing industry. NS 8: Conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the conservation requirements of this Act (including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks), take into 

account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities in order to (A) 

provide for the sustained participation of such communities, and (B) to the extent 

practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities}. 

Some balance needs to be restored between the needs of the fish and the needs 

of the fishermen. In the South Atlantic, it is not the rebuilding timelines that are 

causing the problems but the requirement to end overfishing immediately and the 

Fmsy basis of the overfishing definition. The Act should be amended to allow the 

Council latitude to phase in the reductions to end overfishing over a longer timeframe and to recognize that overfishing has multiple biological definitions. Our 

South Carolina State Representative, Mel Bell offered a great medical analogy that 

speaks to this issue: ‘‘The current system is designed in such a way that if we were 

talking about a prescribed treatment for a patient diagnosed with a serious disease 

the focus now seems to be on the timing of recovery regardless of any serious side 

effects of the treatment. If the patient can be placed on a demonstrable road to recovery in such a way that minimizes or balances potential dangerous side effects, 

costs and risks, that would make more sense. It’s a matter of balancing the need 

for specific timing in the declaration of recovery/cure and the possibility of some 

very serious complications from the chosen prescribed treatment and recovery rate. 

The mandate should be to get on and stay on the road to recovery rather than to 

insist that it must be completed in ‘‘X’’ years for every fishery in need’’. 

The South Atlantic Council has actually used the approach of phasing in reductions necessary to end overfishing over a three year period for two of our important 

species black sea bass and snowy grouper. Both species were assessed this year. 

Black sea bass is completely rebuilt within the rebuilding schedule and the ABC 

22 

was doubled; for snowy grouper overfishing is no longer occurring and while still 

overfished, it is 10 years ahead of its rebuilding schedule. The phasing in of catch 

restrictions allowed fishermen time to adjust their business plans to the catch reductions reducing the social and economic impacts that occur with the current situation of ending overfishing immediately. The South Atlantic Council believes that 

this is strong evidence to support the consideration of longer timeframes to end 

overfishing. It is important to note that the phase-in periods used in these examples 

included significant reductions in harvest and fishing mortality; the delay was simply in achieving a mortality rate below the Fmsy level, the overfishing definition 

prescribed by the MSA. On the basis of other important biological measures, such 

as recruitment overfishing and measures of spawning potential, there was considerably less delay in ending overfishing. 

That raises the question of just what is meant by overfishing. In reality there are 

various definitions of overfishing. For example, recruitment and growth overfishing 

are basic measures that can be readily estimated for most stocks. Of these, recruitment overfishing is the most damaging to sustainability, as exceeding this level 

jeopardizes the ability of a stock to replace itself. At the other extreme is growth 

overfishing, where there is no risk to sustainability but a loss of potential harvest 

to the users. Maximum Sustainable Yield combines concepts of both the basics of 

recruitment and growth overfishing, and usually lies somewhere between these extremes. Unfortunately, Maximum Sustainable Yield is very difficult to estimate for 

fish populations. Another issue with MSY lies in the way constituents typically perceive overfishing. Non-scientists tend to recognize overfishing in the recruitment 

sense, since when they encounter fewer fish they recognize a problem in the population. They will often support some level of regulation to reverse such situations, 

but have difficulty understanding the need for the more severe regulations necessary to end MSY-based overfishing. 

Overfishing based on MSY standards has been and continues to be a problem in 

the South Atlantic for a number of reasons. Early assessments for snapper/grouper 

species were much simpler and less scientifically rigorous than statistical catch at 

age models currently used. As a result, they could not provide estimates of MSY so 

alternatives were chosen for evaluating overfishing. These alternatives were typically based on preventing recruitment overfishing to ensure sustainability. The new 

generation of stock assessment scientists or ‘‘mathemagicians’’, which I do not use 

as a disparaging term but a compliment, are able to do so much more with so little 

data. This has resulted in estimates of MSY for more stocks, but in many cases 

these MSY levels allow much less fishing pressure than the earlier measures. In addition, while we have received results from stock assessments including analysis 

with less than optimal data, there are costs associated with those results in the 

form of ‘‘data uncertainty’’. This has to be quantified in the assessment and the impacts come in the form of lower catch estimates and it is the fishermen that pay 

a high price for not having adequate data. Virtually every first-time assessment 

done by these new analysts for species in the snapper/grouper complex indicates 

overfishing is occurring or approaching overfishing, or the stock is overfished or both 

stock conditions exist. 

An example of a recent first time assessment is blueline tilefish. The results from 

that assessment indicate that overfishing is occurring and the stock is precariously 

close to becoming overfished. To end overfishing immediately the Council needs to 

reduce landings by 68 percent based on the current Act. That’s a tough pill for our 

recreational and commercial fishermen to swallow. The social and economic impacts 

could be substantially reduced by allowing overfishing reductions to be phased in 

over a longer time period. The Council is planning on using emergency action to implement the necessary reductions at the December meeting. 

Another problem the Council faced in the past was setting quotas in declining 

fisheries. The Council would set an ABC from a simplistic assessment expecting the 

stock to rebuild. By the time the stock was assessed again the landings continued 

to decline and a new lower quota was implemented. Chasing declining fisheries was 

a problem until the new generation of stock assessment scientists arrived with the 

implementation of the Southeast Data and Assessment Review in 2002. This is a 

stock assessment process developed to improve the quality and reliability of stock 

assessments in the Southeast. The Council has been diligent in implementing scientific stock assessment recommendations over the years and in the case of greater 

amberjack enacted more restrictive regulations than the assessment indicated were 

needed based on fishermen’s perspectives of stock condition. The regulations worked 

and by the time the greater amberjack stock was assessed for the first time by the 

new generation of stock assessment scientists the fishery was in a sustainable condition. 

23 

Data/Research/Assessment Process 

The 2006 MSA Reauthorization was predicated on having the necessary data, research and assessment processes in place and operating. This is simply not the case 

in the Southeast: 

• ACL monitoring—still having difficulty tracking commercial landings in a timely manner and recreational landings continue to be a challenge. This results in 

continued ACL overages. 

• Biological samples—insufficient fish sampled for length, otoliths for aging and 

reproductive condition. Staff resources to read otoliths and process the reproductive samples are severely limited. This results in more uncertainty in stock 

assessment results. 

• Assessments –not enough stock assessments in a timely manner. This results 

in delays to increases and/or decreases that may be necessary in management 

limits and regulations. 

A potential solution to ACL monitoring would be to fully implement ACCSP Quota 

Monitoring in the Southeast based on state landings as is done from North Carolina 

northwards. Additional funding should be provided to the states to collect biological 

samples and improve their monitoring of commercial and recreational landings. 

Flexibility in Rebuilding Overfished Stocks 

• Current rebuilding requirements include an arbitrary time period of 10 years 

and a science-based alternative incorporating productivity. 

• Nonsensical outcomes result when stocks approach the mandatory 10-year limit 

under the unrealistic moratorium terms. A moratorium is required if a stock 

can rebuild in 10 years with no fishing. If the same stock were just a little 

worse off to start, such that it would take 11 years to rebuild with a moratorium, that rebuilding time would become 11 years plus a generation. Thus, if 

a stock gets a little worse off before the need for rebuilding is recognized, the 

rebuilding plan can be much more liberal and tolerable to fishermen. 

• The 10-year rebuilding time-frame does not treat all stocks with varying life 

histories fairly and adequately. Short-lived stocks can experience several generations in that time, while long-lived stocks may only experience a small portion of a generation. 

• Single stock moratoriums in a multi-stock fishery are impractical, unrealistic 

and result in unnecessary impacts on healthy stocks in the complex. 

The South Atlantic Council recommends that the rebuilding time requirement be 

simplified, by eliminating the arbitrary 10 year requirement and using the current 

biologically based rebuilding period alternative of Fishing Mortality (F)=0 + 1 generation time for all situations. 

FMSY is a Good Target but a Bad Limit 

Fmsy is defined as the fishing mortality rate that would, in theory, give the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) from a particular stock year after year. 

• Estimating maximum sustainable yield, and the exploitation rate that provides 

it, is difficult 

• The true danger to a fish stock comes when exploitation exceeds the recruitment overfishing level. (Recruitment overfishing is the rate of fishing above 

which the recruitment to the exploitable stock becomes significantly reduced. It 

is characterized by a greatly reduced spawning stock, a decreasing proportion 

of older fish in the catch, and generally very low recruitment year after year.) 

• Fishermen perceive or relate to overfishing at the recruitment overfishing level, 

and are often willing to give up some yield of one stock to preserve access to 

a broader, multi-species resource. Problems arise, however, when they are 

forced to endure the very low exploitation rates that are often necessary to 

achieve MSY on long-lived, slow-growing stocks. 

• Stocks rebuild when fishing mortality is reduced below the recruitment overfishing level and recruitment improves even if the exploitation rate is above 

Fmsy. 

• It is unlikely that each stock in a complex can be at MSY simultaneously, despite the best intentions of fishery managers. Even if that were possible, we 

simply do not know what that MSY level would be. Our best assessments struggle to provide robust estimates of MSY for a single species, but much less so 

when the interactions between species are considered and addressed. 

24 

• The South Atlantic Council’s solution would be to amend the Act to set Maximum Fishing Mortality Threshold at the recruitment overfishing level. 

• This will allow managers to balance foregone yield (growth overfishing) against 

social, economic and ecosystem concerns when establishing exploitation targets 

and preventing overfishing. 

Impose Restrictions on Applying Harvest Moratoriums 

• Single-species moratoriums in a multi-species complex are impractical, unrealistic and result in unnecessary impacts on healthy stocks (e.g., high level of discards). 

• Implementing measures to immediately end overfishing on a single component 

stock of a complex has undesirable adverse impacts on other species in the complex. 

• Moratoriums should be limited to extreme cases where a fishery has not responded to management, and should not be considered in the first effort to recover a newly recognized overfished stock. 

• Complete harvest moratoriums should not be implemented if resources are not 

available to monitor the population when fishery-dependent data are lost due 

to regulations. 

• Due to a lack of adequate fishery-independent monitoring and fishery observer 

coverage, the South Atlantic Council is faced with no means to remove harvest 

moratoriums on 4 stocks that cannot be assessed because those harvest moratoriums eliminated the only available data source. 

Red snapper is a case where an existing rebuilding plan demonstrated evidence 

of stock improvement under existing regulations. In fact, recreational and commercial fishermen were experiencing increases in size and abundance that had not been 

seen in a decade or more. The 2010 assessment verified, in part, the observations 

of the fishermen that a large year class had entered the fishery. That large year 

class was the direct result of management regulations that had been in place prior 

to the moratorium. While those prior regulations were not enough to end overfishing 

as based on MSY, they were obviously adequate to allow the stock to ’turn the corner’ toward recovery, show a gradual increase in spawner abundance, and produce 

the best year class on record. Although the 2010 assessment alleviate the need for 

the Council to close large areas to all fishing, it still indicated a very low catch level 

was needed to end overfishing immediately. Management evaluations indicated that 

the very low allowable catch would be consumed by the discard losses of red snapper 

encountered as bycatch as fishermen pursued other species in the complex. Consequently the Council had no choice but to impose a harvest moratorium on red 

snapper. It has been impossible to convince fishermen that a moratorium was needed when they were experiencing the best red snapper fishing in decades. Particularly, it was difficult to convince them of the inadequacy of the previous regulations 

that were, to them, responsible for the improvements in stock abundance readily apparent to all. Those regulations reduced fishing mortality, likely ended recruitment 

overfishing, but fell short of preventing MSY-based overfishing, at least based on 

the current estimates of abundance and productivity. 

Due to this separation between what fishermen are seeing and the regulations the 

Council is forced to implement in an effort to apply MSY concepts to a poorly sampled multi-species complex, the Council has lost all credibility in a large portion of 

its jurisdiction. That credibility was hard won and had come primarily from examples in king and Spanish mackerel management. In the mid-1980s the Council had 

faced similar circumstances with regard to the king and Spanish mackerel fisheries. 

These fisheries represent the largest single species landings that the Council manages (Spanish and king mackerel ABCs 6.063 and 10.46 million pounds, respectively). Prior to the 1980s, king and Spanish mackerel catches were essentially unregulated. The fishery was sustainable throughout most of its history (there are 

commercial landings going back to the late 1800s for Spanish mackerel) primarily, 

as a commercial gillnet fishery with a substantial recreational component. Due to 

their migratory nature, both king and Spanish mackerel are available during some 

portion of the year to all fishermen in the South Atlantic. In the summer they can 

be found as far north as Maine and support important fisheries north of the Council’s jurisdiction. 

Introduction of airplane reconnaissance and large power-assisted run-around 

gillnets in the commercial sector in 1970s took advantage of the tight over-wintering 

schooling behavior exhibited off Florida and greatly increased catches. Harvests by 

both recreational and commercial fisheries in the 1970s and early 1980s exceeded 

reproductive capacity and led to overfishing. The South Atlantic Council developed 

25 

a plan to end overfishing and Federal regulations were implemented in 1983 to control harvest and rebuild depleted stocks of both king and Spanish mackerel. Management measures developed by the Council for Atlantic migratory group king and 

Spanish mackerel were very successful in rebuilding stocks, while at the same time 

the mackerel fisheries remained viable for both recreational and commercial fishermen. Both of these stocks were rebuilt within one generation and neither fishery 

was placed under a moratorium. The commercial fisheries were closed when the restrictive quotas were met and the recreational fishery remained open under restrictive bag limits. Current assessments indicate both stocks remain healthy and the 

Spanish mackerel biomass is substantially above MSY. 

The mackerel management history indicates that the current red snapper moratorium could and should have been avoided. Some may argue that red snapper is a 

reef fish and not comparable biologically to the mackerels, when in fact their biological characteristics are very similar. Mackerel are fast growing and mature early. We 

have documented 4-year old red snapper weighing 17 pounds, which is actually faster growing than the mackerels, and red snapper are mature at age 2, somewhat 

faster than king and about the same as Spanish mackerel. The significant difference 

between red snapper and mackerels is the maximum age; red snapper can live into 

their 50s while most mackerels live half as long. 

Prior to the 2006 MSA Reauthorization, the Council could have developed regulations to phase out overfishing over several years, similar to what was done for black 

sea bass and snowy grouper, by imposing significant reductions in mortality to end 

recruitment overfishing and continue rebuilding, and in doing so balance the needs 

of the stock with those of the fishery. It is no longer possible to end recruitment 

overfishing and allow stocks to begin recovery, while possibly allowing some growth 

overfishing to continue as a means to potentially offset severe social and economic 

consequences. As previously mentioned, public faith in the Council process has declined considerably as the red snapper closure has dragged on, and confidence in 

the management system remains low today. 

There is also the question of missed opportunities that sometimes arise when severe management restrictions are needed. Instead of a moratorium the Council, before the 2006 Reauthorization, could have implemented the significant reductions in 

mortality to end recruitment overfishing and continue rebuilding, designated an 

MPA in the heart of the red snapper fishery as an insurance policy that would have 

protected a portion of that large year class as well contributing the same protections 

to a myriad of other species, and closed the fishery during the spawning months as 

red snapper form significant spawning aggregations. Those options would have been 

much more palatable to the public in the context of a complete closure. Furthermore, the fishery-dependent data stream critical to the last assessment would have 

continued allowing the next assessment to be done 2–3 years earlier than waiting 

on the new fishery-independent survey to be developed and have a time series long 

enough to discern population differences. 

Allow MSY Specification for Stock Complexes 

• Mixed-species fisheries cannot be adequately managed by simplistic application 

of single-stock principles such as MSY. 

• Stocks in a complex will vary in abundance over time and it is impossible for 

all to be at high abundances at the same time. 

• We lack both the ecosystem and fishery data necessary to attempt to estimate 

multi-species MSY levels for species complexes. 

• Desired fishery yield should be specified for overall complexes, while allowing 

individual stocks within the complex to experience normal variability in abundance from year to year. 

• The South Atlantic Council asks that the challenges of managing multi-species 

fisheries be acknowledged, and that the Act remove the expectation that all 

stocks can be managed at MSY at the same time. 

Do not Require ACLs for Unassessed Stocks 

• Basing ACLs for unassessed stocks on a quantitative portion of historical landings under the guise of the precautionary principle results in bogus ACLs with 

scant scientific basis. 

• ACLs derived from catch may be artificially low, decreasing fishery yield, or too 

high, posing risk to the stock. 

Neither scientists nor managers can make informed recommendations without legitimate assessments because historical landings are uninformative for estimating 

stock abundance. 

26 

Challenges 

The Snapper/Grouper fishery in the South Atlantic poses the most significant 

challenges for the Council. The Coastal Migratory Pelagic Fisheries have been on 

autopilot since the late 1990s (king mackerel showing lower recruitment recently 

but the assessment begins in December of this year) and the dolphin and wahoo 

fisheries are cruising along without any major concerns. But the dolphin (Mahi 

Mahi) fishery has raised discussion in the context of fisheries that exist almost as 

annual crops but not quite. Ninety-seven percent of the dolphin are caught at age 

1 and they only live to 4 years of age. If there could be some clarification if a species 

with these biological traits could be considered an annual crop that would be helpful. 

The Snapper/Grouper fishery is composed of 60 species with varying life history 

characteristics, catchability and depth preferences. 

Examples of stated problems from independent reviewers as part of the 

NOAA Data Review of the SEFSC 

Data currently used in assessments, for most of our assessed species, are deficient 

in both quality and quantity for producing robust assessments. One of the reviewers 

from the Data Review for Gulf, South Atlantic and Caribbean Councils conducted 

by the Southeast Fisheries Center (SEFSC) this past summer indicated that: ‘‘In 

general, sample sizes for age information, in both commercial and recreational fisheries, in all southeast regions, are smaller than what would be optimal for agestructured assessments of even the primary species. In some cases, they are truly 

limiting the SEFSC’s ability to conduct age-based assessments. One major concern 

that needs to be addressed is the minimum sample sizes needed to represent the 

age distribution in the catch in a statistically reasonable manner.’’ Confounding this 

problem, the SEFSC simply does not have enough personnel to process age samples 

and in some instances hard parts used in age determination are subsampled and 

the remainder archived for possibly future analysis. ‘‘The Center’s ability to process 

biological samples is on really tenuous grounds, and in some cases it is a lack of 

personnel that prevents the processing of archived and even contemporary samples. 

Processing of biological samples is an essential function for stock assessments, and 

these positions need to be secure to insure the availability of qualified staff (Reviewer #2, Data Review, SEFSC).’’ 

SEFSC Facing Many Challenges 

(1) Two SEFSC Laboratories are successful at aging some species, however, species-specific aging workshops are needed to increase accuracy and precision for 

estimated ages. 

(2) Age validation studies are needed. 

(3) Current staffing levels are insufficient to meet workload demands. 

(4) Dependency on extramural grant funding creates high turnover rates and valuable time is spent retraining new employees. 

(5) Need for increased reproductive sampling across the Center’s entire jurisdiction. 

Challenges in the Recreational Fishery 

(1) Coarse spatial resolution of the data. 

(2) Large uncertainty in the estimates of effort. 

(3) Lack of biological samples (length, weight and especially hard parts for aging). 

(4) Uncertainty in discard estimates. 

(5) Complete lack of biological data for discards 

(6) Not all discards are related to minimum size. 

The recreational fishery can account for 50 percent or more of the total landings 

and discards for many reef species, and recreational discards may be 2 to 3 times 

the landings for some fisheries. 

Fishery-Independent Data in the South Atlantic 

The paucity of the fishery-independent data, especially in the South Atlantic and 

Caribbean was a frequent theme throughout the Data Review meeting. 

The precision and accuracy of stock assessment results are greatly improved with 

the inclusion of reliable fishery-independent indices of abundance. Generating such 

indices should be a major focus for efforts designed to improve data collection and 

quality for stock assessments. A well-designed coast-wide fishery-independent survey could provide indices of abundance, age and length information, and updated 

life history information while also informing selectivity, spatial effort and movement 

27 

of stocks (Reviewer #3). For the surveys currently conducted, small sample sizes and 

high variability in the surveys are currently causing large problems for stock assessments (Reviewer # 3). 

Four of the 6 Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP) 

surveys in the South Atlantic do not target federally managed species and are not 

used in any assessments (reviewer #3) However, this year’s Spanish mackerel assessment used an index from SEAMAP. 

The MARMAP and Southeast Fisheries Information System (SEFIS) fishery-independent sampling use fish traps for their primary sampling methodology. There are 

limitations to trap surveys that have not been addressed: differential catchability 

at size and age, ontogenetic movements as some species move to deeper water environments where traps are rarely fished, a large number of South Atlantic reef species that are not trappable on a regular basis, and traps that cannot be deployed 

in high velocity currents that exist in much of the South Atlantic. The commercial 

and recreational fisheries are hook and line fisheries, and recreational and commercial fishermen have concerns about the validity of trap catches versus hook and line. 

An example of this is illustrated by several cooperative research programs being 

conducted for red snapper where hook and line gear is being used as the mode of 

sampling. Most of the day trips in that survey caught more red snapper than the 

MARMAP trap survey caught in its 30 years of sampling. 

Conclusion 

The South Atlantic Council has faced significant challenges implementing the 

statutory mandates resulting from the 2006 MSA Reauthorization, particularly, in 

ending overfishing immediately. The 2006 Reauthorization is predicated on the assumption that each Council has the necessary data to meet the statutory requirements. That is clearly not the case for the Southeastern Councils in general and the 

South Atlantic specifically. We have implemented substantial reductions in ACLs for 

some species and essentially closed the most important fishery, red snapper, along 

the east-central Florida through Georgia based on ending overfishing. This has come 

at a high cost to recreational and commercial fishermen and the business related 

infrastructure that they support. Based on management successes in the past, the 

Council believes that there is ample evidence to support extending the time-frame 

to end overfishing without impacting rebuilding schedules. The original MagnusonStevens Act was founded on the regional differences among the Council jurisdictions. The ‘‘one size fits all’’ approach in the 2006 Reauthorization has violated that 

regional component. We respectfully ask that you give due consideration to our requests so that all fishermen in the South Atlantic will benefit from your decisions. 

Thank you for allowing me to appear before you on behalf of the Council. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. 

Our last person to testify, thank you for being here. If I pronounce it right, is it ‘‘Far-SHET-ee’’? 

STATEMENT OF CARLOS FARCHETTE, CHAIRMAN, 

CARIBBEAN FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 

Mr. FARCHETTE. Yes, sir. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you, Mr. Farchette, for being here, 

Chairman of the Caribbean Fishery Management Council. 

Mr. FARCHETTE. Good morning, Honorable Senator Begich and 

members of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. My name is Carlos Farchette and I represent the U.S. Caribbean Fishery Management Council, encompassing the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, St. Thomas, St. 

John, and St. Croix. It is my pleasure to address the request for 

comments on issues related to the Southeast Regional perspectives 

on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

First I would like to endorse the letter dated November 8, 2013, 

submitted to Honorable Doc Hastings and Honorable Mark Begich 

by the eight regional fishery management councils, referring to the 

consensus statements on priorities for the reauthorization of the 

MSA. 

28 

Second, we want to present some topics specific to the U.S. Caribbean. The U.S. Caribbean is considered a data-poor area. This 

constitutes a major challenge to determine overfishing limits, annual catch limits, among others. The development and implementation of OFLs and ACLs for our fishing grounds is very difficult to 

achieve when you have multiple species and very little trustworthy 

information for the species involved. This calls for more funding or 

adoption of different strategies and methodologies to obtain the information needed for establishing these parameters. 

Due to budgetary situations faced at the national level, substantially increases in the funds for scientific studies is probably not on 

the horizon. Therefore we will need more flexibility in setting these 

levels of fishing. Presently the law dictates that when data is 

scarce the buffer between OFL and ACL should be larger. This 

causes unnecessary economic hardships to our fishers. 

Actually, what you hear most from local fishers is a question: 

Why do we have to be penalized for the inability of the government 

to obtain and process statistical data on time to avoid these unfair 

closures? Hence, we want to emphasize the need to amend the 

MSA to provide for flexibility in the process to determine the levels 

of fishing that will provide for sustainability of the resource with 

a minimum amount of economic burden to the fishing industry, 

both recreational and commercial. 

Another point we want to bring to your attention is the need to 

effectively include information and scientific assessment of the socioeconomic component of the ecosystem-based management approach. The CFMC is moving toward the implementation of islandbased FMPs. The idea is to consider island areas as a whole for 

fishery management purposes. This will focus management actions 

specific for each area, rather than adopting a blanket set of management measures across the entire Caribbean EEZ as we do now, 

which results in unfair treatment of some of the island communities. 

As an example, while in the St. Thomas-St. John area the fishing 

is mostly market-driven, the measures applied to avoid overfishing 

of species in Puerto Rico are also imposed to St. Thomas-St. John 

fishers, creating an unnecessary economic hardship to the local 

fishers of these islands. 

We would like to receive clarification on the role of councils in 

international fisheries affairs. Historically our council has as one of 

its original objectives the promotion of pan-Caribbean management 

strategies, given our dependence on fisheries management of 

shared stocks from upstream islands. Therefore we have participated in the delegation of Western Central Atlantic Fisheries Commission and other international bodies that oversee Caribbean 

Basin fisheries. If the MS reauthorization addresses international 

issues, we would like to see some language as to the role of our 

Council in international bodies. 

Finally, we believe that the MSA is working and may only need 

fine adjustments, but the above-mentioned issues with some of its 

requirements should be considered to provide the necessary flexibility in its implementation process, especially in the Caribbean region. 

29 

Thank you very much for this opportunity to submit our comments. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Farchette follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARLOS FARCHETTE, CHAIRMAN, CARIBBEAN FISHERY

MANAGEMENT COUNCIL, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

It is my pleasure to address the request for comments on issues related to the 

Southeast Regional Perspectives on the Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act (MSA). 

First, we would like to endorse the letter dated November 8, 2013, submitted to 

Honorable Doc Hastings and Honorable Mark Begich by the eight Regional Fishery 

Management Councils, referring to the consensus statement on priorities for the reauthorization of the MSA. 

Second, we want to present some topics specific to the U.S. Caribbean: 

• The U.S. Caribbean is considered a ‘‘data-poor’’ area. This constitutes a major 

challenge to determine overfishing limits (OFLs), annual catch limits (ACLs), 

among others. The development and implementation of OFLs and ACLs for our 

fishing grounds is very difficult to achieve when you have multiple species and 

very little trustworthy information for the species involved. This calls for more 

funding or adoption of different strategies and methodologies to obtain the information needed for establishing these parameters. Due to the budgetary situation faced at a national level, substantially increasing the funds for scientific 

studies is probably not in the horizon. Therefore, we will need more flexibility 

in setting these levels of fishing. Presently, the law dictates that when data is 

scarce, the buffer between OFL and ACL should be larger. This causes unnecessary economic hardship to our fishers. 

Actually, what you hear most from local fishers is the question ‘‘why do we have 

to be penalized for the inability of the government to obtain and process statistical data on time to avoid these unfair closures? Hence, we want to emphasize 

the need to amend the MSA to provide for flexibility in the process to determine 

the levels of fishing that will provide for sustainability of the resource with the 

minimum amount of economic burden to the fishing industry, both commercial 

and recreational. 

Another point we want to bring to your attention is the need to effectively include information and scientific assessment of the socio-economic component of 

the ecosystem-based management approach. 

The CFMC is moving towards the implementation of island-based FMPs. The 

idea is to consider island areas as a whole for fishery management purposes. 

This will focus management actions specific for each area, rather than adopting 

a blanket set of management measures across the entire Caribbean EEZ as we 

do now, which results in unfair treatment of some of the islands communities. 

As an example, while in the St. Thomas/St. John area the fishing is mostly market-driven, the measures applied to avoid overfishing of species in PR are also 

imposed to St, Thomas St. John fishers, creating an unnecessary economic hardship to the local fishers of these islands. 

• We would like to receive clarification on the role of councils in international 

fishery affairs. Historically, our council has as one of its original objectives the 

‘‘promotion of pan-Caribbean management strategies,’’ given our dependence of 

fishery management of shared stocks in upstream islands. Therefore, we have 

participated in the delegation of the Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission and other international bodies that oversee Caribbean basin fisheries. 

If the MSA reauthorization addresses international issues, we would like to see 

some language as to the role of councils in international bodies. 

Finally, we believe that the MSA is working and may only need fine adjustments, 

but the above mentioned issues with some of its requirements should be considered 

to provide the necessary flexibility in its implementation process, especially in the 

Caribbean region. 

Thank you very much for this opportunity to submit our comments. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. 

Thank you all for your testimony. What I’m going to do, it’s a 5- 

minute round. I’ll start with Senator Rubio, then I’ll go to Senator 

Nelson, then Senator Scott, then I’ll do the completion. 

30 

Senator Rubio. 

Senator RUBIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My first question is directed at both Dr. Crabtree, but also to Mr. 

Hartig. One of the things I hear from constituents who like to fish 

recreationally in salt water is that they’d like to see not only longer 

fishing seasons, but seasons that are more predictable and consistent seasons that they can count on from year to year. Certainly 

hunters have a very good idea of when their seasons will start and 

when they’ll end. 

What is it about the Federal fisheries management under MSA 

that makes it so difficult to establish a recreational fishing season 

and to effectively manage the sector during the season? 

Dr. CRABTREE. Well, thank you for your question, Senator Rubio. 

I think the area where we have historically had the most problems 

is in the Gulf of Mexico with the recreational red snapper fishery. 

One of the messages that the council, we’ve heard loud and clear 

over the last couple of years, is not only the desire for more days, 

but the desire for stability and predictability, as you say. We’ve 

heard that. 

So in response to that, after this year’s stock assessment was 

completed the council reviewed a number of options for setting the 

total allowable catch levels for the Gulf. They elected to try and set 

the total allowable catch at a constant level over the next 3 years, 

with the goal of trying to bring some stability to the fishery. So we 

were able to raise the quotas by about a million and a half pounds 

this year and we will have stable catch levels for the next 3 years. 

One of the things that’s resulted in changes taking place in April 

or May for the last couple of years with red snapper has been that 

the quotas have been going up each year and we’ve been going 

through a rulemaking in the spring to set the quota, and that’s resulted in last-minute changes to the fishery. This year the quotas 

are in place now, and so we presented analyses at the last Gulf 

council meeting indicating a season length for next year of around 

40 days, which is an improvement from where we were last year. 

We hope to get that season announcement out by the end of this 

calendar year, giving fishermen many months notice as to what the 

fishing season is going to be for next year. 

So trying to bring some stability to the fishery is one of our 

major goals and we recognize that as something we need to do a 

better job with in the recreational fishery. 

Senator RUBIO. Mr. Hartig, do you have any follow-up on that? 

Mr. HARTIG. Yes, thank you, Senator Rubio. From the South Atlantic Council’s perspective, red snapper—we’re nowhere near 

where the Gulf is. In fact, the fishery is essentially closed, and it 

was closed at a time when management controls had shown that 

the stock was responding to management. So in our case we have 

allowed a very short season, one 3-day season for the recreational 

fishery this year and two 3-day seasons last year. But that’s not 

a fishery; that’s not something that fishermen can enjoy. 

The main thing that impacts the South Atlantic in being able to 

deal with red snapper is the ending overfishing immediately. That’s 

the main problem. 

But for our other species, we are talking about seasons. We’re 

talking about season lengths for black sea bass, having a defined 

31 

season for the recreational fishery, once we find out what their 

catches will be under the new ACL that just doubled. We’re also 

going—we’re doing a visioning process. We’re inviting fishermen in 

to tell us, how do you want to manage your species in the future, 

how do you want to manage your fisheries? We’re going to start 

that this winter. This will be a big way. We want to inform our 

management based on the fishermen’s recommendations. 

Now, having said that, the statutory requirements of the Act 

going into this, we have to tell the fishermen that is what we have 

to do, but outside of that how do we manage fisheries going ahead? 

Senator RUBIO. Mr. Boyd, are the 10-year rebuilding time lines 

mandated in the last MSA reauthorization working for your councils in the stocks you manage? Wouldn’t it make more sense to give 

your council some reasonable latitude to deal with rebuilding 

stocks for which the 10-year time-frame simply doesn’t make 

sense? 

Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Senator. Yes, that is exactly right. The arbitrary 10-year rebuilding timeframes can put constraints on the 

Council that cause effects in the socioeconomic communities that 

are onerous. If we had a little more flexibility to rebuild the stock, 

say based on stock abundance rather than arbitrary timeframes 

and arbitrary numbers of fish or pounds, it would give us greater 

flexibility. 

Senator RUBIO. Do you think the Council should be allowed to 

waive annual catch limits when necessary? 

Mr. BOYD. Yes, I think they should. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. 

I’d like to go with Senator Nelson. 

Senator NELSON. Dr. Crabtree, this is certainly good news on the 

Gulf red snapper. What do you think would be your advice on the 

basis of your experience with the stock assessments on Gulf red 

snapper? How would you suggest to us that we approach Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization in a way that ensures the certainty of 

data collection for all of the fishery stocks? 

Dr. CRABTREE. Well, improving data collection has been something that we’ve emphasized for the last four to five years in the 

Southeast. So through part of that process there have been additional funds made available in the Southeast to improving stock assessments. Those have largely gone into improved fishery-independent sampling, both in the Gulf of Mexico and in the South Atlantic area, and we’re trying also to move toward some visual censuring efforts in the Caribbean as well. 

But I think the key to improving our stock assessments in all of 

our regions is to focus on fishery-independent surveys, which are 

done on a systematic basis year after year. That’s really been what 

we haven’t had historically in the Southeast. We’ve made progress 

over the last decade or so putting some programs in place. We now 

have visual census programs in the Gulf that we’re using and we’ve 

recently put some of those in place in the South Atlantic, some long 

line surveys in the Gulf to sample older red snapper. 

But that’s really the key to better stock assessments and we need 

to keep at that, because it’s critically important to have these long 

time series of data for the stock assessments so you can see the 

trends of abundance as they develop over the years. 

32 

Senator NELSON. Just one other question, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Boyd, how do you think the councils can operate so that— 

you’ve got a variety of fish out there. You want to make sure 

they’re not being overfished. You’ve got the pushes and tugs from 

your constituencies. You’ve got the demands coming from commercial, recreational, including the charter boat captains. How do you 

try to smooth all that out and come out with the right decision? 

Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BOYD. Senator, it’s very, very difficult. If I said it was easy 

I wouldn’t be truthful with you. The competing interests of commercial versus recreational and the needs of the charter for hire 

fleet are great. On the one hand, the recreational fisherman is 

catching his fish. He’s going out for an experience, whereas the 

commercial fisherman is trying to maximize their profitability. The 

commercial fishermen and the recreational fishermen have a completely different objective. Commercial fishermen want to minimize 

their time on the water and maximize their catch. The recreational 

fisherman wants to maximize his time on the water with his family 

or with friends and isn’t as concerned about a maximum catch as 

they are for a maximum experience. 

Senator NELSON. But each needs to make sure there’s fish. 

Mr. BOYD. But each needs to have fish, yes, sir. 

Senator NELSON. Well, good luck and Godspeed. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BOYD. Thank you, sir. 

Senator NELSON. I get buffeted by this all the time, as you can 

imagine. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson. I will 

tell you, in Alaska we have one more element called subsistence 

hunters. So we have three ends. We don’t have bookends; we have 

multiples, so it’s very complicated. 

But I will say one thing as we move to Senator Scott, and that 

is in Alaska most of our species are stock assessed every year and 

it makes a big difference if you can have that frequency, as you 

were talking about, Dr. Crabtree. So that I’m sure is one of the 

issues we as a committee will have to address to create some regional balance here and to make sure other areas have this science 

on a regular basis. 

Senator Scott. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM SCOTT, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA 

Senator SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you also 

for holding this very important hearing today. I certainly have enjoyed the perspectives from the panel. I look forward to asking a 

few questions. 

In South Carolina our economy is driven by tourism in major 

part. From Myrtle Beach to Charleston to Hilton Head, much of 

what we see happening in our economy on the coast is due to our 

history and good food. So our folks are dependent upon bringing 

good food in on a daily basis. So I wanted to ask just a couple of 

questions. 

33 

Mr. Hartig, I much appreciate your assessment and your emphasis on making sure we consider how current law is working for the 

fish and the fishermen in the South Atlantic region. The social and 

economic considerations that you’ve highlighted are of tremendous 

concern to South Carolina. Our local chefs rely on access to the 

freshest local seafood for their menus and their livelihood. More 

flexibility is needed in crafting remedies for rebuilding overfished 

stocks to give businesses time to plan and to adjust. 

I appreciate the work the South Atlantic Council has done in 

showing the effectiveness of this approach with certain species. 

Could you comment further about ways we can build in more flexibility in rebuilding requirements? 

Mr. HARTIG. Thank you, Senator Scott. The crux of the problem 

in the South Atlantic, it’s focused primarily on how assessments 

have done in the past. We had relatively simplistic assessments on 

the first part of our management history. In about 2000, 2004, we 

implemented a new SEDAR assessment approach, and about that 

time we had the next generation of assessment scientists move in 

and they took this to a different level. They’re able to do so much 

more with so little data, which is good on some sides and bad on 

others. 

But they were able to get pretty much a more accurate picture 

of the health of our fisheries. We had been going along with the 

red snapper thinking we were doing the right things, putting in the 

management measures that were dictated by the assessments, and 

then all of a sudden to have this out of nowhere, when fishermen 

are telling us this is the best fishing they’ve seen for red snapper 

in decades, that we have to close the fishery. That just didn’t work. 

The flexibility in ending overfishing is our problem. It’s really, in 

the Southeast it’s a problem, but the South Atlantic is particularly 

impacted by that problem. In order to move forward, some way we 

have to allow that to be phased in over a longer period of time to 

take in those socioeconomic considerations that you mentioned. 

I’m glad you mentioned the chefs because in Charleston—that’s 

an important part. We’re seeing more of those people come to our 

hearings and give us information: Hey, we need longer seasons so 

we can plan our restaurant menus to be able to handle these fish 

that we can get to the people on a regular basis. That’s a very important part of what we’re looking to. 

Senator SCOTT. It certainly feels like the epicenter of activity for 

us in South Carolina. So thank you for your comments. 

Dr. Crabtree, you stressed in your testimony the need for the 

highest quality fishery science. Pretty much everyone here agrees 

we need even better data and research to better understand the realities of the stock levels and to set more realistic quotas. The 

Southeast Region manages more species than any other region in 

the country, but it is my understanding that it receives the least 

amount of funding. Can you comment on how determinations are 

made within the Fisheries Service about how to allocate resources 

for research and data collection? 

Dr. CRABTREE. Well, Senator, I can comment on how we make 

decisions in the Southeast, but the nationwide allocation decisions 

are made in headquarters and I wouldn’t be the best person to 

34 

comment on those. So we can take that for the record and come 

back for you. 

But again, within the Southeast for the last several years we 

have received increased funding to improve our fishery-independent monitoring. In particular, in the South Atlantic region we 

have started a new survey over the last few years which is a fishery-independent survey, and it’s kind of built off the MARMAP survey that’s been run out of South Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources for some years using trap gear and camera arrays to do 

fish censuses, essentially. 

Those kind of data are really the key to improving our stock assessments. They are general surveys that give you information on 

all of the species that are out there, too, because you’re sampling 

everything. That’s critically important for the South Atlantic region, where we have so many species that are under management. 

So we’ve made some improvements on those surveys and if we 

can keep those going I think we’re going to continue to see improvements in our stock assessments. I agree completely with Mr. 

Hartig’s statements that we have over the last decade changed our 

assessment process through the SEDAR process. It’s much more inclusive now. It’s much more sophisticated now. And the science 

that we have now I think is much better than what we had a decade ago. But the key to continuing to move forward on that are 

these fishery-independent surveys. 

Senator SCOTT. Thank you very much. I certainly would like to 

hear a response on the funding formulas and how it impacts our 

areas specifically, realizing that if you have more species to figure 

out perhaps the funding should be consistent with that. I appreciate the fact that you are not dodging the question, but unable to 

answer the question, realizing that someone else above you must 

answer that question. 

Dr. CRABTREE. And we’ll follow up with you on that, Senator. 

Senator SCOTT. Thank you very much. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, Senator Scott. That 

would be a good question for the record, so we can have that presented to the Committee. 

[Please see Senator Scott’s question for the record and Dr. 

Crabtree’s response to it on p. 80.] 

Senator SCOTT. Thank you very much. 

Senator BEGICH. We appreciate that. 

Let me say, I have a few questions. Again, I appreciate my colleagues from the region. It’s their region in a lot of ways, even 

though we have a role nationally. But I want to give them as much 

latitude for the questions. 

But if I can, first, Mr. Farchette, if I could just ask you a quick 

question. You kind of indicated it, but I just want to follow up. You 

have kind of a unique situation. If I remember the numbers right, 

you have well over 130, 140 different species. You are international 

water. You’ve got all kinds of issues that complicate how to manage 

there. 

Can you just give me a sense what and how you work with international bodies? I know from an Alaska perspective, I know we 

have international bodies. Russia we have to deal with because 

they steal our crab. I can say that. So we have our own situation 

35 

there. And then they call it Alaska crab. I’m sure I’ll now hear 

from the State Department, but the facts are the facts. 

But tell me how it works in your region? 

Mr. FARCHETTE. Well, we’re working with about 26 island nations and we are trying to come up with a consensus on having— 

take for instance, we have working groups developed for the spiny 

lobster, where we could have management regulations, because 

most of the islands do not have fisheries management plans. So 

we’re working with them to help them develop fishery management 

plans. 

We’re also working together to protect spawning aggregations, 

identify and protect spawning aggregations, seasonal closures, so 

it’ll be uniform around all the island nations. 

Senator BEGICH. Do they seem receptive to this? 

Mr. FARCHETTE. Most of them are. However, some of them would 

not—like some have a 2-month closed season for spiny lobster. 

Most of them have 4 months and they don’t want to change that. 

Senator BEGICH. They don’t want to change it. But generally 

you’re feeling like there’s cooperation and an understanding that if 

they don’t do this in the long term it could be very problematic for 

the fisheries? 

Mr. FARCHETTE. Yes. But I think that there is cooperation between all of us. I think it’s getting better. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. Thank you very much. 

Let me ask to all of you or whoever would like to answer, kind 

of my commentary there on stock assessments. We’re fortunate to 

some degree in Alaska because we do these on a fairly annual 

basis, but we also have a sizable amount of State participation in 

that. As you know, our observer program, for example, was predominantly funded by the State because we just wanted to manage 

our fisheries so we wouldn’t have a problem. 

Give me your sense of—put funding over here for a second. I 

think I know the answer to this, but I want it I guess on the 

record. More frequent stock assessment would be a data point 

that’s necessary for a good solid baseline; is that an accurate statement that I’m making for all of you, depending on what the species 

is? But I’m assuming for most species you want more frequency of 

stock assessments. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. HARTIG. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. Do you think—one of the issues that I find interesting, no disrespect to my friends at NOAA, but one of the 

areas that I think we have to look at—I think Senator Scott 

brought it up, I think Senator Rubio brought it up and Senator 

Nelson to a certain degree—that is, it’s important to understand 

the fish, but it’s also to understand the connection on shore, all the 

way to, for example, from the water to the plate, and understand 

that economic impact. 

So when you’re making a decision of closing or not closing or extending or not extending, do you think we do enough in our analysis when we make these from the Federal Government standpoint 

of saying this is an area that we have to consider? Are we putting 

enough of that economic analysis into this mix? I have my opinion, 

but I’m curious. 

36 

Who would like to answer that? Mr. Hartig, I can see; I can 

sense it from you. I think I know, but I want to hear it because 

I know in Alaska we have the constant discussion about, OK, the 

fish value is X, but really when you figure out equipment and 

shoreside and all these other pieces, there are other pieces. It was 

a battle we just had over halibut commercial versus halibut charter 

catch and what does that mean. Can you give me your opinion? 

Mr. HARTIG. Yes. I think Roy could give you the details on exactly what economics goes into the management plan. But from my 

perspective, going through this process—this is my second time 

around on the Council. I’ve been involved in this process since, at 

some level, since 1976. The economics is truly lacking when we 

look at the problems, when we close a fishery in particular. The impacts of all the business related not only to the fishermen, but the 

business related to the fisheries are severely impacted. 

We’ve lost a number of businesses due to red snapper. We’ve lost 

a number of charter boats, head boats. Nobody ever follows up on 

that. 

Senator BEGICH. That’s commercial impact, right? 

Mr. HARTIG. Yes, absolutely, commercial and recreational impact. 

Senator BEGICH. And it’s not just one person there that weekend 

doing this. It’s long-term. Some of these are long-term businesses, 

right? 

Mr. HARTIG. Yes. You lose a head boat, you lose opportunities for 

fishermen. At that level that they can afford to go fishing, if they 

lose a head boat they can no longer make that trip. That’s taken 

away from them because they no longer have a platform that they 

can afford to go and reap the benefits of harvesting South Atlantic 

species. 

Senator BEGICH. Dr. Crabtree, if you want to respond, then Mr. 

Boyd, and then—and I’ll see if—OK, go ahead. 

Dr. CRABTREE. Well, I would agree with Ben that there is a need 

for more economic, socioeconomic analyses. I think we are doing 

better at that today. 

Senator BEGICH. Do you think—if I can interrupt you for a second, do you think you have the expertise within the agencies to do 

that? 

Dr. CRABTREE. I think we have the expertise. I think we’re often 

lacking in the data to do it. With the number of actions that we 

have with all three councils, we’re sometimes lacking the manpower to do as much as we would like to. 

We have in the Southeast, particularly because of the importance 

of recreational fisheries, we have a lot of allocation decisions that 

we struggle with. Even within the recreational fisheries, there are 

allocation issues with charter boats and private sector fishermen. 

At least one part of making allocation decisions is looking at economics and net benefits to the Nation and those types of things. 

While we are collecting more data now on that than we have in the 

past, we often don’t have as much information as we would like to 

make those decisions. 

I think we put all the emphasis in recent years on improving our 

stock assessments, but I think the socioeconomic component of that 

is important. We need to make sure it’s on our radar screen. 

37 

Senator BEGICH. If I can leave you with a thought, and Mr. Boyd, 

if you would respond, but Dr. Crabtree, but not for right now, but 

maybe you could give to the Committee some thoughts on what is 

that kind of data you’re looking for and where might that come 

from, that would help us maybe think about how when we look at 

this legislation, is there things we could do to improve access or 

funding or other pieces to the equation. Would you mind considering that thought and bring back to the Committee at some point? 

Would that be OK? 

Dr. CRABTREE. Certainly, Senator. I’d be happy to. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Boyd. 

Mr. BOYD. Yes, sir. I would just echo what Ben and Roy said. 

The socioeconomics are vitally important. I just attended our socioeconomic science and statistical committee meeting this last week 

and I saw about 15 different scientists, economists, charter boat 

captains, and some recreational fishermen, actually grapple with 

how you manage a fishery and how do you understand the socioeconomic impact of these decisions. 

They came out with some recommendations, some motions that 

are going to go to Council in February, to help us make allocation 

decisions or to not change allocations in any way. So it’s very, very 

important to have that data. I think that the data is limited at this 

point in time, like Dr. Crabtree said, and we do need more. 

Senator BEGICH. I appreciate that. This is one area that’s of 

strong interest to me because it affects commercial, but it affects 

recreational significantly, and in my State subsistence, too, because 

if they don’t fish then there’s an economic impact to them that they 

will have to endure, not by—they don’t get a choice. They have to, 

because it’s food on the table and if they can’t fish for subsistence 

purposes that means they do not have food on the table. That’s 

their grocery store. When they open up their door, that’s it. It’s 

right outside the door. So it’s critical. 

So I appreciate these comments. I do have additional questions. 

I’ll submit those for the record. But I do want to thank this first 

panel for attending, being part of our hearing and our series of 

hearings as we move forward on the reauthorization. Thank you all 

very much. And we’ll dismiss you and have the next panel line up, 

and staff will do the magic moving of the names and all kinds of 

stuff here. 

[Pause.] 

Senator BEGICH. If you would go and have a seat, those for the 

next panel, as they’re laying out the name tags, that would be 

great. 

[Pause.] 

Senator BEGICH. What we’ll do is as people are getting situated 

there, Senator Rubio has been called to the Foreign Affairs Committee, I believe. So let me have him say a few comments, then 

we’ll go with the panel. 

Senator RUBIO. Thank you. I’m reminded what my colleague 

from Florida, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, says: in the Senate, it’s Foreign 

Relations; in the House it’s Foreign Affairs. So we have relations, 

they have affairs, I guess is her joke, not mine. 

38 

Anyway, the meeting starts at 11:40, so I’m going to try to run 

over there, do my bill, and get back in time. But I’ve read all your 

testimony, met with all of you before, and know exactly what you’re 

going to do. And I feel terrible about not being here for your testimony. I hope you understand that. The bill has my name on it; I 

need to be there to present it. And I’ll try to get back here as soon 

as I can. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. 

I know, Mr. Windes, you have a 2 o’clock flight. So what I’m 

going to do in the order, I’m going to kind of have you go first. 

Then I’ll come back over here, if that’s OK. Not that we will be 

here until 2 o’clock, but I know—but I just give you as much flexibility as possible. But again, I appreciate Mr. Windes here, Commissioner, District Five—Is it the ‘‘Oakaloosa’’? 

Mr. WINDES. Okaloosa—— 

Senator BEGICH. I’m glad you said it. 

—County, State of Florida, and the owner and operator of Sunrise Charters. We thank you for being here. We have a big operation in Alaska of charter fishermen. So we understand your business a great deal. Please. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY WINDES, COMMISSIONER, 

DISTRICT FIVE, OKALOOSA COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA, 

AND OWNER-OPERATOR, SUNRISE CHARTERS 

Mr. WINDES. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

Committee members. It’s my privilege to be here. I appreciate the 

opportunity to share my views. My name is Kelly Windes. I’m a 

third generation boat captain fishing out of Destin, Florida. That’s 

in the northwest part of the state between Panama City and Pensacola. 

Our coastal community is highly dependent on the tourism. As 

we all know, the fishing is a luxury item, so I’m mostly interested 

in the economic side of this, as have some of the previous speakers. 

I’ve been in the business about 40 years. I’ve participated in the 

commercial sector about half the time. The commercial fishing 

where we are is more of a multi-day endeavor, suitable for the 

young and hardy. I also have the privilege of serving on the 

Okaloosa County Board of Commissioners, District Five. 

These remarks that I’ve prepared are not intended to diminish 

any sector’s advantage that they may enjoy, but my hope is that 

these remarks may lend to equalizing the playing field to some extent. 

In regards to the progress made to date by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, I would say in general that the Act was certainly necessary, has basically had substantial accomplishments, and enjoyed 

some successes. I would say there’s room for improvement in management policy by the National Marine Fisheries. 

Of particular concern to me is the red snapper fishery. There are 

more and bigger red snapper in the Gulf than when I was fishing 

as a kid. Yet we are allowed to catch fewer and fewer every year. 

There is always a reason why we are further restricted. The latest 

reason is, well, the fish are bigger. 

Surely, after all these years of sacrifice, we could enjoy a little 

of the success. I believe that the Act refers to economic impact. We 

39 

see very little consideration in this area. I was happy to see some 

of the other speakers repeat this. 

I would say that one of the biggest problems in the implementation is the lack of fair and equitable policies within the various sectors. The strategy, it seems to the fishermen, has been to divide 

and conquer the fishermen. Special consideration may be given to 

one sector and the other sectors feel shortchanged. In general, it’s 

the charter industry, or fare-carrying, versus the commercial fishermen versus the recreational or truly private sector, followed by 

the shrimpers versus all the fishermen. 

This ‘‘divide and conquer’’ attitude has worked fine for the bureaucrats that run the system and pretty well for the commercial 

fishermen, but fairly poorly for the other sectors. The commercial 

fishermen have and enjoy an historical quota, which is a good tool 

for the few fishermen that have survived. It’s good for the market 

in the sense that all the allowable catch doesn’t show up at one 

time. Fishermen have the ability to be consistent and provide product when it was needed. Commercial fishermen have the flexibility 

to catch fish year round as the market dictates. 

On the other hand, the charter industry has very little consistency. Seasons are different every year. Different species are closed 

at different intervals each year. The National Marine Fisheries 

people do not consider consistency in keeping the customer in 

mind, the importance of it. If we had more consistency, we’d have 

the ability with advanced notice to somewhat train our customers 

according to the policy changes. 

The best tool I can imagine to mend these discrepancies would 

be an independent sector for the fare-carrying vessels. These fishermen have been in business for decades and don’t have the security 

that the commercial fishermen enjoy. In the charter boat sector, if 

the charter boat sector had the same flexibility to catch fish year 

round that the commercial sector has, it would become much more 

fair and the ‘‘divide and conquer’’ stigma would be reduced. 

Another factor in the setting of the total allowable catch is the 

term ‘‘best available science.’’ This can be most anything the Marine Fisheries wants to use. They determine the amount of fish 

caught on an annual basis by a random phone survey on owners 

of everything that floats, whether it fishes or not. Every other management agency uses stamps, endorsements, or licenses for whatever the outdoorsmen are harvesting, for instance deer, duck, salmon, tuna, swordfish, bear, moose, most everything else. There’s absolutely no clue on what is being caught by the true private sector 

recreationally. 

These boats tie up in private residents and out of the way locations with not much accountability. The Fish and Wildlife officers 

are spread way too thin to enforce the guidelines. A license or endorsement system for various species would solve this and the National Marine Fisheries would suddenly have a place to hang their 

hat and the best available science would be believable. 

The fishermen, from their perspective, are not sure that the Marine Fisheries wants the more credible system and better information so they can make assumptions that make results more to their 

liking. This is strictly a fisherman’s perspective. 

40 

As far as the tools for regulations go, I would be in favor of a 

more regional management policy. The Gulf of Mexico has areas 

that produce different quantities of fish. In the fisheries management business, the ‘‘one size fits all’’ method is simply not the best 

approach. If the Gulf was divided into zones, either by states or 

geographical boundaries, policies would be more targeted and more 

effective, not to mention more fair. I was most pleased to hear Dr. 

Crabtree’s indication that that’s on the table. 

The fishermen have learned over the past 20 or so years that we 

must be aware and diligent to protect our marine resources. We 

would like to do so under a not so punitive situation. For years and 

years we have been told to cooperate and things will get better. We 

have seen not much of this. Our seasons continue to get shorter 

every year while our customers suffer along with the fishermen. 

This could be done more fairly if the policymakers will listen. 

In summary, I think there needs to be language that identifies 

and separates the charter for hire sector from the true private boat 

recreational sector. Charter for hire is restricted by moratorium 

while private recreational continues to have explosive growth. The 

proportions of this catch that we share is getting less and less for 

the business, the charter business, and more in favor of the private. The playing field should be leveled a little bit. 

The access loss in recreational fisheries is a management failure, 

not an allocation failure. According to NMFS, this sector has overfished nine of the last ten years. Commercial fishermen have a 

modern management system by way of electronic reporting. In this 

day and age, we should go with our strengths and implement accountability and more certainty in the recreational reporting process. At the very least, let’s determine how many boats are actually 

fishing. At present, anything that floats catches snapper according 

to the National Marine Fisheries. At present, a random phone survey is used. This is archaic, inaccurate, misleading, and unfair to 

coastal communities, who depend on the economic benefits, not to 

mention the deterioration of tradition, history, and pride in the industry. 

The ten-year rebuild time for fisheries is unfair, given the fact 

that there are little or no set stock assessments and very poor 

tracking of recreational harvest levels. To relax this accelerated 

time-frame would give the National Marine Fisheries more latitude 

and ensure a more reasonable and fair result for fishermen and 

local economies. 

I am most appreciative for the opportunity to express my views. 

Hopefully, some of these recommended changes can be implemented in order to reduce the animosity between fishermen and 

allow coastal communities to prosper and not be penalized unnecessarily by policy. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Windes follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN KELLY WINDES, DESTIN, FLORIDA

My name is Kelly Windes. I am a third generation boat captain, fishing out of 

Destin, FL. I am fishing now primarily in the charter boat industry, although 

throughout my 40 plus years in the business I have participated in the commercial 

sector for about half the time. The commercial fishing is more of a multi-day enVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:11 Jul 13, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\95418.TXT JACKIE
41 

deavor, suitable for the young and hardy. I also have the privilege of serving on the 

Okaloosa County Board of County Commission (District 5). 

In regards to progress made to date by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, I would say 

in general that the act was certainly necessary, and has basically had substantial 

accomplishments. I would say that there is room for improvement in management 

policy by the National Marine Fishery. 

Of particular concern is the red snapper fishery. There are more and bigger red 

snapper in the Gulf than when I was fishing as a kid, yet we are allowed to catch 

fewer every year. There is always a reason why we are further restricted. The latest 

reason is ‘‘well the fish are bigger now!’’ Surely after all these years of sacrifices 

we could enjoy a little success. I believe that the Act refers to economic impact. We 

see very little consideration in this area. 

I would say that the biggest problem in the implementation is the lack of fair and 

equitable policies within the various sectors. The strategy has been to divide and 

conquer the fishermen. Special consideration is given to one sector and the other 

sectors feel short changed. In general, it’s the charter industry (fare carrying) versus 

the commercial fishermen versus the recreation or private sector, followed by the 

shrimpers versus all fishermen. This divide and conquer attitude has worked fine 

for the bureaucrats that run the system and pretty well for commercial fishermen, 

but poorly for everyone else! 

The commercial fishermen have ‘‘historical quota,’’ which is a good tool for the few 

fishermen that have survived. It is good for the market in a sense that all the allowable catch doesn’t show up at one time. Fishermen have the ability to be consistent 

and provide product when it is needed. Commercial fishermen have the flexibility 

to catch fish year-round as the market dictates. 

On the other hand, the charter industry has very little consistency. Seasons are 

different every year. Different species are closed at different intervals each year. 

The National Marine Fisheries people have no idea about consistency and keeping 

the customer in mind. They get paid every two weeks no matter what the weather. 

They don’t have to produce a product or satisfy a customer to make a living! 

The best tool I can imagine to mend these discrepancies would be an ‘‘independent 

sector ’’ for fare carrying vessels .These fishermen have been in the business for decades and don’t have near the security that the commercial fishermen have. 

If the charter boat sector had the same flexibility to catch fish year-round that 

the commercial sector has, it would become much more fair and the divide and conquer stigma would be reduced. 

Another factor in the setting of the ‘‘total allowable catch’’ is the term ‘‘best available science.’’ This can be anything the National Marine Fisheries want to use. They 

determine the amount of fish caught on an annual basis by a random phone survey 

on owners of everything that floats, whether it fishes or not! Every other management agency use stamps or endorsements to determine how many hunters are harvesting what. Look at deer, ducks, salmon, tuna, swordfish, bear, moose, most everything else. There is absolutely no clue on what is being caught by the private sector. 

These boats tie up at private residences in out of the way locations with no accountability. The fish and wildlife officers are spread way too thin to enforce the guidelines. A license or endorsement for various species would solve this and National 

Marine Fishery would suddenly have a place to hang their hat and the best available science would be ‘‘believable.’’ The fishermen believe that National Marine 

Fishery does not want a more credible system so they can make assumptions that 

make results more to their liking. 

As far as tools for regulations go, I would be in favor of a more regional management policy. The Gulf of Mexico has areas that produce different quantities of fish. 

In the fisheries management business, the one size fits all method is simply not the 

best approach. If the Gulf was divided into zones, either by states or geographical 

boundaries, policies would be more targeted and more effective, not to mention more 

fair. 

I am most appreciative for the opportunity to express my views. Hopefully some 

of these recommended changes could be implemented in order to reduce the animosity between fishermen and allow coastal communities to prosper and not be penalized unnecessarily by policy. 

The fishermen have learned over the last twenty or so years that we must be 

aware and diligent to protect our marine resources. We would like to do so under 

a not so punitive situation. For years and years we have been told to cooperate and 

things will ‘‘get better!’’ 

We have seen none of this, our seasons continue to get shorter every year while 

our customers suffer along with the fishermen .This can be done more fairly if the 

policy makers will listen. 

42 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Just before we go to Mr. Brownlee, let me ask Senator 

Blumenthal, who’s joined, if he has any quick comment. Then we’ll 

go right to you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 

really just want to comment to thank this panel and the previous 

panel, as well as yourself, for having this hearing. I think everybody involved, anybody with the slightest exposure to this system, 

would agree that the current system is not ideal. So I accept the 

criticism that you’ve just made, Mr. Windes, and I hear much the 

same kind of comments from people in the Northeast. So I think 

there’s a common national interest here in trying to improve this 

system, make it work better, and make it take account of what 

some of the previous witnesses have said in respect to habitat, climate change, new technology. I think the system can benefit from 

the kind of review that Chairman Begich is providing here, and I 

thank him again for that. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Let me go to, again, Mr. Brownlee, Upper Keys Representative, 

International Game Fish Association. Thank you very much for 

being here. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN D. BROWNLEE, UPPER KEYS 

REPRESENTATIVE, INTERNATIONAL GAME FISH ASSOCIATION 

Mr. BROWNLEE. Good morning. Thank you. I’d like to thank 

Chairman Begich and Ranking Member Rubio for the opportunity 

to testify today. As someone who’s worked full-time in the recreational fishing industry most of his adult life, I am familiar with 

the impact the Magnuson-Stevens Act has on my vocation, which 

also happens to be my avocation. I appreciate being invited to offer 

comments on the Act’s pending reauthorization. 

I’m the Editor-in-Chief of Saltwater Sportsman magazine, which 

was a vocal proponent of the original Act back in 1976 and the 200- 

mile limit. The first version sought to expel foreign commercial 

fishing fleets from U.S. territorial waters by creating a 200-mile exclusive economic zone. The Act succeeded in moving those foreign 

fishing fleets far offshore. But since then we have sometimes done 

a less than stellar job of managing our own domestic commercial 

fleet. 

We have also failed repeatedly to recognize the significance and 

the economic impact of the recreational fishing industry. In fact, 

many of us have spent years trying to get regulators to simply acknowledge that we are just that, an industry. There are 11 million 

recreational salt water anglers in the United States and these anglers create $70.3 billion in annual economic output. This directly 

supports more than 454,000 jobs and generates $20.5 billion in annual labor income. These are NOAA’s own numbers. 

I want to make four key points here. You’ve heard a lot of them 

already, but the main thing I think we need to focus on with this 

current reauthorization is looking at economics rather than biology. 

We’ve done a very good job managing the biology of certain species. 

43 

That’s been made clear here today, and I think, Chairman Begich, 

that’s the success that you alluded to. That’s absolutely true. 

But we have paid a price. I think we’ve heard repeatedly that 

small businesses have suffered. I know in Florida mom and pop 

tackle shops have struggled with this again and again and again. 

It’s everything from large boat companies on down to very, very 

small stores, restaurants on the waterfront. Small businesses are 

suffering, and we need to focus on the economics of the recreational 

fishing industry as we seek what we want to do with the reauthorization this time. 

I would add that the recreational fishing industry has changed 

drastically since 1976. Back then a 25-foot boat was considered big 

and now you see 40-footers with four engines on them running 

around all over the place. So it’s a very different world. People are 

passionate about it and they spend a lot of money on it. So the economics of it is of vital importance. 

As far as the councils are concerned, I’m a former member of the 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, and we need to give 

the councils latitude in applying rebuilding time lines. You’ve 

heard that again and again and again. That’s absolutely key. We 

also need to give them some latitude in terms of allocation. I was 

encouraged to hear Dr. Crabtree speak of allocation because that’s 

huge. We have not had changes in allocations between commercial 

and recreational fishermen in some cases for decades, in most cases 

for decades. 

We need to be able to revisit allocation on a timely basis, on a 

regular basis, and make appropriate changes given new stock assessments, and of course stock assessments, as other people have 

alluded to, need to come more frequently and with regularity. 

The subject of transferring management to the States is something that we’re keenly interested in. We do believe that there is 

some efficacy in that and that the States do things well that the 

Federal Government does not do well. I personally believe that the 

National Marine Fisheries Service is overwhelmed and has great 

difficulties, it seems obvious, living up to the expectations and the 

needs of these various fisheries, councils, states, whatever. 

I do believe that there is some sense in transferring control over 

many species to the states or at least to a conglomeration of states, 

like the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission or the Atlantic 

States Marine Fisheries Commission. The State of Florida, where 

I’m from, has a stellar reputation as innovators in salt water fish 

conservation, and I think that some of that model could be applied 

across other states who also have a good history of management in 

the past. 

The last thing I would say is we need to count fish in a realistic 

way. Someone brought up Section 407 of the Act. That says that 

we need to determine absolute numbers of red snapper, and the 

councils struggle with this. They have to track, attempt to track, 

the recreational quota by attempting to count absolute numbers of 

fish. I was fortunate enough to know the late scientist Frank 

Mather of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, who counted 

fish his whole life. He was the world’s foremost expert on bluefin 

tuna. Mather used to say that it’s folly to try to count absolute 

numbers of fish because you can’t see into the ocean. The only 

44 

thing you can do and the only thing that makes sense is to track 

absolute—I’m sorry—relative abundance of fish, and you do that 

through frequent stock assessments, measuring indices of mortality, recruitment, that sort of thing, and making an educated 

guess, and then seeing trends in the fishery over time and making 

adjustments through size and bag limits. 

I’ll make that my final point. We would like to see species like 

red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico get back to a regular season. It 

used to be approximately 6 months. It would be nice to get back 

to something approaching that at some point and make adjustments on an ongoing basis in bag and size limits and potentially 

boat limits, driven by these stock assessments that we hope will be 

regularly scheduled. 

So I appreciate once again the opportunity to testify today and 

that concludes my comments. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brownlee follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN D. BROWNLEE, UPPER KEYS REPRESENTATIVE, INTERNATIONAL GAME FISH ASSOCIATION

Good morning. I’d like to thank Chairman Begich and Ranking Member Rubio for 

the opportunity to testify today. As someone who has worked full-time in the recreational fishing industry for most of his adult life, I am familiar with the impact 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act has on my vocation, which is also my avocation. I appreciate being invited to offer comments on the Act’s pending reauthorization. 

I’m editor-in-chief of Salt Water Sportsman magazine, a vocal proponent of the 

original Act back in 1976. That first version sought to expel foreign commercial fishing fleets from U.S. territorial waters by creating a 200-mile Exclusive Economic 

Zone. The Act succeeded at moving foreign commercial fishing fleets far offshore, 

but since then, we’ve done a less than stellar job in many instances of managing 

our own domestic commercial fleet. 

We have also failed repeatedly to recognize the significance and economic impact 

of the recreational fishing industry. In fact, many of us have spent years trying to 

get regulators to simply acknowledge that we are just that—an industry. There are 

11 million recreational saltwater anglers in the United States, and these anglers 

create $70.3 billion in annual economic output. This directly supports more than 

454,000 jobs and generates $20.5 billion in annual labor income. 

But even though we are large in number and an undeniable economic force, we 

often feel overlooked in the Federal fishery management process. Recreational anglers account for only about two percent of all finfish landings in the US, and fishery managers have historically paid a lot more attention to those who harvest the 

other 98 percent, the commercial industry. 

Recreational anglers have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to accept restrictions on their catch in the form of size and bag limit reductions, or temporary 

season closures, when they are scientifically justified. We have always been willing 

to do the right thing for the fish, when we are shown it makes sense to do so. 

Sometimes, however, management makes no such sense and we’re still asked to 

sacrifice. This has manifested itself in several ways. First, there’s the issue of allocation between user groups. Unfortunately, some allocations of total allowable catch 

in mixed-use fisheries between recreational and commercial fishermen were set decades ago and no longer reflect the realities of the times. 

We believe it’s vital that potential allocation changes be part of the upcoming reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens, and that the regional fishery management 

Councils develop guidelines and criteria to consider such reallocation possibilities for 

mixed-sector fisheries on a regular basis. Allowing allocations to stand for decades 

untouched and unexamined should be unacceptable. 

Recreational fishermen also need relief from the rigid annual catch limits and the 

accompanying accountability measures, which became part of the Act during its last 

reauthorization in 2006. The creation of these measures forced the Councils to take 

drastic action in some circumstances, to meet a previously adopted 10-year rebuilding schedule. 

Nowhere has this been more apparent than in the Gulf of Mexico, where the closure of the red snapper fishery due to this inflexible rebuilding schedule has caused 

great hardship among charter boats and rank-and-file recreational fishermen alike. 

45 

The snapper closure was based on outdated and incomplete science, but while the 

fishery was closed, recreational fishermen reported seeing more red snapper than 

ever before while fishing for other species. 

In an effort to comply with the Act, Gulf fishery managers are attempting to 

count every red snapper caught by recreational anglers, and then close the fishery 

if the recreational quota is exceeded. We all know this is an impossible mission, and 

that the numbers used in these determinations are an educated guess at best, yet 

they have led to very short red snapper seasons in the past few years since the 

Council’s hands are tied in the matter. 

This discrepancy between the reality anglers experienced on the water, and what 

Federal fishery managers told them was happening, has created widespread cynicism and anger toward the entire management process, a regrettable situation that 

seems to have no easy solution. We support giving the regional Councils the latitude 

to institute rebuilding timeframes, based on biological criteria that is defensible, 

achievable and tied to the biology of the species rather than tied to an arbitrary 

time frame, so they may act with confidence where good science exists, and proceed 

with caution where it does not. 

There are many instances where science is either outdated, or non-existent, yet 

annual catch limits are still set. This is of particular concern in multi-species complexes in which many different species of fish might be caught indiscriminately. 

Under a rigid interpretation of annual catch limits, if an ACL for one species in 

such a complex is deemed to be exceeded, it could close down all fishing for other 

species, which may not be over-exploited. 

It seems logical to manage recreational fisheries through the use of traditional 

tools like size and bag limits and seasonal closures, rather than Draconian closures 

affecting everyone. Recreational fishermen need an open fishing season they can 

count on, with biologically necessary adjustments in landings made through changes 

in per-person bag or boat limits in response to timely stock assessments. 

NOAA should develop a recreational fishery management system that uses sound 

scientific data that we now have, and does not penalize the recreational industry 

in instances where that data is incomplete or missing entirely. NOAA should further be willing to utilize the strengths of individual and collective state management 

of certain stocks of fish where appropriate. 

Managers in my home state of Florida, for example, have consistently proven 

themselves to be innovators in saltwater fish conservation, and we believe other 

states, as well as interstate fisheries management commissions, offer a viable and 

practical alternative to continued Federal oversight of all saltwater fishery management. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. Very good testimony. 

Mr. JOHNSON. He’s the owner and operator of Jodie Lynn Charters. Mr. Johnson. 

STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN ROBERT A. JOHNSON, 

OWNER-OPERATOR, JODIE LYNN CHARTERS, ST. AUGUSTINE FLORIDA; CHAIRMAN, SAFMC SNAPPER GROUPER ADVISORY PANEL 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

speak and give my perspective on Magnuson and how it is and isn’t 

working for the fishermen of the South Atlantic. I’ve been actively 

chartering commercial fishing since 1980. I am also a current 

Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel member for the South Atlantic 

Fisheries Management Council and I have participated in numerous stock assessments on reef fish, and I’m involved in fisheriesindependent work with the State of Florida. 

What is working with Magnuson? The guidelines provided by 

Magnuson have ended overfishing in most cases. Many stocks of 

fish are more plentiful today than at any other time in my career, 

and the various management councils are to be commended for this 

accomplishment. 

But what is not working? Unfortunately, this accomplishment 

has come at a huge cost to fishermen and coastal communities. 

46 

Fishing fleets in my area have experienced about a 50 percent decline in recent years. The NOAA Marine Recreational Information 

Program, or MRIP, shows a decline in total recreational trips. Curiously, MRIP also shows an increase in sales, jobs and income. I’m 

not sure how less trips and effort translates into more jobs and 

value. It’s not what’s happening in my area. 

In many cases, not only have we ended overfishing, but for some 

species fishing has been almost entirely eliminated. We had a 3- 

day recreational season for red snapper in the South Atlantic this 

year, 3 days. 

National Standard 2 states: ‘‘Conservation and management 

measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available.’’ Fishermen refer to this as the ‘‘best available science.’’ We 

have been told in many cases that the data might not be complete, 

up to date, and there may be very little available, but it’s the best 

we have and that’s what we are mandated to use. 

How can we mandate the use of inadequate data to make decisions that have such profound impacts on people’s lives? How can 

we afford not to fund research needed to do the job properly? I 

often use the analogy that if you had to have open heart surgery 

and your doctor informed you he didn’t have instruments or supplies, so you just take a drink of whiskey and I’m going to use a 

pocket knife, it’s the best I’ve got, it’s pretty sharp. It just—it 

doesn’t make any sense. There has to be a minimum standard for 

data used in stock assessments. 

National Standard 4 states: ‘‘Conservation management measures shall not discriminate between the residents of different 

States. If it becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing privileges among various United States fishermen, such allocation shall 

be fair and equitable to all such fishermen, reasonably calculated 

to promote conservation, and carried out in such a manner that no 

particular individual or corporation has excessive share.’’ 

I’m not sure how you assign a privilege to anyone without infringing on the rights of another. Fish are a resource that should 

be managed for the benefit of all citizens, not just a privileged few. 

National Standard 8 states: ‘‘Conservation and management 

measures shall, consistent with the conservation required by this 

Act, take into account the importance of fisheries resources to fishing communities by utilizing economic and social data in order to 

provide for sustained participation of such communities and, to the 

extent practical, minimize adverse effects on such communities.’’ 

The science and in many cases lack of it is what’s driving management. From a fisherman’s perspective, there has been little if 

any consideration given to providing for sustained participation 

and a minimization of adverse effects on fishermen and their communities. Fishermen have been subjected to lower bag limits, increased size limits, and shortened seasons. Most would be surprised to know the language was even in the document. They feel 

that Magnuson is being used as a weapon against them, not a plan 

for their benefit. 

The loud and clear message of management that fishermen have 

heard has been to err on the side of caution, be extremely conservative, and just deal with it. 

47 

The South Atlantic is an extremely diverse region. The South Atlantic Marine Fisheries Council is managing 72 species. This diversity requires flexibility. It is impossible to manage such diversity 

using a one-size-fits-all approach. Fishermen are not asking for unrealistic changes. What they need is a council that has some flexibility in how they set up rebuilding plans. Stringent timeframes for 

ending overfishing and rebuilding fish stocks are destroying the 

livelihoods of the very people this management plan was supposed 

to protect. 

The best scientific information available should not be a product 

of insufficient funding. Fishermen and their communities are hanging on by a thread and we need your help. Participation is on a 

rapid decline and participation is crucial. Without the involvement 

of fishing communities, who will make sure the resource is sustainable for future generations? 

There are some very smart, dedicated people involved in the 

South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council. Please give them 

the flexibility and the financial tools to do their job. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN ROBERT A. JOHNSON, OWNER-OPERATOR, JODIE

LYNN CHARTERS, ST. AUGUSTINE FLORIDA; CHAIRMAN, SAFMC SNAPPER GROUPER

ADVISORY PANEL

Thank you for the invitation to speak and give my perspective on the reauthorization of Magnuson and how its implementation has affected the fisherman of the 

South Atlantic. I am Captain Robert Johnson, owner/operator Jodie Lynn Charters 

in St Augustine, Florida and have fished the south Atlantic since 1980. Currently, 

I serve as Chairman of the SAFMC Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel as a representative for the charter/head boat sector of Florida. 

What is working with Magnuson? 

When it was reauthorized in 2006 most fishermen had no idea as to how it would 

affect them. The guide lines provided by Magnuson mandated the use of science 

based management and establish rigid time frames to end overfishing. This was 

seen by most as a very positive thing. Since then, overfishing has ended. Many 

stocks of fish are more plentiful today than at any time in my career. The various 

management councils are to be commended for this huge accomplishment. That is 

the positive result of the reauthorization. 

What hasn’t worked? 

Unfortunately this accomplishment has come at a cost to fisherman and coastal 

communities. The charter fishing fleets in my area has experienced a 50 percent decline in recent years. Many Captains attribute this to the complete closure of one 

of the most sought after species in our region Red Snapper. This closure was a direct result of the reauthorization. This was extremely difficult for the public to understand. From their perspective the Red Snapper population had been increasing 

in size and number and fishing was better than it had been for years. Many felt 

the decline in fishing effort was a direct result of closing of this one highly sought 

after species. NOAA Marine Recreational Information Program or MRIP shows a decline in total recreational trips. https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/economics/publications/feus/fisheriesleconomicsl2011 

Curiously, MRIP shows an increase in sales, jobs, and income. I’m not sure how 

less trips and effort translates into more jobs and value; it’s not what is happening 

in my area. MRIP is also tasked with estimating recreational landings used for 

management decisions that open and close fisheries. In many cases not only have 

we ended over fishing, for some species fishing has been almost entirely eliminated. 

The Red Snapper season was one-three day weekend in 2013 for recreational fisherman in the South Atlantic. 

48 

National Standards for Fishery Conservation and Management states: 

(1) Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while 

achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United 

States fishing industry. 

• There needs to be more emphasis and attention given to achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield. 

• We need to be sure that we are allowing the fisherman to harvest what the 

science allows. 

(2) Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available. 

• Fishermen refer to this as best available science. We have been told in many 

cases that the data might not be complete, up to date, may be very little available, but it’s the best we have and that is what the managers are required to use. 

• How can we mandate the use of inadequate data to make decisions that have 

such profound impacts on people’s lives? 

• Given the immense value of our recreational fisheries (Southwick Associates 

gives a number of 70.3 billion in economic output nationwide in 2011) Comparing NOAA’s Recreational and Commercial Fishing, Economic Data Report— 

Southwick Associates 

• MyFWC.com states saltwater fishing in FL generates $7.1 billion and supports 

69,751 jobs. 

• Numbers from the NMFS economic report https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets 

/economics/documents/feus/2011/FEUS2011%20-%20South%20Atlantic.pdf 

have the charter boat sector in the south Atlantic valued at $124 million just 

for 2009 and supporting around 2,000 jobs. 

• The same report shows a decline of almost 2 million trips from 2010 to 2011 

in the South Atlantic alone. 

• The decline in offshore trips isn’t directly measured but around 50 percent of 

all trips were by shore based anglers. 

How can we afford not to fund the research needed by the councils to do the job 

properly? I often use the analogy that you need open heart surgery but your doctor 

doesn’t have funding for instruments and supplies so you need to take a drink of 

whiskey and he’s going to use a pocket knife, it’s pretty sharp—the best available. 

There must be a minimum standard required for data used in stock assessments. 

(3) To the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish shall be managed as a 

unit throughout its range, and interrelated stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit 

or in close coordination. 

• The councils for the most part have done pretty well with this one. The challenge in the South Atlantic is some stocks, like Red Snapper, are more important to some states than others in the EEZ. 

(4) Conservation and management measures shall not discriminate between residents of different states. If it becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing privileges among various United States fisherman, such allocation shall be (a) fair and 

equitable to all such fisherman (b) reasonably calculated to promote conservation; 

and(c) carried out in such a manner that no particular individual, corporation, or 

other entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges. 

• I’m not sure how you assign a privilege to anyone without infringing on the 

rights of another. For one to receive, someone else has to give. Fish are a resource that should be managed for the benefit of all citizens, not just a privileged few. 

(5) Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, consider efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources; except that no such measure shall 

have economic allocation as its sole purpose. 

• Individual areas have big differences. 

» Example: Winter weather in the Carolinas compared to Florida. Closures on 

different stocks like Black Sea Bass that have been occurring during the winter months have a much greater effect on Florida than the states to the north. 

(6) Conservation and management measures shall take into account and allow for 

variations among, and contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and catches. 

49 

(7) Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, minimize 

costs and avoid unnecessary duplication. 

(8) Conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the conservation requirements of this act (including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding 

of over fished stocks) take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing 

communities by utilizing economic and social data that meet the requirements of 

paragraph (2) in order to (a) provide for the sustained participation of such communities, and (b) to the extent practicable, minimize adverse effects on such communities. 

• We are back to the best scientific information available. The science and in 

many cases, lack of, is what’s driving management. 

• From a fisherman’s perspective there has been little, if any, consideration given 

to providing for sustained participation and the minimization of adverse effects 

on fisherman and their communities. 

• Fisherman have been subjected to lower bag limits, increased size limits and 

shortened seasons. Most fishermen would be surprised to know this language 

is even in the document. Most feel Magnuson is being used as a weapon against 

them not as a management plan for their benefit. The loud and clear message 

they have heard is we have to err on the side of caution, be extremely conservative in setting limits and seasons, and learn to deal with it. 

• Management must be allowed the flexibility to take into consideration the adverse effects of some of the rebuilding plans. 

• Time frames used in rebuilding should be stock specific, the councils should 

have the flexibility to consider the adverse effects on the fisherman. 

• The decline of these stocks didn’t happen in a short time period. The councils 

need to have a reasonable amount of time to end overfishing 

(9) Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable (a) 

minimize by catch and (b) to the extent by catch cannot be avoided, minimize the 

mortality of such by catch. 

• More studies need to be conducted on by catch and discard mortality. 

» Post quota by catch mortality estimates are deducted up front from the ACLs. 

Some of these estimates are based on incomplete, poorly vetted studies. 

» Effort is figured from MRIP estimates. 

» We are estimating how many fish might be killed accidentally; we are estimating how many anglers actually went fishing and what for. 

» The only thing that is not estimated is the very real numbers of fish that are 

deducted from ACL’s. 

» Fishermen deserve better—we have to fund accurate up to date science. 

(10) Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, promote safety of life at sea. 

• In the South Atlantic this is not an area of huge concern. Every captain should 

know his vessels limitations. 

• Extremely short seasons, like the 2013 Red Snapper season in the south Atlantic could encourage someone to make a bad decision. 

The South Atlantic is an extremely diverse region: 

• The SAFMC is charged with managing 72 species; this diversity requires flexibility. 

• It is impossible to manage such diversity effectively using a one size fits all approach. 

• Some species are short lived while others have life spans greater than 50 years. 

• Some species are highly fecundate, others are not. 

• Some spend their juvenile period in the estuaries others in the open sea. 

Fishermen are not asking for unrealistic changes. Fisherman need: 

• The council to have some flexibility in how they set up rebuilding plans. 

» Stringent time frames for rebuilding fish stocks are destroying the livelihoods 

of the very people this management plan was supposed to benefit. 

» The best scientific information available should not be a product of insufficient funding. 

50 

Charter fishermen are hanging on by a thread; we need your help. Participation 

in offshore fishing is on a rapid decline. Participation is crucial; without the involvement of the fishing community, who will make sure the resource is sustainable for 

future generations? 

There are some very smart dedicated people involved in fisheries management. 

Please give them the flexibility and financial tools to do their jobs. 

Involvement includes Fisheries Management skill in the following: 

• SEDAR assessments on numerous SA species of reef fish to include: 

» Red Snapper 

» Gray Triggerfish 

» Cobia 

» Spanish Mackerel 

• Fisheries Independent Data Monitoring Workshop 

• ORCS workshop 

• National EM workshop 

• Fisheries Independent Research with state of FL 

Acronyms: 

SEDAR—South east data assessment review 

EEZ—Exclusive economic zone 

ORCS—Only reliable catch statistics 

MRIP—Marine recreational information program 

EM—Electronic monitoring 

SAFMC—South Atlantic fishery management council 

SA—South Atlantic 

ACL—Annual catch limits 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Next we have Bill Tucker, commercial fisherman, Gulf of Mexico 

Reef Fish Shareholders Alliance. Thank you very much for being 

here. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. ‘‘BILL’’ TUCKER, COMMERCIAL 

FISHERMAN, GULF OF MEXICO REEF FISH SHAREHOLDERS 

ALLIANCE 

Mr. TUCKER. Thank you for the invitation to appear. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee: My name is Bill Tucker. I’ve been 

a commercial grouper and red snapper fisherman in the Gulf since 

1985. 

Groupers and red snappers are served in restaurants and at family dinner tables across our Nation. The vast majority of Americans 

do not catch their own fish for dinner. They rely on people like me 

to bring it to the marketplace. 

Fishery resources are renewable, but they are also fragile and 

are easy to overexploit. They are very difficult to rebuild. Until we 

rebuild them, we will never enjoy the full economic and social benefits that are possible. And even with rebuilt stocks, ineffective management can choke off the benefits we have every reason to expect. 

In the commercial sector, current management is working. Our 

IFQ systems in the grouper and red snapper fisheries, designed 

with extensive fisherman input, have extended fishing seasons to 

a year-round basis and eliminated quota overages. In an era where 

reduced quotas almost always translate into shorter seasons, IFQ 

management has changed that. By aligning business incentives 

with stock rebuilding, IFQ’s work where traditional management 

51 

continues to fail. Because of IFQ’s, data reporting requirements 

have been expanded and cost-sharing regimens have been implemented. 

It’s not all rosy in the Gulf and, even though Magnuson provides 

a great road map for success, it doesn’t guarantee it. For example, 

even though we’ve ended overfishing for red snapper, the stock is 

still classified as overfished. And even though we’ve increased the 

annual catch limits from 5 to 11 million pounds, charter boat operators and their clients and private recreational fishermen are held 

hostage by outdated management styles. 

When we try to control recreational effort by shortening their 

season, we only incentivize the race to catch fish. On an individual 

level the mind set goes that: Hey, if the seasons are short, I better 

catch all I can before the season closes. That way I won’t miss out. 

But when you broaden this perspective from an individual basis 

to an entire sector, you begin to understand how the quota is 

reached much faster and the seasons become shorter, or the quotas 

are exceeded, or both, as in the Gulf’s recreational red snapper 

fishery. This explains why the simultaneous increase in recreational quotas and the decrease in the length of the season is not 

a paradox at all. It’s quite predictable. 

The good news is that leaders in the for-hire component of the 

recreational sector are making strides and persuading the council 

to try alternative management techniques. If given the chance, 

they’ll succeed, and then they too can maximize the benefits of rebuilding stock for their sector. 

Another idea hotly contested in the Gulf today is to reallocate 

more red snapper to the recreational fishermen—to the recreational sector from the commercial sector. Today the allocation 

formula is roughly 50–50 and it should stay that way. Taking fish 

away from an accountable commercial sector would limit the 

public’s access to this resource. The U.S. population is slightly 

more than 300 million people. Of this, roughly 1 percent are Gulf 

region recreational anglers. This 1 percent is allocated roughly half 

of the red snapper resource. Were we to alter this balance between 

recreational and consumer access, restaurants and consumers 

would see a shortage in supply and an increase in price. Our fishing businesses, as well as the businesses downstream, would be 

damaged in the short term by disruptions in supply and in the long 

term by permanent shifts in market share that favor imported red 

snapper and foreign businesses. Reallocation may be an economic 

boon for the 1 percent, but it sure isn’t fair and equitable for everybody else. 

Let’s look at reallocation from another angle. If a sector has a 

long history of overharvesting its baseline quota, why would we increase the baseline, compounding the error? What message do we 

send when access is reallocated away from an accountable sector 

in favor of one that is not? 

Reallocation is not the answer to short seasons in the Gulf’s recreational fishery. The answer is a fundamental shift in management strategy. Reallocation should not be the red herring that 

takes our focus away from mismanagement. We need the resolve 

to focus on the real problem, which is management. 

52 

The reauthorization needs to include language that prevents reallocation away from sectors that manage within their quotas and 

gives it to those that do not. Magnuson should address this issue 

before an improper precedent is set. 

We have the best science in the world. Our data collection system 

could use some more, and fishermen would have a lot more confidence in the system if they were all contributing catch and effort 

data to the State and Federal agencies. In my opinion, every fisherman should be expected to contribute catch and effort data as a 

condition of participation in the fishery, very similar to the way we 

collect data on migratory game birds. Fisherman input is essential. 

Magnuson should demand no less. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tucker follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. ‘‘BILL’’ TUCKER, COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN, GULF OF MEXICO REEF FISH SHAREHOLDERS ALLIANCE

Chairman Begich, Ranking Member Rubio and Members of the Committee, 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the important fisheries issues currently under discussion in your committee. As a commercial fisherman from Dunedin, Florida with 30 years of experience in the industry, I proudly provide access 

to domestic, sustainable Gulf seafood to meet the growing demand of millions of 

Americans who have chosen to enjoy our native wild fishery resources on a plate, 

at home, or in restaurants throughout the country. This is how the vast majority 

of Americans get their fish. I support their access. In fact, I depend on it. 

I have served the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council) as 

a member of several of its Advisory Panels related to the reef fish fishery. I am 

thankful for the regional Council process that allows stakeholders to have direct involvement in management of our fishery resources. There is a lot to be said in favor 

of the Councils open process where verbatim minutes and rigid notification requirements are among the disciplines that ensure fairness and equity among all user 

groups. As a participant I’ve seen good, bad and ugly, and I credit the Council process for doing a pretty good job of shining the proper light on each. 

On balance, the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) is working. The congressionally-authorized management system of science-based limits, accountability measures, and 

new management methods such as individual fishing quotas (IFQs), are rebuilding 

fisheries and ending overfishing in the Gulf of Mexico and around the country. I 

strongly believe that sustainable fishing businesses and strong fishing communities 

can only exist where fishery resources are responsibly managed using science, and 

accounting for fishing in excess of limits is enforced. I am happy to report that we 

are making strides towards meeting these goals. And while there are forces to the 

contrary, it is my opinion that placing the health of our fishery resources as priority 

one is the best way to set the stage for maximizing economic and social benefits for 

our Nation. 

Current Management 

The Gulf Council oversees all of the commercial fishing for federally managed species in the Gulf of Mexico from the end of state waters out to 200 nautical miles. 

While not perfect, the congressionally-authorized Council system manages many of 

the Gulf’s commercially important species in real time, and coordinates the management, data collection and enforcement of fishing activity across several jurisdictions. 

The benefit of the Council structure is that representatives from all of the Gulf 

States and stakeholders are able to make decisions that reflect local needs. Many 

people are not aware that sixteen of the 17 voting members of the Gulf Council are 

either nominated or appointed by Gulf state governors. This is an important structure to have because no two fisheries are the same and management decisions 

should be based on local needs. The Council process does a great job of integrating 

the ideas of a diverse mix of opinions into alternatives that address issues specific 

to the Gulf Coast. 

In the commercial sector, current management is working. The overwhelming success in rebuilding the red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico shows the benefits 

that can be achieved through the right management system and fishermen participation in the process. Several years ago, commercial red snapper and grouper fisherVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:11 Jul 13, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\95418.TXT JACKIE
53 

men voted to move to an individual fishing quota system (IFQ) that has reduced 

discards, kept catch within limits and allowed fishermen the flexibility to operate 

when weather or market conditions are best. In an era where reduced quotas almost 

always translate into shorter seasons, IFQ management has provided the dynamic 

to change that. By aligning business incentives with stock rebuilding, IFQ’s work 

where traditional command and control management continue to fail. Since the program was adopted for commercially-caught red snapper in 2007, we have seen the 

total allowable catch increase from 5 million to 11 million pounds—that’s an increase of 120 percent that benefits consumers and recreational fishermen alike. 

Unfortunately, for-hire operators, their clients, and private recreational fishermen 

have not experienced the benefits of these extra fish because they continue to be 

managed in the traditional command and control manner of restrictive seasons and 

bag limits. This is not the fault of individual anglers, but of the management system 

under which they are operating. There is an obvious need to consider and implement new management tools that improve recreational access and flexibility, yet it 

seems to be an uncomfortable concept that the recreational demand for fish exceeds 

the recreational quota. Overcoming this perception is the first step in reconciling 

their demand for fish with the available supply. Solutions are readily available but 

first will require the acknowledgement that allocation of the recreational quota 

among recreational fishermen is a challenging but necessary prerequisite. Our fishery resources are renewable, but not unlimited. Restraint is necessary. 

Regional Management 

The frustrations felt by many recreational fishermen are understandable, and solutions do exist, but some of the ideas being put forth to address them would cause 

more harm than good. Regional management—or transferring more authority to the 

states or other entities—has been proposed in many different forms in Congress 

through legislation as well as at the Gulf Council through Amendment 39. I believe 

that giving states more authority to manage the recreational fishery with Council 

oversight may have merit, and the concept should be further explored. 

However, the commercial management system will not be easily replaced by state 

or regional management, and efforts to transfer authority of the commercial industry from the Gulf Council to other entities would hurt our industry. States have 

more experience and capacity to manage recreational fishing than they do commercial fishing. For our industry, they lack the monitoring and enforcement resources 

and capacity to do so. 

I do not support legislation in Congress to transfer authority from the Gulf Council to the Gulf States Marine Fishery Commission (Commission). This is duplicative 

and would serve only to create more layers of government. As I mentioned previously, 16 of the 17 Council members are nominated or appointed by Gulf state 

governors. Many of these same members sit on the Commission. The difference is 

that the Commission is not as well equipped to manage offshore fisheries as the 

Council, and in any case it makes no sense to use a separate layer of bureaucracy 

to manage one of many species that are caught together primarily in Federal waters. 

Reallocation 

Another idea being debated in the Gulf today is to allocate more red snapper to 

recreational fishermen. Today, the allocation formula is roughly 50–50 and it should 

stay that way. Taking fish away from an accountable commercial sector would limit 

public access to this resource. Of the U.S. population of more than 300 million people, roughly 3.2 million people, or about 1 percent fish recreationally in the Gulf of 

Mexico and its saltwater tributaries. Currently they are allocated roughly 50 percent of the red snapper resource. Were we to alter this balance of 50–50 between 

recreational and consumer access, restaurants and consumers would see a shortage 

in supply and an attendant increase in price. Our fishing businesses would be damaged in the short term by disruptions in supply, and in the long term by permanent 

shifts in market share that favor imported red snapper and the foreign businesses 

that ply the trade. On the other hand, continuing a reliable and vibrant supply of 

safe, sustainable domestic seafood is an obvious barometer of a sustainably managed resource. Besides, the Gulf’s recreational fishermen already take home 80 percent of the most popular fish in the Gulf, including overwhelming majorities of 

amberjack, red drum, speckled trout, king mackerel and triggerfish. Even if the recreational sector received the entire red snapper commercial quota, anglers would get 

only another month or two of fishing each year, and that season would continue to 

shorten over time because the underlying management system is inadequate to prevent overharvest. Indeed, the recreational fishery already accounts for 56 percent 

to 65 percent of total red snapper landings even though their allocation is supposed 

54 

to be 49 percent of the total catch. For the sake of common sense, language should 

be included in the reauthorization that precludes reallocation to any sector that 

overharvests its annual quota, because reallocating from an accountable sector to 

one that overharvests sends the wrong message about taking stewardship seriously. 

Recreational fishermen who are understandably frustrated with short seasons are 

looking for solutions, and those solutions exist, but reallocation will not provide 

them with any long term benefits. It will only prolong the implementation of sound 

management, while short-changing millions of Americans by redistributing their 

seafood access to others. 

Data Collection 

I have witnessed the frustrations of many who complain that somehow fishery 

science is flawed, especially in cases where the scientific conclusions do not coincide 

with popular conceptions. My experience is that the NMFS, NOAA Fisheries and 

the State Agencies have the best, most objective scientists in the world. These people are smart, and have an ability to exclude the various political pressures from 

their scientific analysis. I have to give them credit. 

And while I credit the scientists for their exceptional abilities, data collection 

seems to be a weak link in the scientific process. Budget constraints are one of the 

drivers of data paucity. This reality is dealt with on a regular basis at the regional 

fishery offices and science centers. Cooperative research is one effective and promising avenue to collect data. But my experience tells me that for some data, a fundamental change in philosophy is needed. In my opinion, every extractive user of our 

Nation’s fishery resources should be expected, as a condition of participation, to submit catch and effort data. This is exactly how we have designed the commercial fisheries in the Gulf, where data submission is a condition of permit renewal. It’s an 

amazingly simple and effective discipline. The cumulative effect of this individual 

accountability in the commercial sector is the fundamental basis for accountability 

at the sector level. I see no good reason why the expectation of data submission for 

the recreational sector should be discounted on an individual basis. This requirement could mirror the way many States manage recreational migratory bird hunting, where next years ‘stamp’ is not issued until the hunters previous year effort 

and harvest data is submitted. The benefits of this approach would be substantial. 

Not only would the quantity of data improve, but so would its quality and resolution. And one of the understated benefits would be the buy-in of the fishermen, since 

they would know that their data is used for better ‘‘science’’. 

These types of improvements can be made and Congress can help. To that end, 

I support legislation recently introduced by Congressman Rob Wittman (VA)— 

H.R. 3063—called the Healthy Fisheries Through Better Science Act. The bill would 

make several improvements to the current system. 

First and foremost, the bill recognizes that fishermen should be more involved in 

the data collection process. This is important for two reasons. First, fishermen know 

the waters they fish, and can make valuable contributions to the underlying information managers use to make decisions. Second, fishermen do not always trust the 

data and models NMFS uses and as a result are more likely to oppose management 

based on them. H.R. 3063 would require NMFS to establish standards for the submission of data and analyses by outside sources, including fishermen and academics. 

Congressman Wittman’s bill also addresses the need for more timely stock assessments by requiring the Secretary of Commerce to set a public schedule for conducting stock assessments, including species that have never been assessed. The legislation also requires NMFS to ensure that it is using the most cost-effective methods for monitoring and to inform fishermen in advance if they will be required to 

share these costs. 

Conclusion 

In closing, the fishery management tools and requirements in the MSA have succeeded in bringing U.S. fisheries up to a standard of sustainability of which fishermen can be proud. And after years of work by fishermen and regional managers, 

the commercial sector’s management plan is finally working. There are many things 

left to do in fisheries management, including modernizing fishery data collection 

and analysis, incentivizing stewardship and conservation, developing and testing 

new management methods, and ensuring fair access to seafood for the American 

consumer. I look forward to working with members of this committee to meet these 

goals. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering any 

questions you may have. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

55 

The next person on the list, we have Mr. Crockett, Director of 

U.S. Fisheries Campaigns, Pew Charitable Trusts. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF LEE CROCKETT, DIRECTOR, U.S. OCEANS, 

THE PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS 

Mr. CROCKETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of The Pew 

Charitable Trusts, I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on the progress made in implementing the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the Southeast U.S. and what refinements will be needed to improve conservation and management to meet the challenges of the 21st century. 

Pew has been involved with Magnuson-Stevens for 20 years. For 

over 5 years we’ve been advancing policies that will ensure abundant fish and healthy oceans in the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, 

and the U.S. Caribbean regions. Our involvement with the Magnuson Act began when we looked at scientific assessments of the status of a number of iconic fish and found a system that allowed 

overfishing, delayed action to rebuild depleted populations, and allowed economics to trump conservation. 

To use a word that we’ve heard commonly today, there was a lot 

of ‘‘flexibility.’’ Unfortunately, while the Act provided flexibility to 

use different management tools, it also allowed flexibility to avoid 

difficult but necessary decisions to put species on the road to recovery. 

Congress also saw that flexibility was allowing managers to 

avoid addressing these problems and twice amended the Act to establish clear mandates to restore the valuable fish populations that 

support fishermen and fishing communities. South Atlantic black 

sea bass is a good example of fishery management prior to the 2006 

amendments and the progress we have made since making those 

changes. For decades, fishermen caught black sea bass faster than 

they can reproduce, driving this fish population to dangerously low 

levels. Managers put a rebuilding plan in place to restore this depleted fish population, but lax implementation failed to prevent its 

continued decline. 

Finally, in January 2011 management measures for black sea 

bass and eight other species subject to chronic overfishing were implemented, including stronger consequences when fishing limits are 

exceeded. A scientific study completed in April of this year found 

that overfishing of black sea bass had ended and the population’s 

recovery had been achieved. As a result, managers doubled the 

catch limit for this season from 847,000 to 1.8 million pounds. This 

should have a positive impact on ports from North Carolina to Florida. 

This story is part of the larger emerging picture of success that 

is happening in fisheries across the country. According to the most 

recent data from NOAA fisheries, catch limits have ended overfishing in 22 of the 38 U.S. fish stocks subject to overfishing in 

2007. In addition, 34 stocks have been declared rebuilt since 2000. 

Economists at NOAA Fisheries estimated in 2011 that rebuilding 

all depleted fish stocks that year would have generated $31 billion 

in sales, supported an additional 500,000 jobs, and increased the 

revenue that fishermen receive at the dock by $2.2 billion. 

56 

Despite the demonstrated success of the Magnuson Act in rebuilding depleted stocks, some stakeholders are calling for greater 

flexibility. Such calls ignore the fact that the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act has a great deal of flexibility in how long those plans should 

be and how they should be implemented. Over half the plans are 

longer than ten years due to species biology and environmental 

conditions. 

We’ve made a great deal of progress in improving the status of 

individual fish populations since passage of the 2006 amendments 

to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In order to ensure continued success, 

we must maintain our commitment to science-based management 

that prevents overfishing and rebuilds depleted populations while 

broadening the focus of management to minimize the impacts on 

larger marine ecosystems. This step will place a greater focus on 

restoring and maintaining the health and resiliency of ocean ecosystems. It will require strengthening existing requirements to protect the habitats that fish depend on for reproduction and growth, 

reduce the non-target catch or bycatch. It also requires managing 

forage fish so that they’re abundant enough to support the larger 

fish, marine mammals, and birds that depend on them for food. Finally, it requires developing a better understanding of how species 

interrelate with each other and the surrounding ecosystem and 

making fishery management decisions that will promote the restoration and maintenance of healthy and resilient ocean ecosystems. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to share the views of The 

Pew Charitable Trusts. My written testimony goes into more detail 

on our recommended changes to the Magnuson Act and I look forward to discussing them with you as well as answering any questions you may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crockett follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LEE CROCKETT, DIRECTOR, U.S. OCEANS, 

THE PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS

On behalf of The Pew Charitable Trusts (Pew), I appreciate the opportunity to 

provide testimony on the progress made in implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) in the 

Southeastern United States and what refinements will be needed to improve conservation and management to meet the challenges of the 21st century. 

Pew has been involved with the Magnuson-Stevens Act for 20 years. Pew grants 

supported fishing and environmental groups involved in the reauthorization of the 

Act in 1996 and again in 2006. In 2007 we began operation as a not-for-profit advocacy group that supports effective implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 

the national and regional level. For over five years we’ve worked with managers and 

stakeholders to advance policies that will ensure abundant fish and healthy oceans 

for generations to come in the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and U.S. Caribbean 

regions. 

As Pew’s director of U.S. Oceans, I oversee our fisheries advocacy in the United 

States. These include efforts in the Northeast, South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, U.S. 

Caribbean, and the Pacific. Before joining Pew, I was executive director of the Marine Fish Conservation Network, the largest national coalition dedicated exclusively 

to promoting the sustainable management of ocean fish. The Network was actively 

involved in the 1996 and 2006 reauthorizations of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Previously, I was a fishery biologist with the National Marine Fisheries Service, leading 

agency efforts to protect essential fish habitat. Finally, I was a staff member of the 

U.S. House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, working on a variety of 

fisheries, environmental and boating safety issues. 

Our involvement in the Magnuson-Stevens Act began when we looked at scientific 

assessments of the status of a number of iconic fish such as New England’s cod and 

57 

1 NOAA Fisheries, Southeast Fishery Bulletin, ‘‘NOAA Will Publish a Final Rule to Establish 

Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures for Nine South Atlantic Snapper-Grouper 

Species,’’ Dec. 30, 2010. http://safmc.net/Library/pdf/FBAmendment17BFinalRule122910.pdf 2Personal communication between John Carmichael, South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council, and Holly Binns, The Pew Charitable Trusts. Apr 16, 2013. 

the Southeast’s red snapper and found populations that were a tiny fraction of their 

historic size. In our search for causes we found a system that allowed overfishing, 

delayed action to rebuild depleted populations, and allowed economics to trump conservation. To use a word that we commonly hear when Magnuson reauthorization 

is discussed today, there was a lot of ‘‘flexibility’’ in our Federal management system. Unfortunately, while the Act provided flexibility to use different management 

tools, it also allowed flexibility to avoid the difficult but necessary decisions to put 

these species on the road to recovery. 

Congress also saw that flexibility was allowing managers to avoid addressing 

these problems and twice amended the Act to establish clearer mandates to restore 

the valuable fish populations that are the cornerstone of the fishing industry and 

the coastal communities it supports. 

In the 1996, a bipartisan group of lawmakers passed the Sustainable Fisheries 

Act, which amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act to: 

• Prohibit fishery managers from using an economic rationale to set catch levels 

above what is sustainable; 

• Require timely rebuilding of overfished populations (populations of fish that are 

at unsustainably low levels) to healthy levels; 

• Require managers to implement practicable measures to minimize the catching 

and killing of non-targeted ocean wildlife, known as bycatch; and 

• Require the identification of essential fish habitat and practicable measures to 

protect it from damaging fishing. 

Despite these changes, overfishing continued to prevent the recovery of many fish 

populations. Again, a bipartisan group of lawmakers, led by the late Senator Ted 

Stevens (R-Alaska) passed legislation strengthening the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 

2006. That legislation was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2007. 

The most recent amendments require fishery managers to follow the recommendations of their science advisors to set annual catch limits that end and prevent overfishing and include accountability measures to ensure those limits are not exceeded. 

The catch limits were to be established by 2010 for fish populations experiencing 

overfishing, and by 2011 for all other populations. The 2006 amendments also prohibited overfishing in rebuilding plans designed to restore depleted fish populations. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act is Working 

Southeast Successes 

Because of effective implementation of the 2006 amendments by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) and the 

regional fishery management councils, overfishing is ending and depleted fish populations are being restored. According to NOAA Fisheries’ most recent Status of 

Stocks update, 34 fish stocks have been restored since 2000 and the number of 

stocks subject to overfishing is 26, down from 72 in 2000. 

The 34th restored stock is the South Atlantic black sea bass. This success story 

is a testament to the Magnuson-Stevens Act’s requirements to establish sciencebased catch limits that do not allow overfishing and accountability measures to ensure compliance with those limits. 

For 30 years, fishermen caught black sea bass faster than they can reproduce and 

continued overfishing drove the fish to dangerously low levels. Managers put a rebuilding plan in place to comply with the 1996 requirements to restore this depleted 

fish population, but lax implementation of the rules failed to prevent its continued 

decline. In January 2011, management measures for black sea bass and eight other 

species subject to chronic overfishing were implemented and included stronger consequences when fishing limits are exceeded.1

This was not easy. It took the visionary leadership of several members of the 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. But the push for annual catch limits 

and enforcement of those limits has enabled the council to begin reversing the damage done by overfishing. After more than two decades, scientists are now finding increases in the average size, age distribution, and number of sexually mature females 

among black sea bass. This growth in the capacity of the species to reproduce effectively promises more fish for the future.2

58 

3South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, ‘‘Council Approves Increases for Black Sea 

Bass Annual Catch Limits,’’ May 14, 2013. http://safmc.net/sites/default/files/News%20 

Releases/pdf/051413-BlackSeaBass-NR.pdf 4Taylor Hesselgrave and Kristen Sheeran, ‘‘Economic Costs of Historic Overfishing on Recreational Fisheries: South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Regions, Report to the Pew Charitable 

Trusts,’’ Ecotrust, Jul. 26, 2012. http://www.pewenvironment.org/uploadedFiles/PEG/Publications/Report/EcotrustlSElReclFishing.pdf 5Goodyear, C.P. 1988. ‘‘Recent trends in red snapper fishery of the Gulf of Mexico,’’ NMFS. 

SEFSC. Miami FL. CRD 87/88–16. Memo. Rpt. 98p, see pages 12 and 24. 6SEDAR. 2013. SEDAR 31—Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Stock Assessment Report. SEDAR, 

North Charleston SC. 1103 pp. Available online at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/Sedar lWorkshops.jsp?WorkshopNum=31 

7Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, ‘‘Red Snapper,’’ May 2, 2012. http:// 

myfwc.com/media/2102699/4BGulfRedSnapperlpresentation.pdf 8 NOAA, ‘‘NOAA Increases Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Catch Limit: Population Rebounds as 

Overfishing Ends,’’ May 29, 2012. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20120529 lredsnapper.html 

9 Hesselgrave and Sheeran, ‘‘Economic Costs of Historic Overfishing on Recreational Fisheries: 

South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Regions, Report to the Pew Charitable Trusts,’’ Ecotrust, 

Jul. 26, 2012. http://www.pewenvironment.org/uploadedFiles/PEG/Publications/Report/Eco trustlSElReclFishing.pdf; Taylor Hesselgrave, Sarah Kruse, and Kristen A. Sheeran, ‘‘The 

Hidden Cost of Overfishing to Commercial Fishermen: A 2009 Snapshot of Lost Revenues, Report to The Pew Charitable Trusts,’’ Ecotrust, July 25, 2011. http://www.pewenviron 

ment.org/uploadedFiles/PEG/Publications/Report/FINALlCostloflOverfishinglCommerci 

allStudylFulllAnalysislFINALl7l20l11.pdf 

Even better news is a scientific study completed in April, which found overfishing 

of black sea bass had ended after more than 20 years and the target for the population’s recovery had been achieved. As a result, managers doubled the catch limit 

for this season from 847,000 to 1.8 million pounds.3 This should have a positive impact for ports from North Carolina to Florida as fishing quotas and seasons increase. In fact, a study Pew commissioned last year concluded that overfishing of 

black sea bass cost the region $138 million per year in combined direct and indirect 

recreational fishing expenditures from 2005 to 2009.4

Red snapper is another southeastern species greatly damaged by decades of overfishing. By 1988, overfishing of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico had reduced the 

spawning population to less than 15 percent of the minimum target level for this 

population.5 Disputes over how to rebuild it, however, went on for over 15 years. 

By 2006, the population of reproductively mature red snapper was estimated to be 

only 17 percent of the targeted level.6 The next year, a Federal court ruled that 

NOAA managers were not taking appropriate action to rebuild red snapper, and ordered changes. In 2008, a science-based rebuilding plan was implemented finally 

starting this species on the road to recovery after more than twenty years of sanctioned overfishing. 

However, rebuilding a species that has been depleted over many decades and can 

live over 50 years is neither quick nor easy. Full recovery of the red snapper population in the Gulf of Mexico is not anticipated until 2032. This is due to the species’ 

long life span and the need for many more older females in the population, which 

are far better breeders than younger fish. In fact, one 24-inch red snapper has been 

estimated to produce as many as eggs as 212 seventeen inch red snappers.7 Thus, 

these older, larger fish have a disproportionate impact on the population’s reproductive potential and are critical to red snapper’s recovery. 

Today we are starting to see the fruits of catch limits and other efforts to enforce 

and fine-tune rebuilding plans. For example, after years of annually exceeding its 

annual quota for red snapper, the commercial sector has abided by catch levels for 

the last eight years. A 2009 assessment found Gulf red snapper overfishing had finally ended after more than two decades of overexploitation.8 This year the allowable catch jumped to 11 million pounds, up 120 percent from 2008, when the most 

recent rebuilding plan was implemented. This is the highest allowable catch ever 

for Gulf red snapper and the fourth year in a row such an increase occurred. 

Significant challenges remain in determining how to ensure the recreational sector does not continue to exceed their allocation of the catch limit, as has happened 

nearly every year since 2007, while providing adequate opportunity for offshore anglers to target this popular species. As managers work to address this issue, it is 

critical that adhering to the rebuilding plan remain the top priority of Congress and 

the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Our analysis of the cost of overfishing in the Gulf red snapper fishery found that recreational fishing expenditures 

could have generated an additional $33.2 million annually between 2005 and 2009 

for the region, and commercial fishermen lost $12.3 million in 2009 alone.9

In addition to these successes, the most recent update of the NOAA Fisheries Status of Stocks lists South Atlantic red grouper, and Gulf of Mexico gag grouper, gray 

59 

10 NOAA Fisheries, ‘‘Third Quarter Update for the 2013 Status of U.S. Fisheries,’’ http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/SOSmain.htm 11 NOAA Fisheries Service, ‘‘Turning the Corner on Ending Overfishing: U.S. Fisheries 

Reaches Historic Milestone in 2012,’’ http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/01/docs/Annual 

%20Catch%20Limits%20Fact%20Sheet%20Final.pdf; NOAA Fisheries, ‘‘Status of Stocks 2012, 

Annual Report to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries,’’ 2012. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

sfa/statusoffisheries/2012/2012lSOSlRTC.pdf 12Samuel D. Rauch III, ‘‘Written Testimony for the Hearing on Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act before the Committee on Natural Resources,’’ U.S. House of 

Representatives, Sept 11, 2013. http://www.legislative.noaa.gov/Testimony/Rauch091113.pdf 13 NOAA Fisheries. ‘‘Third Quarter Update for the 2013 Status of U.S. Fisheries.’’ http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/SOSmain.htm 14 National Research Council, ‘‘Evaluating the Effectiveness of Fish Stock Rebuilding Plans in 

the United States,’’ Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2013. http://www 

.nap.edu/catalog.php?recordlid=18488 15 National Research Council, ‘‘Evaluating the Effectiveness of Fish Stock Rebuilding Plans in 

the United States,’’ 2013. 16 National Research Council, ‘‘Evaluating the Effectiveness of Fish Stock Rebuilding Plans in 

the United States,’’ 2013. 17 Carl Safina et al., ‘‘U.S. Ocean Fish Recovery: Staying the Course.’’ Science, Vol 309: 707– 

708, Jul 29, 2005. 18Samuel D. Rauch III, ‘‘Written Testimony for the Hearing on Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act’’ before the Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of 

Representatives, Sept 11, 2013. http://www.legislative.noaa.gov/Testimony/Rauch091113.pdf 

trigger fish and greater amberjack as no longer subject to overfishing.10 While these 

fish are still designated as overfished and in rebuilding plans, this is an important 

step in their restoration. 

National successes 

These stories are part of a larger emerging picture of success that is happening 

in fisheries across the country. Annual catch limits designed to end and prevent 

overfishing were established through amendments to all 46 Federal fishery management plans by June 2012, meaning 371 stocks and stock complexes are now managed under plans with science-based limits.11 These limits have ended overfishing 

for 22 of the 38 (58 percent) U.S. stocks subject to overfishing in 2007.12 In addition, 

34 overfished or depleted stocks have been declared rebuilt since 2000.13

The recently released National Research Council (NRC) report on its evaluation 

of rebuilding under the Magnuson-Stevens Act echoed this success noting that the 

current rebuilding approach has ‘‘resulted in demonstrated successes in identifying 

and rebuilding overfished stocks’’ and that ‘‘fishing mortality has generally been reduced, and stock biomass has generally increased, for stocks that were placed in a 

rebuilding plan.’’ 14 They go on to say that ‘‘the legal and prescriptive nature of rebuilding mandates forces difficult decisions to be made, ensures a relatively high 

level of accountability, and can help prevent protracted debate over whether and 

how stocks should be rebuilt.’’ 15 They also note that ‘‘setting rebuilding times is useful for specifying target fishing mortality rates for rebuilding and for avoiding 

delays in initiating rebuilding plans.’’ 16

Despite the demonstrated success of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in rebuilding depleted fish populations, some stakeholders are calling for greater flexibility in establishing rebuilding plans. Such calls ignore the fact the Magnuson-Stevens Act has 

a great deal of flexibility in how long those plans should be. The Act currently allows rebuilding plans to exceed the law’s 10-year target (which is twice the time scientists calculate that a majority of fish populations require for rebuilding)17 to accommodate the biology of the fish species, other environmental conditions, or management measures under an international agreement. Further flexibility exists to 

amend rebuilding plans when new information on the status of the stock becomes 

available. This flexibility is apparent when examining current rebuilding time lines, 

which range from four years to more than 100 years. Over half of the plans (23 of 

43) are longer than 10 years due to species biology and environmental conditions.18

Restoring a depleted fish population causes short-term economic hardships for affected fishermen. Managers must acknowledge and mitigate those adverse effects, 

but not at the expense of needed conservation measures, particularly when considering increased economic returns and employment opportunities that will result 

from rebuilt populations. For example, half of the rebuilt stocks with available data 

now produce at least 50 percent more revenue than when they were classified as 

overfished, and seven stocks produce revenue that is more than 100 percent higher 

60 

19Samuel D. Rauch III, ‘‘Written Testimony for the Hearing on Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act’’ before the Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of 

Representatives, Sept 11, 2013. http://www.legislative.noaa.gov/Testimony/Rauch091113.pdf 20 Eric Schwabb, ‘‘Written statement before the Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House 

of Representatives, on eight bills that would amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.’’ Dec 1, 2011. http://www.legislative.noaa.gov/Testimony/Schwaab 

120111.pdf 21S. Khatiwala et al., ‘‘Reconstruction of the history of anthropogenic CO2 concentrations in 

the Ocean,’’ Nature, 462, 346–349. Nov 19, 2009. Doi: 10.1038/nature08526. http://www 

.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7271/full/nature08526.html 22For instance, see: Elvira S. Poloczanska et al., ‘‘Global Imprint of Climate Change on Marine Life.’’ Nature Climate Change, Aug 4, 2013. DOI:10.1038/NCLIMATE1958; Malin L. Pinsky 

et al., ‘‘Marine Taxa Track Local Climate Velocities,’’ Science, Vol 341: 1239–1242. 2013. DOI: 

10.1126/science.1239352; R.D. Norris, S. Kirtland Turner, P.M. Hull, and A. Ridgwell, ‘‘Marine 

Ecosystem Responses to Cenozoic Global Change,’’ Science, Vol 341: 492–498. 2013. DOI: 

10.1126/science.1240543. 

than the lowest revenue level when classified as overfished.19 Economists at NOAA 

Fisheries estimated in 2011 that rebuilding all depleted fish stocks that year would 

have generated an additional $31 billion in sales, supported an additional 500,000 

jobs, and increased the revenue that fishermen receive at the dock by $2.2 billion.20

Clearly, the financial benefits of restoring our Nation’s fish populations for fishermen and coastal communities are huge. 

Decades of overfishing have diminished many of our ocean fish populations and 

put coastal communities that depend on them in greater economic hardship. But 

thanks to bipartisan efforts in Congress in 1996 and 2006 and the hard work of 

managers and stakeholders at the regional councils, the United States now has one 

of the best fishery management systems in the world. It is a system that has proven 

its ability to end overfishing, recover depleted populations, and provide jobs and income to fishermen and their communities. While challenges remain, it is clear that 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act is working, and any changes we consider must build on 

the recent successes and not sacrifice the advancements we have made. 

Challenges 

Broadening the focus of fisheries management 

As discussed above, we have made a great deal of progress improving the status 

of individual fish populations since passage of the 2006 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In order to ensure continued success we must maintain our commitment to science-based management that prevents overfishing and rebuilds depleted populations while broadening the focus of management to minimize the impact of fishing on larger marine ecosystems. This step will place a greater focus on 

restoring and maintaining the health and resiliency of the ecosystems that underpin 

fisheries productivity. It will require strengthening existing requirements to protect 

the habitats that fish depend on for reproduction and growth, and reduce non-target 

catch or bycatch. It also requires managing forage fish so that they are abundant 

enough to support the larger fish, marine mammals, and birds that depend on them 

for food. Finally, it requires developing a better understanding of how species interrelate with each other and the surrounding ecosystem and making fisheries management decisions that will promote the restoration and maintenance of healthy and 

resilient ocean ecosystems. 

The need to take this step is more important and timely than ever. Our oceans 

face significant and numerous stressors, such as the impacts of global climate 

change and diminished water quality from upland uses. The impact of increased carbon in the atmosphere is having a significant impact on the ocean which sequesters 

20 to 35 percent of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.21 This is causing the ocean to become more acidic, which in turn is impeding the growth and survival of shell-forming marine organisms like clams and oysters and could have implications for other 

marine species. We are also seeing ocean waters warming which is having a profound effect on the distribution of marine organisms, especially fish. Recent studies 

have documented the worldwide shift of fish towards the poles and to deeper water 

as they seek cooler water.22 The impacts of these system stressors require a broader 

approach to management that ensures ocean ecosystems can support the healthy 

fish populations on which our coastal communities depend. 

The science and tools exist to begin the transition to ecosystem-based fishery 

management. Managers should not wait to begin taking action. There are a number 

of actions that managers can take now to promote healthy ocean ecosystems. 

Bycatch, is the incidental catch of ocean wildlife in non-selective fisheries. This 

is a key source of unaccounted mortality for many marine species. Bycatch occurs 

in both commercial and recreational fisheries, and is of particular concern when byVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:11 Jul 13, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\95418.TXT JACKIE
61 

23 National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. National Bycatch Report, NOAA Tech. Memo, 

NMFS–F/SPO–117E, 2011. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/bylcatch/bycatchlnationalreport.htm. 24 NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, ‘‘Recreational Fishing,’’ accessed Nov 12, 2013. 

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/recreationallfishing/index.html 25Pikitch, E. et al., 2012. Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a Crucial Link in Ocean Food 

Webs. Lenfest Ocean Program. Washington, D.C. 108 pp. 26Kaschner, K., Karpouzi, V., Watson, R. and Pauly, D. 2006. Forage fish consumption by marine mammals and seabirds. pp. 33–46. In: Alder, J. and Pauly, D. (Eds.). On the multiple uses 

of forage fish: from ecosystems to markets. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(3). Fisheries 

Centre, University of British Columbia. 27 Cury, P.M., Boyd, L. L., Bonhommeau, S. et al., 2011. Global seabird response to forage fish 

depletion. Science, 334:1703–1706. 

catch species are classified as overfished and in need of rebuilding under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, or threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. 

Economically, bycatch equates to lost opportunity—it can preclude more valuable 

uses of fish resources and reduce future productivity by killing juvenile fish and mature reproductive fish. 

In 1996, Congress added National Standard 9 to minimize bycatch and bycatch 

mortality, and a separate requirement to establish a Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology. NOAA Fisheries’ 2011 National Bycatch Report, which was based 

on information from 2005, estimated that nationally 17 percent of the fish caught 

were bycatch.23 This is likely an underestimate because bycatch data is inconsistently recorded so potentially large sources of mortality are not accounted for in either stock assessments or when counting total annual catch. 

In the Southeast, struggling populations like red snapper, speckled hind, and warsaw grouper are all subject to high levels of mortality from bycatch, and the available data likely undercounts the bycatch levels. In some areas of the country, entire 

schools of forage fish, which provide a vital ecosystem link between small, proteinrich plankton and top predators, are indiscriminately scooped up and discarded dead 

in large numbers. Surface longlines in the Gulf of Mexico kill over 80 other marine 

species such as billfish, sea turtles and sharks along with the target yellowfin tuna 

and swordfish. 

Bycatch mortality is particularly challenging to monitor in the recreational fishery 

given the sheer number of anglers who take to Federal waters off the southeast 

coast of the U.S. each year. In 2011, over 3 million recreational anglers took 23 million trips in the Gulf of Mexico, and over 2.3 million recreational anglers took 18 

million trips in the South Atlantic.24 Unlike in many of the inshore fisheries managed by state agencies, catch and release fishing in deeper, offshore waters too often 

results in these fish not surviving release back into the water. This is because they 

cannot withstand the rapid change in pressure as they are pulled to the surface. 

There is promising evidence from the Pacific coast that rapid descent devices may 

improve the odds of survival for these fish, but more research is needed to determine their effectiveness for species in the warmer waters of the southeast U.S. This 

is an area that could benefit from additional cooperative research between fishermen and scientists. 

Quantifying and reducing bycatch must become a key mandate for Federal fishery 

managers if we are to recover ocean ecosystems and fully realize the economic potential of fisheries. 

Forage fish are a key link in the marine food web between the microscopic plants 

and animals that inhabit the sea and the marine predators that eat them. Humans 

are inextricably linked to these tiny fish because many of these top level predators 

are the fish we love to catch and eat or the marine mammals and birds we love 

to watch. The Lenfest Forage Fish Taskforce, a group of 13 eminent scientists from 

around the world, spent three years conducting a comprehensive global analysis of 

forage fisheries and found that three quarters of marine ecosystems worldwide have 

predators that are highly dependent upon forage fish.25 Scientists have estimated 

that total consumption of forage fish by the world’s marine mammals can amount 

to 20 million tons a year,26 while seabirds require roughly 12 million tons annually.27 The Gulf of Mexico is home to the largest forage fishery in the nation, menhaden, but state-based regulators have resisted establishing meaningful limits to 

ensure this critically important fish will continue to meet its role as food for the 

larger ecosystem. In Florida, conservation of forage fish like mullet which support 

world class sport fisheries for red fish, tarpon and snook was dealt a blow by a recent Florida circuit court decision that overturned enforcement of almost 20 year old 

protections against the use of gillnets in state waters. 

These recent actions are unfortunately typical of how the Nation manages its forage fish; paying little regard for the critical role they play in feeding the larger ecosystem. These species deserve special management that accounts for their unique 

62 

28Pikitch, E. et al., 2012. Little Fish, Big Impact. 29South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, ‘‘Deepwater Coral HAPCs,’’ accessed Nov 12, 

2013. http://safmc.net/managed-areas/deepwater-coral-hapcs 30Koenig, C.C. and F.C. Coleman, ‘‘Protection of Grouper and Red Snapper Spawning in ShelfEdge Marine Reserves of the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico: Demographics, Movements, Survival 

and Spillover Effects,’’ MARFIN Project Final Report. MARFIN project number 

NA07NMF4330120, 2011. 

role in supporting healthy ecosystems. As the Lenfest Taskforce found, ‘‘conventional management can be risky for forage fish because it does not adequately account for their wide population swings and high catchability. It also fails to capture 

the critical role of forage fish as food for marine mammals, seabirds, and commercially important fish such as tuna, salmon, and cod.’’ 28

Habitat is critical to healthy fish populations and ecosystems. It includes areas 

for fish to spawn, hide from predators and feed. But fishing practices like trawling 

or dredging can decimate essential habitats, often after just one pass. Additionally, 

pollution from industry or land runoff can damage the near-shore and estuarine 

habitats that are important nurseries for ocean fish. These essential habitats must 

be protected from fishing and non-fishing impacts to ensure that their essential 

functions are not interrupted. The 1996 amendments required NOAA Fisheries and 

the councils to describe, identify, conserve, and enhance essential fish habitats. 

While each fishery management plan describes and identifies these habitats, the 

designations are often so broad that their utility to focus protection efforts is limited. In addition, habitat conservation and protection is poorly integrated into fisheries management. For example, nearly the entire Exclusive Economic Zone in the 

Gulf of Mexico region is designated as essential fish habitat for reef fish species. 

However, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council has utilized Coral 

Habitat Areas of Critical Concern designations to effectively protect five areas of 

deepwater coral covering 23,000 square miles from fishing activity and gears that 

could damage these sensitive areas and to prohibit their harvest.29 In addition, all 

three southeast regional Councils have designated small marine protected areas 

aimed at protecting specific species, predominantly snappers and groupers. Many of 

these species are particularly vulnerable to depletion due to their biological characteristics. Some, like gag grouper, are protogynous hermaphrodites, meaning all start 

as female and only some develop into males as they get older and larger. Heavy 

fishing pressure can snare many females that might potentially turn into males and 

throw the natural process out of balance. In the Gulf of Mexico, male gag had 

dropped from seventeen percent of the population in the 1970s to just two percent 

in the 1990s. Researchers at the Florida State University Coastal and Marine Lab 

found that inside the Madison Swanson Marine Reserve, an approximately ten mile 

by ten mile area designated over a decade ago to protect gag, that the percentage 

of males inside the reserve was six times higher than outside the reserve.30

Gag and other species also form dense spawning aggregations in the same locations each year, which can be quickly wiped out when targeted by fishermen. Additional tools to expand protection for critical habitat, spawning fish and corals as well 

as funding to monitor and assess these areas could boost these populations and 

speed recovery of depleted species. 

Improving fisheries data 

The conservation provisions in the Magnuson-Stevens Act are successful because 

they are grounded by our fisheries science, investments in data collection, and our 

sound, science-based legal framework. Managers and scientists have some information about every federally-managed fish ranging from the biology, habitat preferences, distribution, and catch, to fishery independent surveys and scientific assessments of populations health. Our management system is unique in its reliance 

on this extensive body of knowledge, and its commitment to basing decisions on 

science not politics. 

NOAA Fisheries has data on all federally managed fish, but the type of information varies, as commercial fisheries tend to have the most complete data sets. However, there are a number of methods to establish scientifically-sound catch limits 

without a full stock assessment. Catch limits can be based on average catch and 

the catch trends over time. If catches are stable, the limit may be set above the average but within the historical catch levels. If the catch is declining over time, a 

more conservative catch level may be required. Catch limits can also be set based 

on basic growth parameters and average lengths of fish caught. Where fish exist in 

groups, one assessed species from the group can be used as an indicator species to 

gauge the health of the whole complex. In other words, there are tools available for 

managers to set annual catch limits for all species, even without a stock assessment. 

This proactive approach is intended to prevent overfishing and population depletion. 

63 

The strategy of setting limits on how many fish can be caught each year before a 

fish stock reaches critically low levels, should avert tougher, more painful restrictions in the future by managing fish populations wisely now. 

The fact that these techniques are available does not mean we should be satisfied 

with the data that is currently available for management. Given the challenging 

budget climate in Washington, we should look toward technological or innovative solutions that will allow managers to collect and manage data more efficiently. 

Many regions still rely on paper logbooks and dealer reports sent through the 

mail to collect information on catch. Technological solutions exist to improve the 

speed and accuracy of fisheries data collection, including electronic logbooks and 

dealer reports, vessel monitoring systems that track vessels’ location and whether 

or not they are fishing, as well as at-sea video monitoring. Integrating these electronic monitoring systems with targeted at-sea human observer coverage and increased dockside monitoring would greatly improve the data available on what is 

caught where, what portion of the catch is discarded and how much is landed and 

sold. These systems are available now, but they are not commonly used in the 

Southeast. In addition to electronic data collection systems, more effort must be focused on electronic databases that could be used to receive, analyze, and disseminate fishery information in near real time. This would allow managers to react 

quickly to prevent catch limit overages and thus reduce the uncertainty around compliance with catch limits. Reducing uncertainty could lead to additional fishing opportunities because managers would have more confidence that the result will not 

exceed the science-based limit. 

The public, including non-federal managers and academics, must also have access 

to fisheries data so that it can effectively participate in the management process. 

Amendments made to the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 2006 restricted access to observer data. While implementing regulations have not been finalized, the proposed 

data confidentiality rule would restrict disclosure of observer data to the public, and 

fishery management council members who are not Federal employees, leaving councils in the dark about what is being caught where. Greater transparency will lead 

to better council decision making. 

Greater use of technology must also be supplemented with more cooperative research with the fishing industry, state governments, and the academic community. 

NOAA Fisheries can’t continue to do the lion’s share of the data collection on its 

own. Involving the fishing industry, both commercial and recreational for hire, cooperative research will provide more data collection opportunities. It will give the industry a better understanding of how information is gathered and scientists a deeper appreciation of on-the-water expertise held by fishermen. 

Finally, Congress should explore securing a dedicated source of funding for cooperative fisheries research, monitoring, and management. Legislation introduced in 

the last Congress, would update the Saltonstall-Kennedy program which is funded 

from duties on imported fish products, and directed millions of dollars (estimated 

at $85 million in FY 2013) to a newly created regional grant program. These funds 

would have provided the regional fishery management councils with the opportunity 

to identify and obtain funding for priority projects such as: stock assessments and 

surveys; recreational data collection; testing and deployment of environmentallyfriendly fishing gear; dockside, at-sea, and electronic monitoring; social and economic research; and habitat restoration and protection. Currently the vast majority 

of Saltonstall-Kennedy funds are used by NOAA Fisheries to offset the cost of its 

fisheries data collection and management programs. Using these funds for cooperative projects would allow these funds to go farther and do more. 

Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

As discussed above, the Magnuson-Stevens Act is working; we are turning the corner on preventing overfishing, recovering depleted populations, and moving towards 

a fishing industry that is both sustainable and profitable. The Act’s focus on scientifically-based fisheries management has made U.S. fisheries some of the best managed in the world. While we look ahead for ways to further refine our current system, we must not alter the strong provisions that have gotten us so far. Sciencebased catch limits that do not allow overfishing and the rebuilding requirements are 

the cornerstone of our fisheries success. But while we have made a great deal of 

progress restoring individual fish populations, more focus must be placed on restoring and promoting healthy and robust marine ecosystems. Such a broader focus will 

be essential to face the challenges of the 21st century. 

As Congress considers updates to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we make the following recommendations for inclusion in a reauthorization bill: 

Maintain the core conservation provisions of the Act, including requirements to: 

• Prohibit overfishing; 

64 

31 Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel, ‘‘Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management.’’ 1998. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/EPAPrpt.pdf 

• Rebuild overfished populations within existing, prescribed timeframes; and 

• Establish science-based annual catch limits for all federally managed species 

with accountability measures if the limits are exceeded. 

Maintaining science-based catch limits and accountability measures for all federally managed species helps ensure that populations not yet depleted or whose status 

is unknown will not decline. This proactive strategy of setting limits before a fish 

stock reaches critically low levels should avert tougher, more painful restrictions in 

the future. Waiting for a crisis before acting is poor fishery management. Through 

wise stewardship now, we can avoid overfishing and depletion of valuable fish species and the consequent economic hardship. Weakening the Magnuson-Stevens Act’s 

conservation requirements jeopardizes the progress fishery managers, scientists, 

dedicated fishermen, conservation advocates, and others are making and places important public ocean resources at greater risk. 

Adopt an ecosystem-based fishery management approach 

Fishery management typically focuses on the most important commercial and recreational species, with an emphasis on the maximum sustainable amount of each 

fish that can be caught. A broader approach that considers the health of multiple 

species, the critical interactions among these species, and the quality of the habitat 

they require will help conservation of the ocean ecosystems that sustain our fisheries. A Congressionally mandated ecosystem advisory panel recommended in 1998 

that each regional fishery management council develop fishery ecosystem plans.31

Several councils have developed these plans. However they have done so without the 

benefit of national guidance on what information and analysis should be included, 

are typically advisory, and are not always incorporated into fishery management 

plans. 

Key Magnuson-Stevens Act modifications: 

• Require councils to develop fishery ecosystem plans and specify how ecosystembased conservation measures will be incorporated into fishery management 

plans. 

• Prohibit the development of new fisheries or fishing in new areas unless and 

until the impacts of any proposed activity are analyzed and ecosystem protection measures are in place. 

Strengthen requirements for assessing and avoiding bycatch 

Bycatch, the unintended catch of non-target fish and wildlife, is a persistent problem for fishery managers. NOAA Fisheries estimates that 17 percent of all the fish 

caught in the United States are bycatch. The vast majority of this wildlife is thrown 

overboard dead or dying. Furthermore, despite the requirement to establish a standardized system for assessing the amount and type of bycatch in each fishery, in far 

too many instances information on bycatch is lacking. Strengthening national policies to adequately assess bycatch through at-sea observation, increasing access to 

observer data, plus avoiding bycatch in marine fisheries will lead to better informed 

management decisions and improved ecosystem health. 

Key MSA modifications: 

• Require fishery management measures to ‘‘avoid’’ bycatch. 

• Expand the bycatch definition so that it includes seabirds and marine mammals, retained incidental catch, and unobserved mortality due to a direct encounter with fishing gear. 

• Repeal limits on the access to federally funded observer data. 

Strengthen requirements for protecting essential fish habitat 

Healthy coral reefs, deep sea canyons, fish spawning aggregation sites, and other 

ocean habitats provide vital areas for fish to spawn, feed, and take shelter. Conserving fish habitat is important for maintaining healthy fish populations and productive ocean ecosystems. Yet, most management efforts in place today are insufficient for addressing the adverse impacts from fishing and non-fishing related activities in a manner that ensures essential fish habitat is healthy and functional. 

Strengthening the Magnuson-Stevens Act’s requirement to conserve fish habitats is 

a fundamental step Congress must take to improve the productivity of our Nation’s 

marine ecosystems. 

65 

Key MSA modifications: 

• Require fishery management measures to minimize adverse impacts to essential 

fish habitat caused by fishing. 

• Enhance protection of ‘‘habitat areas of particular concern’’ by codifying this 

habitat subset in the Act and prevent adverse effects from fishing activities in 

these areas. 

• Require councils to designate and protect deep sea corals. 

• Improve protection of essential fish habitat from non-fishing activities by requiring Federal agencies that fund, undertake, or authorize activities that may 

have an adverse effect on such habitat to minimize the adverse effects, thereby 

requiring action rather than the typical communication between the agency and 

Secretary of Commerce currently undertaken. 

Ensure an adequate forage base for fish populations and marine wildlife 

Forage fish serve an important role in our ocean ecosystems as an essential link 

between microscopic plants and animals they eat and ocean predators, such as larger fish, birds, whales and other marine mammals that consume them. Herring, menhaden, sardines, and other forage fish provide a vital food source for commercially 

and recreationally sought-after fish species, such as tarpon, cod, striped bass, king 

mackerel, and salmon. Thus, forage fish provide a significant foundation for our Nation’s fishing industry and coastal communities. However, management of many of 

the Nation’s forage fish populations does not account for predator needs. Congress 

should require fishery managers to take stock of, protect, and maintain adequate 

forage fish populations and then, amend or establish management plans so that 

they factor in the vital role of forage fish in the ecosystem. 

Key MSA modification: 

• Require Councils to establish measures for managing forage fish that adequately account for the role these fish play in the larger ecosystem. 

Conduct thorough scientific assessments and incorporate them into a 

management plan before allowing a new fishery 

Too often, fishing occurs on new species, is expanded into unfished ocean waters, 

or utilizes new gears without adequate analysis of the impact. This practice has contributed to overfishing of many species, bycatch problems, and habitat damage. 

Evaluating a new species’ population levels, reproductive rate, role in the food web, 

potential impacts of fishing, and other factors to establish an appropriate management framework in advance of allowing a fishery to begin is a common-sense approach that will help identify potential problems before they occur. In 2009, the 

North Pacific Fishery Management Council voted to prevent the expansion of industrial fishing in Arctic waters to limit stress on ocean ecosystems. This is a model 

that should be adopted in other ocean waters. 

Key MSA modification: 

• Establish a more conservative, science-based approach to allowing new or expanded fishing activities by prohibiting: a) introduction of new fishing gear in 

an area, (b) extension of fishing into current unfished areas, or (c) the reintroduction of a prohibited fishing gear into a closed area, until the Secretary of 

Commerce determines these new actions will have minimal adverse effects on 

ecosystem. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to share the views of The Pew Charitable 

Trusts on how the Magnuson-Stevens Act is working in the Southeastern U.S. and 

what modifications should be made in the next reauthorization. I look forward to 

answering any questions you may have. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. I appreciate your attendance and all of you being here. 

Mr. Windes, I’m going to ask you my questions first so then we 

can watch the clock here so you are not caught in a box on your 

time for a plane. And I’m watching the clock. It’s 12:07 for you, just 

to give you a clock. 

But let me ask you. I understand the Gulf Council—and I’m 

going to read some of this, some of the issues you have brought up, 

some of the problems, that management of red snapper for recVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:11 Jul 13, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\95418.TXT JACKIE
66 

reational and charter fishing is lacking the flexibility. But there 

are some ideas they put on the table that are being considered by 

the Gulf Council, such as the days at sea program that allows 

those participating a certain number of days to fish per year that 

they would choose, the establishment of an inter-sector trading program that would allow charter boat permitholders and private anglers to trade allowable catch with commercial red snapper fishermen, as well as a tagging program. 

These are a few that I’ve heard about. Does that start to go down 

the path of giving some flexibility? Tell me your thoughts on those? 

Mr. WINDES. Yes, sir. Some of that does take us down the right 

path. Some of it to me does not. This limited number of head boats 

that I’ve signed up for, because the other boats at our marina are 

going to be involved in it, allows the head boats to catch red snappers out of season and that would go against their historical catch 

during the season. 

Once again, it’s almost like a divide and conquer strategy. It puts 

different boats at the same marina—it makes them cross swords, 

if you will. So I don’t know if that’s the best way to go. It’s under 

trial and certainly we’ll watch the progress and see how it goes. 

Senator BEGICH. But you don’t disagree—I just want to make 

sure—that there are some efforts, but they’re just not all the way 

where you need to be at this point? But there is some sampling 

that’s going on that, again, is helpful, but not all helpful? 

Mr. WINDES. Well, yes, sir. We’ve been watching this for years 

and years, decades in fact. We all see these articulate spokesmen 

up here talking about what we’re going to do and how we’re going 

to do it, and here’s the white paper on it and, oh, we should be implemented by such and such a time. Nothing much actually comes 

to fruition. It’s very discouraging and frustrating for the local 

economies when nothing actually happens. 

That’s why I’m hoping that Congress can—well, there’s a saying, 

but I better not use it—guide things along. 

Senator BEGICH. There we go. 

Mr. WINDES. With some helpful hints, because we just don’t seem 

to make much progress. We get a lot of talk and not a whole lot 

of action. 

Senator BEGICH. That’s very fair. 

Let me ask you, Mr. Brownlee. I mentioned in the first, and I 

think you echoed it and I just want to make sure—in the first 

panel I talked about more discussion and emphasis on the socioeconomic components, that it seems like there’s an imbalance at 

times. Science is very important, but also there’s this economic 

analysis that sometimes gets lost, I would say, not only in recreational, but also in commercial, as I have said also on subsistence 

in Alaska. Did I hear you right, that’s one of your—you had four 

items and this was one of them. I just wanted to make sure I am 

saying the same thing, that there seems to be good science, but 

more science can be done. The economic piece is really—this is my 

word—lacking to where there’s equity in the decision. 

Mr. BROWNLEE. It’s kind of a two-pronged thing, because if you 

have socioeconomic studies done the recreational industry almost 

always comes out as having the highest and best use for the Nation 

as a whole. When I said focus on the economics, I really mean look 

67 

at the way that Magnuson-Stevens is currently impacting small 

businesses. I’m most familiar with Florida. In Florida it’s been a 

big hardship, the lack of the ability to fish for certain species. It’s 

true in the other Gulf States as well. That is something that we 

need to consider, the economics of how this is affecting people. 

Senator BEGICH. So for example, if a quota was reduced and 

therefore folks doing charters get limited out or limited in what 

they can—or even the size, like what we have in Alaska on some 

of our halibut, then those folks who are booking charters, you may 

have customers say ‘‘not interested.’’ 

Mr. BROWNLEE. Absolutely. If you have a 28-day season and 

you’re trying to plan a family trip to go somewhere, you can’t do 

it because you may not be able to go then. There’s so much uncertainty. There needs to be as lengthy a season as possible, that we 

can rely on, that these guys can rely on, the charter operators. 

Senator BEGICH. Because otherwise, if it’s a smaller, a shorter 

time period, you’ve got a lot of customers, but you only have so 

many boats, but they can’t survive on a 28-day cycle. I’ll just use 

that as an example. 

Mr. BROWNLEE. Well, you’re going to be able to take—if everybody books the boat for 1 day, you can take 28 people fishing. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. So basically the longer—what you like to 

see over time is how you manage this for a longer season, so just 

predictability, because more than likely—our family is in the tourism business. You’re planning your advertising a good season 

ahead. 

Mr. BROWNLEE. Right. 

Senator BEGICH. I mean, you’re doing it right now, actually—— 

Mr. BROWNLEE. Absolutely. 

Senator BEGICH.—for your season next. And when you’re putting 

those ads in the magazines and all that stuff and then some of the 

rules get changed, you’re hanging out there. Is that fair? 

Mr. BROWNLEE. Absolutely. It’s very difficult to stay on top of it 

because it changes so frequently. 

But back to my point about counting fish and counting each individual fish, it’s impossible. It’s an impossible task. So we need to 

be more realistic about that and have stock assessments that measure relative abundance rather than absolute abundance. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. 

Let me ask—Mr. Tucker, thank you. This is always—in Alaska 

we usually have a third person there, on subsistence. So we have 

commercial, charter, and then we’d have another, or recreational. 

How do you—with regards to you had mentioned some of the management issues. What is in your mind the biggest hurdle in managing, and then at the same time do you think folks from your industry are at the table enough? I thought it was interesting; what 

you said was make sure that if there are commercial fishermen 

that they, by requirement, their data, their information, is part of 

being part of the fisheries. If they don’t submit it they’re not part 

of the fishery. 

Help me understand, because it seems like that is an interesting 

little tool there. 

68 

Mr. TUCKER. Well, it seems that way to me. That wasn’t in reference to commercial fishermen. In commercial fisheries we have 

very rigid reporting requirements. We report a lot of data. 

Senator BEGICH. That’s why I was asking, because in Alaska we 

do it all the time. 

Mr. TUCKER. In commercial fisheries, the failure—reporting the 

data is a condition of permit renewal. You don’t submit the data, 

you don’t get your permit renewed. OK, well, that’s not onerous. 

But you’ve got—we’ve got 3 million recreational anglers in the Gulf 

of Mexico and there’s no requirement to collect data from these. 

Senator BEGICH. How do you visualize—let me pause you here 

for a second, and then my time is up here. But I understand the 

commercial—that we in Alaska, it’s a certain amount of fleet, a certain small amount. We have enough problems trying to manage 

certain things. To now add 3 million reporting mechanisms—— 

Mr. TUCKER. Similar to the way they do it in managing migratory game. In migratory game, when I go to buy my migratory 

game stamp for this year—— 

Senator BEGICH. Yes, your duck stamp. 

Mr. TUCKER. My duck stamp. 

They collect data from last year, or you don’t get your duck 

stamp. It’s pretty simple. It’s not onerous. Everybody does it. But 

for some reason it doesn’t seem to be—if everybody submitted data, 

then the people would say: Hey, the data’s good because I know because I’m submitting it. But in the absence of any submission, it’s 

no wonder people don’t like the data. The science is good, but the 

data needs to be improved. 

I agree with Dr. Crabtree on the fishery-independent data. That’s 

necessary. But as far as catch and effort data for the recreational 

sector, I think it’s incumbent upon everybody to have a little skin 

in the game, and I don’t think it’s too much to ask. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. 

Let me pause here. I can sense the recreational guys would love 

to respond, but I have to move to Senator Rubio. Maybe you could 

respond in one of his questions. 

Senator RUBIO. My first question is, if I—this is particularly for 

Captain Windes, Captain Johnson, and Mr. Tucker. If I gave you 

this notepad, could you write the coordinates for the best spots out 

there? I won’t give them to anybody. It’s just for me, make me look 

like a hero. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator RUBIO. I’m kidding. Trade secret. 

Anyway, let me just ask Commissioner Windes real quickly because I know he’s got to catch a plane, and I think the answer to 

this is obvious. Just talk a little bit more about the economic benefits in the county that the fishing industry provides? The reason 

why I ask you that—and I guess the follow-up is, and I would ask 

this of the entire panel—do you think that the economic impact 

should be more closely considered when these fishery management 

plans come out? 

Mr. WINDES. Absolutely. In our particular county we have a population of about 190,000 people. Our economic engine is driven by 

three sources: tourism, fishing, boating, beaches in the south end; 

69 

the military, Eglin Field in the center; and agriculture, cotton, soybeans, corn, all in the north end. So the bay divides us. 

The percentage that our county depends on tourism is very substantial, a third or more, probably 40 percent. These coastal families and businesses have suffered drastically in the last, well, 10 

years or so as these restrictions have tightened, as these bag limits 

have become less and less and the days of the season has gotten 

shorter. So it has a domino effect or a trickle-down, whatever you 

want to call it. But it just, it has a devastating effect on our county’s ability to have revenue. 

Senator RUBIO. Just following up on that, for Mr. Brownlee, our 

management system requires that we take into account the best 

available science, but oftentimes, especially in recreational fishing, 

that’s just not available. So is it reasonable to expect that under 

this current system we have we’re ever going to have enough data 

to successfully manage recreational fishing? Or are there smarter 

ways of doing business? 

Mr. BROWNLEE. The best available science is a catch-all term 

that really has not a lot of meaning, because there is no science on 

the vast majority, frankly, of species that are under management 

in one place or another. I believe the Caribbean Council, who is 

represented here today, has never had a stock assessment ever. So 

there’s a great deal of management going on where we’re winging 

it, and it doesn’t work. 

Back to the question on economics, I think it’s vital that we have 

economics factored into every decision that we make and what the 

highest and best use of that fish is. We believe the recreational 

fishery does offer that highest and best use in almost every case. 

In terms of science, we need to fund more science. We need to 

have a lot more stock assessments going on. But I also do believe 

that there’s efficacy in having the states manage certain species because I just think they can do it better than the Federal Government has shown that they can. 

Senator RUBIO. Captain Johnson, something stood out to me in 

your testimony. You talked about the closures in the black sea bass 

fishery during the winter months had a greater impact on Florida 

than, for example, the Carolinas. Just elaborate on that a little bit? 

What is it that’s so unique about Florida’s fishery management? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, people come to Florida in the winter. Of 

course, it’s cold down there today, or yesterday. But that’s usually 

why people come in the winter months. And we had a winter fishing business. It really affected the for-hire fleet and the recreational guys because the black sea bass is something that’s easily 

accessible. It could be found relatively close to shore, it didn’t cost 

a whole lot of money to go after them, and it was just a real popular recreational fish. And it bites best in the winter in Florida. 

That’s when they bite. 

So they really took away the best months out of every calendar 

year for fishing for black sea bass through the management decisions that they put in place. 

Senator RUBIO. Mr. Tucker, do you think the individual fishing 

quotas, what they call catch shares, is that something that should 

remain a tool for us in the regional councils? 

70 

Mr. TUCKER. Absolutely, without a doubt. It’s taken—it’s the only 

tool I know of where they’ve reduced the quotas and they’ve managed to extend the seasons to a year-round basis. There’s nothing 

that touches it. 

Senator RUBIO. Finally, Mr. Crockett. As you know, it has become a common practice for the administration to divert in their 

annual budget Saltonstall-Kennedy funds received by NOAA away 

from the authorized uses and into the agency’s operational and research fund. We’ve had testimony and questions about that here 

before and we’ve had those administrative officials before us. 

But I guess my question is, do you agree with this diversion or 

do you think these funds would be better used for their intended 

purposes, in addition to the funds appropriated by Congress to 

NOAA for fisheries research? 

Mr. CROCKETT. No, we don’t think that’s an appropriate diversion. It’s not the intended purpose of the law when it was first enacted. NOAA now says that they’re using that money for all these 

great data collection programs, but 3 years ago when Congress 

asked them they couldn’t tell you where the money went. It just 

went into their operating budget. 

There was legislation introduced last Congress by Senators 

Snowe and Kerry to take that money and turn it into a regional 

grant program to fund priority research projects that the councils 

would identify for stock assessments, recreational data collection, 

habitat protection, developing new gear, a variety of things like 

that. I would strongly consider, suggest to this committee that they 

ought to take a look at that legislation and perhaps bring that into 

the reauthorization debate, because the idea of that program was 

to take this money and use it to focus on regional priorities, and 

it gave priority to public-private partnerships. 

I agree with a bunch of the testimony today about we need more 

data and especially data on economics and recreational fishing, and 

this would be a pot of money for collecting that type of information 

and using it—doing it in such a way that it’s the government and 

the private sector and the State governments doing it. I think 

that’s the best way to sort of gather the information that we can 

improve management with. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. Actually, I was listening 

to your commentary. As someone who sits on the Appropriations 

Committee, this is always the challenge. I agree with your comments and Senator Rubio’s that over the years—and I can tell you, 

the harbor maintenance program also. They go in there and they 

tax for the harbor maintenance and then they steal half of it for 

who knows what, some other Federal program that was totally unintended. Then when you ask the agencies, they always have some 

reason why: Well, no, it is connected in some way. And they give 

you a long list of reasons. 

So you bring up a good point, something that we should look at 

within this legislation, and then as an appropriator maybe what we 

can do to ensure that those funds go where people anticipated 

those funds to go, which, honestly where—I would say on a variety 

of issues, I think Senator Rubio would agree with me on this, that 

why the public is so mad at the Federal Government in many different ways is we say something and then when the money’s alloVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:11 Jul 13, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\95418.TXT JACKIE
71 

cated, then it goes to somewhere else. And people say: Well, that’s 

not what I thought it was for. They don’t get the value for the 

money they put in. You bring up a good point. 

Mr. CROCKETT. That’s exactly right. I think your position on the 

Appropriations Committee would be very helpful because that committee has not been that receptive to this legislation. 

Senator BEGICH. That’s right. 

Mr. CROCKETT. So that would be helpful. While NOAA now says 

it’s using this money for a bunch of data collection programs, I 

think the big difference here again is taking those decisions on how 

to spend that money out of Washington, taking it to fund regional 

priorities, and then prioritizing public-private partnerships. 

Senator BEGICH. It may not be bad ideas they have. But really 

what you want is, why you’ve got these regional councils set up, 

is to give input and help direct some of this resource, because 

they’re on the ground day to day and talking to fishermen and listening to what’s going on in the markets and trying to figure out 

what the right approach is. 

Mr. CROCKETT. Absolutely. 

Senator BEGICH. I’m new on Appropriations this year, so hopefully they’ll keep me on there after I start stirring it up a little bit. 

But we’ll see. 

Mr. CROCKETT. Let’s hope so. 

Senator BEGICH. First I want to say to all of you, thank you. 

Fisheries, there’s nothing simple about it. The good news is I think 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act is a good baseline. But there are improvements that need to be done, there is no question about it, in 

a variety of areas. But I do think at the end of the day—I know 

Senator Rubio and myself and our staffs are working closely together to make sure as we move forward on this that we do it in 

a thoughtful way so it’s not just a reaction, but something down 

the road we can look back 10 years later and say we not only listened to advice, we took it forward and improved on what was 

there. 

Again, as I said to the earlier panel, it’s one reason why we 

haven’t laid down a bill yet like the House. We want input. So 

many times I get complaints—I don’t know if Senator Rubio does— 

we put a bill down and then people say, why didn’t you ask us. So 

what we want to do is do something that may be a little different 

in Washington, ask you first, get your input, and then try to figure 

out what the right approach is here. 

It may not be perfect at the end of the day, but we know if we 

can get something on the table after getting all this input then we 

can move forward and try to refine the final steps. So your testimony today and the panel before you is very helpful for both of us. 

So I just really want to thank you for that. 

I think the record will be open 2 weeks. The record will be open 

for 2 weeks for other members and ourselves to submit additional 

questions if necessary. Again, I want to thank you all for attending 

this morning’s hearing. 

At this time, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:26 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(73) 

1 National Research Council. Division of Earth Life Sciences. Ocean Board. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Fish Stock Rebuilding Plans in the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National 

Academies Press, 2013. 

A P P E N D I X 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE GULF SEAFOOD INSTITUTE

The Gulf Seafood Institute (GSI) is pleased to present the following written testimony on the reauthorization of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act, or MSA. As a voice for the Gulf seafood communities in Texas, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida, the GSI maintains that, overall, the 

MSA is working. However, there are areas where changes must be made to ensure 

the long-term sustainability of both our Nation’s fisheries and of the vast economy 

that our fishermen support. 

The mission of the Gulf Seafood Institute is to protect the Gulf’s unique culture 

and environment while elevating the Gulf seafood brand with consumers, customers 

and policy leaders through advocacy, education and science. The GSI’s board of directors represents every Gulf state as well as every aspect of the industry—both 

commercial and recreational—and is positioned to be a leading voice on key issues 

including sustainability, seafood safety, disaster mitigation and recovery, and data 

collection. Additionally, GSI will seek to bolster fisheries science and research that 

will help preserve the Gulf seafood resource and contribute to the longevity of the 

industry overall. The GSI came together in July 2013 and is currently taking the 

steps necessary to organize under the laws of the state of Louisiana and will then 

seek approval of the IRS for determination of approved 501(c)(6) status. 

When it comes to ensuring the sustainability of our Nation’s fisheries, GSI maintains that the process outlined under MSA is working. The Department of Commerce, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils work together to monitor, manage and enforce a program 

that has led the United States to its position as a global leader in responsibly managed fisheries and sustainable seafood. Guided by 10 National Standards of sustainability, these agencies monitor, manage and legally enforce all marine fisheries in 

the United States under the most restrictive regulations in the world. As a result, 

U.S. fish populations are rebuilding and overall fish abundance is improving. According to NOAA’s most recent Status of Stocks report issued to Congress in 2012, 

thirty-two fish stocks in the U.S. have been rebuilt since 2000 meaning that routine 

stock assessments conducted by fishery scientists indicate that the abundance of the 

stock is above the maximum sustainable yield. This is good news not only for our 

Nation’s fishery resources but also for the fishermen, consumers and business supply chain that rely on healthy and wholesome seafood harvested from U.S. waters. 

As Congress moves forward with reauthorizing MSA, GSI would like to see the 

following issues addressed in draft legislation: 

Flexibility in Rebuilding Timelines: 

• Timelines for rebuilding fisheries must be relaxed to enhance flexibility for fishery managers. The current MSA requirement for rebuilding overfished fisheries 

within ten years, with certain exceptions, is an arbitrary time frame and totally 

unrelated to the biological needs at hand. Similarly, the requirement to end 

overfishing immediately considers no other factors. These strict, arbitrary 

timelines for rebuilding fisheries lead to significant disruptions for the seafood 

community while the fishery is usually capable of a far more gentle transition. 

• A recent National Research Council (NRC) report issued in September 2013 1

addresses the existing rebuilding needs and realities. GSI is in full agreement 

with NRC’s recommendations pertaining to a biologically-based approach to rebuilding plans. We urge incorporation of those recommendations into the reVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:11 Jul 13, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\95418.TXT JACKIE
74 

vised MSA. Establishing a biological basis to rebuilding strategies is a fundamental change to achieve success for the fish stocks and the populace. 

Annual Catch Limits: 

• The process for establishing ACLs should be revised to increase flexibility, particularly in cases where a fish stock lacks enough data to make sound management decisions. 

• In order for fishery managers to set appropriate ACLs, data collection must be 

improved by accounting for actual ‘‘take,’’ both retained and discarded. While 

upcoming revisions of the National Standard 1 Guidelines might well address 

this concern, it should be explicitly defined in MSA. 

New Funding Sources: 

• Monies collected from marine enforcement actions and permitting fees should 

stay within the region in which they were collected and not be transmitted to 

the general fund. These funds should be managed by the relevant Regional 

Fishery Management Council. 

• Balance should be incorporated into MSA’s enforcement language to ensure that 

the collection of fines does not drive the process, but instead helps to achieve 

the true objective of 100 percent compliance and $0 in fines. 

Role of Science and Statistical Committees: 

• In today’s fast-moving world, we should be able to react swiftly by calling SSC 

and other Council meetings in a more timely manner. The current 28-day notice 

period for meetings should be more flexible to help address very time-sensitive 

matters quickly and efficiently. The process is overly long and needs better integration with the demands of NEPA requirements to achieve a balance in time, 

public access, and reasonable deliberation. 

Regional Fishery Management Council Accountability: 

• Strict accountability measures should be established for the Councils and their 

actions. Measures might include a revision of the Council membership and appointment process to ensure fair and equitable representation from both the 

commercial and recreational communities as well as consumers. This could be 

accomplished by simply reinserting the expired subparagraph Sec. 

302(b)(1)(D)(i) from the current MSA. 

The GSI looks forward to working closely with the Senate Commerce and House 

Resources Committees over the next several months to address these and other relevant issues as MSA reauthorization moves forward. For more information, please 

feel free to contact our interim Chairman of the Board Harlon Pearce. 

SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATION

Little River, SC, November 18, 2013 

Hon. MARK BEGICH, 

Chairman 

United States Senate 

Senate Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation Committee 

Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, 

Fisheries, and Coast Guard 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. MARCO RUBIO, 

Ranking Member 

United States Senate 

Senate Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation Committee 

Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, 

Fisheries, and Coast Guard 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Begich and Ranking Member Rubio: 

On behalf of the South Atlantic Fishermen’s Association (SAFA), which represents 

fishermen and other stakeholders in South Atlantic fisheries, I would like to request 

that the attached statement from SAFA regarding the upcoming reauthorization of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) be included in the record of the November 14, 2013 hearing entitled, ‘‘Southeast Regional 

Perspectives on Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization.’’ 

SAFA is a supporter of the MSA and believes that participation in the reauthorization process is an important role for the organization and its members. For that 

75 

reason, we welcome the opportunity to work closely with the Committee and Subcommittee as it develops its reauthorization bill. 

Sincerely, 

MATTHEW RUBY, 

Commercial Fisherman, President, 

South Atlantic Fishermen’s Association. 

cc: The Honorable Jay Rockefeller 

The Honorable John Thune 

ATTACHMENT

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW RUBY, COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN AND PRESIDENT, 

SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATION

The South Atlantic Fishermen’s Association (SAFA) offers this statement regarding the upcoming reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act (MSA). As the Subcommittee considers changes to improve the 

MSA, SAFA wants to focus its comments in two areas: (1) ensuring a suite of tools, 

including catch shares, are available to regional fishery management councils and 

(2) improving data collection and science in fisheries management. SAFA believes 

that each of these two elements is crucial to any successful reauthorization of the 

MSA. 

SAFA is a growing organization made up of fishermen and seafood lovers from 

North Carolina to the Florida Keys. We work to protect the Southeast’s fishing heritage by advocating for sustainable year-round fishing rules, collecting better fishery 

science, and connecting consumers and businesses with fishermen to improve the 

abundance and accessibility of local seafood. We also want to pass on our fishing 

heritage to future generations. 

Commercial fishing in the South Atlantic is an important part of the economy, 

and local fishing supports jobs and the seafood industry, generating more than $7 

billion in annual sales and supporting 137,000 jobs. Unfortunately, those jobs and 

economic activity are in jeopardy because current management is not working, and 

as a result, the commercial fishing industry is facing difficult times. 

Many fisheries in the South Atlantic are failing. Catch limits are increasingly exceeded. Fishing seasons are getting shorter. In the race to fish, fishermen have been 

less successful in targeting species, thereby increasing regulatory discards. As revenues are decreasing from these factors, fishermen’s costs are increasing. Consequently, commercial fishermen in the region are losing their jobs and businesses, 

and local businesses in communities that rely on the fishing industry are suffering. 

Too many of our key snapper grouper species have closed for the year. The closures are as follows: Golden tilefish on May 5, the jacks complex (lesser amberjack, 

almaco jack and banded rudderfish) on June 18, gray triggerfish on July 7 (except 

for 16 open days in late October/early November), snowy grouper on August 10, red 

snapper on October 8, gag grouper on November 13, and bluerunner on November 

14. With a split season, the vermillion snapper fishery was closed from February 

13 to July 1 and now is operating under a 500 pound trip limit as of October 16, 

2013 because 75 percent of the quota has been caught. These closures are illustrative of the failures of current fisheries management to make fishing a sustainable, year-round enterprise in the South Atlantic. 

Operating a successful commercial fishing business, providing for seafood consumers, and feeding our families is nearly impossible with so many fisheries closures. Thus, once again South Atlantic commercial fishermen are seeing the inefficiency of the current fishery management system at work. The recent string of early 

closures highlights the need for us to explore other fishery management options that 

would enable year-round fishing. 

The vermillion snapper, golden tilefish, and black sea bass fisheries are derbies, 

where fishermen race against each other to catch as many fish as possible before 

the total catch limit is reached and the season closes. This is dangerous. It forces 

us to fish in bad weather. It is less profitable because our costs are high and fish 

prices are typically low because the market is flooded. The derbies are hard on fishermen, our vessels, and the environment. This approach to fisheries management 

is not good for fish or fishermen. 

We want management that gives commercial fishermen flexibility and more time 

on the water. We want year-round fisheries so we can go fishing when the weather 

and the markets are most favorable. We want to explore new gear and fishing techniques that could enhance efficiency and environmental protections. We don’t want 

76 

to waste valuable resources because of regulatory discards. We want more predictability and stability in our businesses. 

SAFA believes it is critical that catch share programs—which were first explicitly 

authorized in the last MSA reauthorization—continue to be a management tool 

available to the regional fishery management councils. Catch share programs are 

proven to be an effective market-based approach for improving the economic viability of fisheries and the conservation of fishery resources. 

In every region of the country, catch shares have been shown to increase season 

lengths, improve safety, increase yields and revenues, reduce bycatch and discards, 

and improve full-time employment in the fisheries. Given their demonstrated success in other regions, it is critical that all regions—and especially the South Atlantic—continue to have catch share management as an option. We strongly oppose any 

effort in Congress that would prohibit funding for catch shares or seek to prohibit 

fishermen from working with the regional fishery management councils to develop 

and/or implement catch share programs. 

We acknowledge that catch shares may not be appropriate in every fishery. However, under the circumstances, with traditional fisheries management failing, we do 

not see any justification for Congress to limit fishery management options. In enacting the MSA in 1976, Congress created a unique structure whereby initial management responsibility was given to eight regional councils comprised primarily of 

stakeholders in the fisheries managed by those respective councils. Taking away the 

ability of local stakeholders—the people most impacted by these management decisions—to help manage their own fisheries is inconsistent with the MSA’s intent. It 

is wrong for Washington, D.C. to dictate to these various regions which measures 

they can consider and which measures they cannot. All options should be available 

to the regional councils. 

We are asking Congress to allow regional fishery management councils to do the 

work of managing and conserving these fisheries, with input from fishermen and 

other stakeholders in the regions who truly understand the importance of these valuable natural resources and rely on them to provide for their families and for seafood consumers. 

The red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico is a close-to-home example of the 

substantial benefits of catch share programs. For decades the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council tried to reduce the decline of red snapper stocks through a 

number of management options, such as fishery closures, limiting the number of 

commercial licenses in the fishery, and restricting the size of fish that could be 

caught. None of those measures worked. Instead, those traditional management 

tools simply endangered fishermen, who raced to harvest as much red snapper as 

possible in the short time allowed, further depleted red snapper stocks, depressed 

fish prices, and unnecessarily killed other fish and marine life not intended for harvesting. The Gulf Council implemented a catch share program that took effect in 

2007. Since then overfishing has ended and the red snapper stock has begun its recovery. The commercial sector is accountable and adheres to its catch limit every 

year. The commercial fishery operates year-round and is safer and more profitable. 

It is a win for the environment and a win for the industry. 

SAFA is simply asking for the same opportunity in the South Atlantic—to be able 

to evaluate catch share management—instead of legislatively being forced down the 

path of having to try the same failed conservation and management techniques that 

did not work in the Gulf. The future of our region’s commercial fishing industry is 

at stake. We need fisheries that are healthy and sustainable over the long term— 

both for the fish as well as for the fishermen—and catch shares are a management 

tool that could help us achieve this. 

Finally, we also wish to express our support for changes to the MSA that would 

improve data collection and the science upon which management decisions are 

based. Rep. Rob Wittman introduced a bill in the House, H.R. 3063, which would 

require more frequent stock assessments, improve fisheries science by allowing fishermen to provide data that could be incorporated into stock assessments and other 

scientific studies, and provide for cost-effective fishery monitoring and transition of 

monitoring costs from government to industry. More data and better science will enable fishery managers to make more informed decisions, and allowing fishermen to 

more actively participate in that process will result in more collaboration between 

fishermen and fishery managers. Moreover, it can improve the trust between fishermen and regulators. For these reasons, we fully support H.R. 3063 and urge the 

Subcommittee to consider similar measures in the Senate as a way to improve data 

collection and enhance fisheries management through better science. 

Thank you for your consideration and SAFA looks forward to working with you 

again this year to improve the future health of our Nation’s fisheries, enhance jobs 

in the industry, and improve the economic viability of its fishermen. 

77 

December 1, 2013 

Chairman MARK BEGICH, 

U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportations’ 

Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard 

Washington, DC. 

Re: ‘‘SOUTHEAST REGIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON MAGNUSON-STEVENS REAUTHORIZATION.’’ 

Chairman Begich and Fellow Committee Members, 

This letter represents the owners of the last two remaining commercial seafood 

docks located in Port Canaveral on the East coast of FL, their hundreds of small 

business commercial fishermen, and their thousands of non boating consumers who 

depend on commercial fishermen for this impeccable protein source. Port Canaveral 

was established in the early 1950s as a ‘Commercial Fishing & Military Port. Today 

this Port is it on its way to being the largest Cruise Ship Port in our Nation. So 

we as commercial fish houses are trying to maintain a delicate balance between the 

forward motion of change & development and raising the awareness of the Federal 

Government to the importance of protecting one aspect of the food supply through 

commercial fishing. 

We listened attentively to this hearing as it is discussing our region of the United 

States. To our frustration we did not hear much reference to commercial fishing and 

almost nothing regarding the South Atlantic, with the exception of the SAFMC 

Chairman. While there were many references to MSA not working for the Recreational Sector, please know it is not continually productive for the Commercial 

Sector either. 

Look at the state of affairs in the South Atlantic; Red Snapper has now been 

closed for over 3 years. The devastation and damage this continual closure has 

caused is no less than criminal. The South Atlantic Council closed the red snapper 

fishery on a 7–6 vote over 3 years ago; common sense will tell you there was considerable conflict regarding this decision from the beginning. So now we are 3+ years 

from that incredible decision and we are given 3 days, here and there to fish for 

red snapper, because our already less than perfect science has NONE or very limited data to even begin to extrapolate the condition of this fishery. So on ‘‘7–6 vote,’’ 

we damaged jobs, coastal communities, culture, restaurants, bait & tackle shops, 

fuel companies, marine repair shops, and most of all the FOOD SUPPLY! Magnuson-Stevens goal must be to strive for optimum sustainable harvest of this valuable 

natural resource that supplies this Nation with the ‘‘cleanest, safest protein source 

in the world’’ per Dr. Steve Otwell, University of Florida. 

In the next table you will see current closures in the South Atlantic, with the percentage of ACL met by species. So please note the South Atlantic Red Snapper ACL 

is 21,447 lbs. of gutted weight (compared to the 11 million pounds in the Gulf of 

Mexico). The South Atlantic Red Snapper ACL has been drastically adjusted downward due to multiple scientifically derived precautionary factors. Discard mortality 

rate is a major reduction factor that the Southeast Science Center has admitted 

(SAFMC council meeting) cannot be calculated because the models are not meant 

to work with such small amounts of data. Again, common sense says we are impacting jobs, businesses’, people’s lives, the food supply on information that is less than 

stellar, under the guise of ‘‘best available science’’. 

Current Commercial Fishing closures in the South Atlantic—taken from the 

NOAA site, (http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainablelfisheries/acllmonitoring/commerciallsa/index.html) 

Commercial Total 

Landings ACL % of ACL Current Status 

Blue runner 182,444 177,506 ww 102.78 CLOSED 

Gag (h) 315,911 326,722 gw 96.69 CLOSED 

Golden tilefish (j) 539,422 541,295 gw 99.65 CLOSED 

Goliath grouper — 0 ww — CLOSED 

Gray triggerfish 278,713 272,880 ww 102.14 CLOSED 

Jacks (c) 315,190 189,422 ww 166.4 CLOSED 

Nassau grouper — 0 ww — CLOSED 

Red Snapper 23,489 21,447 gw 109.52 CLOSED 

Snowy grouper 84,748 82,900 gw 102.23 CLOSED 

Speckled hind — 0 ww — CLOSED 

Warsaw grouper — 0 ww — CLOSED 

78 

When looking at the Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, at minimum 

we think the following is necessary: 

1. Science that is beyond reproach, not just extrapolated. This must include cooperative science inclusive of all sectors. 

2. Flexibility in rebuilding stocks. Reduce the opportunities for ‘‘eNGOs’’ to sue 

NOAA for not meeting rebuilding schedules. 

3. Place more emphasis on the economics of the individuals, businesses and communities that are dependent on this valuable natural resource. 

4. Never allow a moratorium on a fishery. Red Snapper on the east coast is a 

poster child for why this does not work. 

5. MPAs (Marine Protected Areas): there must be undisputable science that supports implementation of an MPA. MPAs must have sunset dates of no greater 

than 10 years, after which, scientific evidence must support their renewal. 

MPA creation must require a super majority to pass in council. 

6. If we are truly implementing Magnuson for healthy fisheries management, we 

must have accountably among all sectors. So if VMS, (vessel monitoring systems), are important for managing a stock then it needs to be implemented on 

all sectors that access that stock. If one sector needs to report all of their fish 

electronically then so do the other sectors. 

7. There must be as much pressure to optimally and sustainably harvest this valuable natural resource, as there is to not overfish it. 

The fisheries in the Southeast Region are a complex, emotionally and politically 

charged mixture of recreational, commercial and charter usages. We have to quit 

eliminating this industry & culture by making data poor decisions both on the 

stocks and the economics. This opportunity to reauthorize and refresh MagnusonStevens is now and we must get it right. This is the people of this Nation at risk. 

Sincerely, 

MICHAEL S. MERRIFIELD, 

Cape Canaveral Shrimp Co., d.b.a., Wild Ocean Seafood. 

SHERYLANNE MCCOY, 

Cape Canaveral Shrimp Co., d.b.a., Wild Ocean Seafood. 

JIM BUSSE, 

Seafood Atlantic. 

LINDA BUSSE, 

Seafood Atlantic. 

JEANNA MERRIFIELD, 

Cape Canaveral Shrimp Co., d.b.a., Wild Ocean Seafood. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARCO RUBIO TO

DR. ROY E. CRABTREE

Question 1. Given the remarkably tumultuous twists and turns of Federal red 

snapper management decisions in the Gulf over the last several years and the demands of all 5 Gulf State Governors and numerous Senators and Members of Congress for increased state management of this fishery, is there not a way to better 

integrate innovative state management in this important fishery? 

Answer. NOAA supports the states’ interest in assuming greater responsibility for 

recreational red snapper management, and has actively worked through the Gulf of 

Mexico Fishery Management Council process to help the states reach agreement on 

an approach that works for all. As you know, there is currently broad interest in 

a regional management strategy that would allocate the recreational catch limit 

among the states, then delegate each state the authority to manage its individual 

allocation to better serve local needs while meeting Gulf-wide conservation goals. 

But the Gulf Council has not yet finalized such a proposal because the states are 

still working to determine the appropriate state-specific allocations. Once the Council develops a proposal, it will submit it to NOAA for review. 

The Gulf Council is scheduled to discuss regional management again in February 

2014, and may hold additional public hearings before approving a final proposal. 

Any proposal to be implemented for the 2015 fishing season should be approved by 

June 2014—and no later than October 2014—to enable NOAA sufficient time to 

publish implementing regulations. 

79 

If properly implemented and supported by the states, a regional management 

strategy could effectively resolve the current challenges created by inconsistent state 

jurisdictions and regulations. However, the benefits of such a strategy (and other 

alternative approaches to status quo management) may be limited by Section 407(d) 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MagnusonStevens Act), which requires the red snapper recreational fishery to be closed for 

the remainder of the fishing year when the overall recreational quota is met, regardless of whether or not a state has met its allocated portion of the recreational quota. 

The language of Section 407(d) does not take into account the new catch limit and 

accountability provisions included in sections 302(h)(6) and 303(a)(15), which were 

added by the 2006 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act (P.L. 109–479), and 

which afford the same broad protections found in Section 407(d) while providing 

much greater flexibility in implementation. 

Question 2. The Councils in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico seem unable 

or unwilling to consider reallocations of mixed-use fisheries. Most of these allocations are decades old. Do you view this as a problem and if so, what does NOAA 

think should be done to remedy the situation within or without MSA? 

Answer. Reallocation is a controversial issue because it is often perceived as benefitting one sector at the expense of another and there are many different perspectives on what is fair and equitable and in the best national interest. NOAA believes 

the allocation of fishery resources among user groups is a regional decision requiring the expertise of the regional fishery management councils and consideration of 

specific fishery goals and objectives. However, in response to a letter from Senator 

Vitter, Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker and Acting Assistant Administrator 

for Fisheries Sam Rauch recently reiterated to the councils the importance of reviewing fishery allocations on a regular basis to ensure fishery management is 

achieving the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

NOAA has produced technical papers in support of allocation discussions and presented information to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council on the fundamentals of allocation in June of 2012. That council reallocated gag (2008), red 

grouper (2008), greater amberjack (2008), gray triggerfish (2008) and black grouper 

(2012) between the commercial and recreational sectors in recent years, and is currently reviewing the king mackerel allocation. Also, the Gulf Council has been discussing the red snapper allocation for several years. In keeping with NOAA’s commitment to work with the councils on allocation issues, NOAA National Marine 

Fisheries Service (Fisheries) Southeast Regional Administrator Roy Crabtree asked 

the Gulf Council to reinitiate discussion of the red snapper allocation at their February 2014 meeting. To support that discussion, the agency presented preliminary 

information on the potential economic effects of red snapper reallocation to the 

Council’s Socioeconomic Scientific and Statistical Committee in November 2013 and 

is scheduled to have a follow-up discussion with that committee in January 2014. 

The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council established new commercial/recreational allocations for most federally managed species in recent years, including 

black sea bass (2006), red porgy and snowy grouper (2008), gag (2009), golden 

tilefish (2010), and the remaining snapper-grouper species, dolphin, and wahoo 

(2012). During its December 2013 meeting in Wilmington, North Carolina, the 

South Atlantic Council approved for scoping an amendment that would review the 

current Spanish mackerel allocation. Also, the South Atlantic Council discussed 

amendments that would review current allocations of dolphin, wahoo and snappergrouper species, and asked NOAA Fisheries to present on this topic at its April 2014 

Scientific and Statistical Committee meeting; specifically about the availability of 

data to support analyses of reallocation impacts. 

NOAA would support any allocation proposed by the Gulf or South Atlantic Councils if it is fair, and equitable, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is consistent with the Council’s allocation policy and fishery objectives. 

Question 3. What percentage of the NOAA fleet will be used this year to address 

fishery data collection in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic? Please provide the 

number as a percentage of both the total fleet and the number of total days of the 

year as compared to the other council regions in the United States. 

Answer. The table below shows the number of planned days at sea for fishery and 

ecosystem data collection aboard NOAA ships in Fiscal Year 2014 broken down by 

fishery management council region. These are based on the draft FY 2014 Fleet Allocation Plan as of December 16, 2013. The FY 2014 days at sea breakdown could 

change mid-January pending final appropriations. 

80 

Council Region Days at Sea % of Total 

New England & Mid Atlantic (NEFSC) 171 20% 

South Atlantic (SEFSC) 49 6% 

Caribbean (SEFSC) 0 0% 

Gulf of Mexico (SEFSC) 225 26% 

Pacific (NWFSC & SWFSC) 155 18% 

North Pacific (AFSC) 138 16% 

Western Pacific (PIFSC) 119 14% 

Total Fisheries-related Days at Sea 857 100% 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. TIM SCOTT TO

DR. ROY E. CRABTREE

Question. Dr. Crabtree, you stressed in your testimony the need for the highest 

quality fishery science. Pretty much everyone here agrees we need even better data 

and research to better understand the realities of the stock levels and to set more 

realistic quotas. The Southeast Region manages more species than any other region 

in the country, but it is my understanding that it receives the least amount of funding. Can you comment on how determinations are made within the Fisheries Service 

about how to allocate resources for research and data collection? 

Answer. While the Southeast Region manages more species than any other region 

in the country, it is an unfortunate misconception that they receive the least 

amount of funding. Overall, NOAA allocates funds for research and data collection 

across all of the fisheries science centers to address the most critical and urgent 

needs. Investments in research and data collection specifically for the Southeast Region are substantial and come from a combination of major budget lines distributed 

across all fisheries science centers. 

For example, in FY 2013, out of the six Science Centers, the Southeast Fisheries 

Science Center (SEFSC) received 18 percent of the funds from the Expand Annual 

Stock Assessment budget line, 24 percent of the Survey and Monitoring funds, and 

29 percent of the Cooperative Research Program funds. This represents the largest 

proportions of funds distributed to a single fisheries science center from these major 

research and data collection budget lines. Additionally, the SEFSC receives funds 

from several budget lines directed 100 percent towards the Southeast, such as the 

Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program and the Marine Resources 

Monitoring, Assessment, & Prediction Program. 

Finally, over the past several years, NMFS has focused funds toward research on 

advanced sampling technologies, especially in the Southeast where many stocks are 

in habitats currently inaccessible using conventional survey techniques. The FY 

2014 President’s Budget request included additional funds in the Expand Annual 

Stock Assessments budget line to further develop these advanced sampling technologies and alternative sampling platforms to improve surveys and increase data 

quality. Progress is continually made and NOAA is dedicated to furthering its investments in research and data collection in this region for years to come. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARCO RUBIO TO

DOUGLASS BOYD

Question 1. Could you please describe what sort of socio-economic data your councils look at when considering new fishery management decisions? Do you get data 

specifically addressing recreational fishing and sportfishing-dependent businesses? 

Do you think NMFS should do a better job of providing such information to the 

Councils? 

Answer. Relative to the amount of resources allocated to addressing biological 

components of fisheries management, there is a dearth of resources dedicated to socioeconomic analyses, studies, and data collection efforts. In this era of limited financial resources, the Council hopes that more funds would be allocated to NMFS 

to address economic and socio-cultural issues in fisheries management. 

Currently, we use a range of datasets in considering fishery management decisions. These include: 

81 

• Accumulated landings system (from dealer reports) and logbook data; both provided by the Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) 

• Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS)/Marine Recreational 

Information Program (MRIP), including separate effort estimates for private 

and for-hire vessels 

• Headboat Survey, SEFSC Beaufort Lab 

• Permit data, Southeast Regional Office (SERO) permit office 

• Individual fishing quota (IFQ) program database, SERO 

• Recreational Choice Experiments Surveys (SEFSC) 

• Economic add-on to logbooks (SEFSC) 

• Social indicators database, SERO 

• Census Bureau 

These various datasets are augmented by surveys and reports, such as those produced through Marine Fisheries Initiative (MARFIN) grants. 

The data used from these sources depend on the issue being analyzed. More information is available for commercial fishing than recreational fishing. In part, this is 

due to Federal permit requirements for commercial vessels and dealers. To maintain 

these permits mandatory reporting via logbooks or dealer reports is required. On 

the other hand, there is no such Federal permit nor requirements for individual recreational anglers to provide information. Most recreational anglers agree that improved data collection systems are needed. However, there is a delicate balance between the needs of Federal fishery managers to obtain recreational data, and the 

privacy concerns of recreational anglers who may not wish to provide such information to the Federal Government. 

Within the recreational sector, federally permitted charter vessels and headboats 

are the businesses most dependent on federally managed sport-fishing. These vessels are required to possess a Federal permit. In addition, headboats are required 

to report their landings electronically. The Council recently completed an action to 

increase the reporting frequency of headboats to no less than weekly. The Council 

is also working on an amendment to require electronic reporting by charter vessels. 

Although such data from charter vessels would be valuable for socioeconomic analyses, some for-hire operators may consider it confidential. 

While it would be useful to have more data on sport-fishing dependent businesses, 

such businesses likely cater to all anglers, regardless of target species or frequency 

of fishing activity. For example, the local popularity of state-managed species (spotted seatrout, red drum, snook, flounder, etc.) often overshadows many federally 

managed species. Fishery management decisions are made through the amendment 

process; amendments are developed to address a specific problem and most often address a single or limited number of species. To use data on fishing-dependent businesses, commercial or recreational, it would be necessary to isolate the relative impact to the business from a particular management action for a single or limited 

number of species. This would require the business owner to provide data that are 

not currently available, and which some business owners may consider confidential. 

Returning to the list of existing socio-economic datasets, an example can help illustrate the application of available socio-economic data, and some issues arising 

from unavailable data. The accumulated landings system includes information on 

commercial landings, vessel crew size, and other effort variables for the commercial 

sector, which has reporting requirements. Commercial landings data are available 

at the community level which enables a regionally focused analysis as required by 

National Standard 8. With community-level commercial landings information, the 

relative importance of a particular species among other landed species can be assessed for a given community (local quotient). With these data, the communities 

with the greatest landings for a given species (regional quotient) can also be determined. Further, this analysis can examine change in the engagement and reliance 

of communities on different stocks over time. 

On the other hand, landings data by community are not available for the recreational sector; landings and effort data are only available at the state level. Staff 

social scientists have used the distribution of recreational for-hire permits and private vessel registrations by community, compared with commercial communities 

with significant landings of a given species, as a proxy to identify recreational communities which may be significantly involved in fishing for that species. Given available data, the analysis identifies those communities which are likely to be more reliant on recreational fishing than other communities. However, the analysis cannot 

specify recreational communities’ involvement with a specific species, but rather, 

with fishing in general which may include inshore, state managed species. FurtherVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:11 Jul 13, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\95418.TXT JACKIE
82 

more, the assumption that communities with abundant commercial landings for a 

given species correspond with abundant recreational landings of the same species, 

may or may not be true. 

In addition to recreational landings at the community level, other socio-economic 

data are needed to improve required analyses. Executive Order 128989 (environmental justice) requires consideration of any disproportionate impacts of proposed 

regulations on minority and low-income populations. However, information on race, 

ethnicity, and income status for groups at the different participation levels (captains, crew, employees of fish houses, and other fishing related commercial and recreational businesses) is not available. In the absence of these data, the environmental justice analysis has used Census Bureau data, which provides proportions 

of the population that are minorities or living in poverty, at the county level. However, the overlap between identification of these populations and involvement in 

fisheries is unknown. Collecting demographic information on commercial and forhire captains and crew, and those employed in fishery-dependent businesses is a 

critical socio-cultural data need. Collection of this information should include additional demographic variables (education, household size, occupational skills) and be 

updated regularly. 

Additional data needs include ethnographic community profiles of fishing communities to assist in determining fishery reliance and dependence. Collecting community level data requires on the ground fieldwork and regular updates to assess 

change and impacts over time. This requires in-depth, ethnographic study of the 

fishing sectors and sub-groups within the sectors, including different participation 

roles (for-hire crew and passengers) and fishing preferences (offshore and inshore 

fishermen). Other important information could be provided through studies addressing occupational motivation and satisfaction; attitudes and perceptions concerning 

management; constituent views of their personal future of fishing; psycho-social 

wellbeing; and cultural traditions related to fishing (identity and meaning). 

To summarize, we use several socio-economic datasets, although the available 

data is often inadequate to assess the impacts on communities from a specific management decision. Should additional funds be allocated to NMFS to address these 

socio-economic data needs, better coordination among agencies (NMFS Southeast 

Fisheries Science Center, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, Council staff, and State 

marine divisions) would be important for identifying and prioritizing new socio-economic data collection initiatives. 

Question 2. Do you believe that we have a problem with the Councils when it 

comes to being able or willing to seriously examine, on a regular basis, allocations 

in mixed-use fisheries? 

Answer. Difficulties in the regular evaluation and adjustments to existing allocation of fisheries resources between the commercial and recreational sectors mainly 

stem from the inherently challenging nature of resource apportionment between 

competing user groups. Differing objectives and fishing behavior between the commercial and recreational sectors have resulted in a deep polarization on the issue 

of reallocation. The Council has been discussing and considering the allocation of 

several reef fish species, including red snapper, gag, and red grouper, at numerous 

Council meetings since 2006. In addition, the Council has requested economic analyses from the South East Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) to support its allocation 

discussions. Analyses provided by the SEFSC have been reviewed routinely by the 

Council’s Socioeconomic Scientific and Statistical Committee. In early 2009, the 

Council adopted an allocation policy which provides principles, guidelines, and suggested methods for allocating fisheries resources between or within sectors. In addition, proposed reallocations must be consistent with the provisions of the Magnuson 

Stevens Act, including the relevant National Standards. Most recently, the Council 

has begun a review of the king mackerel allocation. 

Reef Fish Amendment 28, considers reallocating the red snapper quota between 

the recreational and commercial sectors. Since its initiation, the scope of the amendment has been modified to consider reallocation decisions for several other reef fish 

species and the division of the recreational quota into private angler and for-hire 

sectors (sector separation). Most recently, the Council decided to move forward with 

sector separation in a separate document, and Reef Fish Amendment 28 now focuses 

on reallocating the red snapper quota between the recreational and commercial sectors. The Council reviewed the amendment at its February 2014 meeting, selected 

a preferred alternative, and added an additional alternative for analysis. Public 

hearings on Reef Fish Amendment 28 will be held around the Gulf in March. The 

Council expects to take final action on the document at the end of May 2014. 

83 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARCO RUBIO TO

BEN C. HARTIG

Question 1. Are the ten-year rebuilding timelines mandated in the last MSA reauthorization working for your Councils and the stocks you manage? Would it make 

sense to give your Council some reasonable latitude to deal with rebuilding stocks 

for which this ten-year time-frame simply doesn’t make sense? 

Answer. Most of the stocks managed by the South Atlantic Council, and the majority of those assessed to-date, are long lived and therefore rebuilding times are 

generally much longer than 10 years. As a result, few rebuilding plans are limited 

by the 10-year provision. Therefore, the South Atlantic Council’s concerns with the 

10-year provision are the lack of consistency it creates across stocks of differing life 

history and the needless complexity it adds to estimating rebuilding time. The 

Council strongly supports including latitude to deal with rebuilding, applying a simple and consistent approach for all rebuilding plans, and applying an approach that 

treats all stocks equally, regardless of life history characteristics. 

The Council recommends that the maximum rebuilding time for all stocks be specified as the time to rebuild at F=0 + 1 mean generation. This simpler approach incorporates the criteria currently in place and applied for many stocks, while removing the complexity of the additional caveats necessary with the 10-year requirement. 

It also avoids creating different classes of stocks, with regard to rebuilding requirements, based on life history traits. Finally, this approach removes the expectation 

that stocks will rebuild under the theoretical (but impossible) conditions of a complete F=0 moratorium. 

The 10-year provision fails to make sense on both extremes of fish life histories, 

the short-lived and the long-lived. Long-lived fish usually show low productivity and 

considerable lags between creating problems (overfishing) and identifying them 

(stock assessment) due to their tendency to build up large amounts of biomass. As 

a result, few assessments of long-lived fish indicate possible rebuilding in 10 years. 

The 10-year requirement becomes nonsensical due to the much larger scale of population dynamics for such stocks. Short-lived fish are, not surprisingly, quite the opposite. Their populations can change dramatically over just a few years, sometimes 

on a scale that is shorter than the typical interval between assessments. Ten years 

may represent several generations for such stocks, so allowing 10 years to rebuild 

can require very little in the way of conservative management. 

The 10-year provision, as currently implemented, does not treat all stocks equally, 

and particular stock circumstances can lead to illogical outcomes. An example easily 

illustrates the logical inconsistency. Consider a single stock, overfished with declining abundance, which is being assessed for the first time. Since it is a hypothetical 

example of a single stock with declining abundance, the ability of the stock to rebuild in more or less than 10 years is determined by when the overfishing is identified. An assessment done this year finds that the stock can rebuild in 9.5 years 

under F=0, forcing the most stringent management possible. If the assessment were 

instead done next year, on the same stock, with the same overfished status and the 

same trajectory of declining abundance, simple passing of time dictates that biomass 

will be lower and status relative to biomass will be worse, i.e., the stock is found 

to be ‘‘more overfished’’ by this assessment because it occurs later. This assessment 

finds that the slightly lower stock biomass cannot be rebuilt in 10 years at F=0, it 

will take 11 years, allowing the rebuilding plan to be extended to F=0 + one generation. Regardless of the generation time, this is a more liberal outcome than before. 

The net result is that less stringent management can be required when overfishing 

is identified at a lower biomass than is required if overfishing is identified at higher 

biomass. It is nonsensical to require a moratorium when a stock needs 9.5 years to 

rebuild but not require it if the stock needs 10.5 years to rebuild. 

However, the biggest risk to fisheries posed by the arbitrary 10 year requirement 

arises when stocks actually can just achieve rebuilding within the 10 year period, 

thereby requiring that a Council implement rebuilding through an F=0 moratorium. 

This is a particular concern to the South Atlantic Council. One reason is due to the 

many long-lived species managed, because such a circumstance is much more likely 

to occur for long-lived stocks than short lived stocks. Another reason is that the 

South Atlantic manages a mixed-stock complex in the Snapper Grouper FMP, and 

the impacts of the moratorium assumed in the F=0 calculations will fall upon many 

species in a mixed species fishery, not just the one overfished species that is impacted in a largely directed, single species fishery. In other words, the moratorium 

on Atlantic Coastal striped bass did not remove opportunities to fish for bluefish, 

flounder, weakfish or croaker. However, a considered moratorium on South Atlantic 

red snapper threatened to end fishing for any of the 60 snapper grouper stocks from 

Cape Canaveral, Florida to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Under the simpler and 

84 

consistent approach proposed by the South Atlantic Council, rebuilding requirements will never demand a moratorium because every stock, regardless of its status 

at time of assessment or life history characteristics, will be allowed some time to 

rebuild in excess of the theoretical moratorium calculation. 

Another problematic aspect of the 10 year rebuilding timelines that was not anticipated involves the negative economic and social affects. Imposing faster rebuilding timelines, especially on longer-lived species, can have large negative short-term 

effects. While a rebuilt stock potentially will result in greater positive long-term affects, the severity of the negative short-term affects is often overlooked. Many commercial and recreational fishing businesses are severely impacted because of the 

management measures that must be imposed to meet the rebuilding timelines. 

Many businesses cease to operate and are not around in order to enjoy the benefits 

of a rebuilt stock. 

In addition to these potential negative long-term effects on fishing businesses, the 

relationship between the Council and the stakeholders may also be compromised. 

The public’s trust in the process is challenged when commercial and for-hire businesses and recreational fishermen have restricted or no access to the resource for 

a period of time, particularly when what fishermen see on the water is inconsistent 

with results of assessment models. In the long term, stakeholders may start to feel 

that their input has little value, and their important involvement and faith in the 

process declines. 

Question 2. Could you please describe what sort of socio-economic data your councils look at when considering new fishery management decisions? Do you get data 

specifically addressing recreational fishing and sportfishing-dependent businesses? 

Do you think NMFS should do a better job of providing such information to the 

Councils? 

Answer. The primary source of commercial economic data considered by the Council comes from the logbook economic add-on survey. While these data are helpful 

there are two main drawbacks. First is that these data are collected monthly, but 

only on those trips that occurred in the EEZ. The logbook fails to collect data from 

trips where the Council species come from state-managed waters, creating gaps of 

missing data. The second issue is that the logbook landings data associated with the 

economic information contained in the surveys usually does not match the data that 

are used to measure the biological effects which come from a different data source. 

The logbook economic surveys include data on trip costs and the value of the landings, etc. 

The primary source of data for recreational economic analyses comes from many 

sources. Very little economic information is collected as a part of the MRIP program, 

or from its predecessor, MRFSS. Data used to estimate values of consumer surplus 

or net operating revenue (NOR), if they are available at all, come from independent 

research and typically can only directly be applied to a portion of the area where 

the species are caught, or just a segment of the fishery (such as the headboat or 

charterboat industry, but not bait/tackle shops). The Council does not receive data 

specifically addressing recreational fishing and sportfishing-dependent businesses 

except in the rare occasions when such data are published in peer reviewed journal 

articles. Industry generated surveys may have built in data collection or analysis 

biases and, therefore are not typically referenced. 

It certainly would be helpful if NMFS were able to collect unbiased information 

on all the allied businesses that are impacted by fisheries management, both commercial and recreational. Commercial fisheries management impact fish houses, restaurants, gear suppliers, etc. Recreational fisheries management decisions impact 

for-hire operations, bait/tackle shops, the coastal tourist industry and so on. 

For social data on the commercial sector, the primary source is landings and logbook information. The data are analyzed at the community level to provide expected 

effects of potential management decisions. 

Currently the southeast region does not have recreational data for a comparable 

analysis of potential effects on the recreational sector, with the exception of some 

headboat landings and for-hire permit information. However, social effects analysis 

also includes social indicators, 

which provides information about both commercial and recreational engagement 

and dependence on a certain stock for each community to better understand how 

regulations may affect a local community and economy. 

Analysis of social effects is also incorporated into the cumulative effects analysis 

to demonstrate the ‘larger picture’, which includes multi-fishery participation, a defining characteristic of the southeast region. By looking at how fishermen switch 

target fisheries depending on economic and environmental factors is crucial to understanding the broader effects of potential regulations on one species, because 

85 

southeast fishermen commonly participate in several fisheries throughout the year 

in both the recreational and commercial sector. 

The most significant challenge for non-economic social data collection and effects 

analysis is the limitation on staff time and resources. With only four non-economist 

social scientists working on social effects analysis for amendments in both the Gulf 

of Mexico and South Atlantic regions, there is little time for additional projects to 

expand social data collection about important recreational and commercial communities. 

Even with the lack of sufficient social and economic data the Council does make 

every effort to consider the economic and social data that are available in making 

management decisions. In all Fishery Management Plans, Amendments or other actions to be submitted to the Secretary of Commerce there is an Economics Effects 

section and a Social Effects section for each management action being considered. 

Within these sections socioeconomic impacts of the specific action are analyzed. 

Question 3. Do you believe that we have a problem with the Councils when it 

comes to being able or willing to seriously examine, on a regular basis, allocations 

in mixed-use fisheries? 

Answer. No, our Council doesn’t have a problem with seriously considering reallocation when there is adequate justification and basis for doing so. But it’s not 

an easy process; because when allocations are changed there will always be winners 

and losers. 

I can’t speak for the other Councils specifically, however, I suspect they have encountered the some of the same problems we have when considering modifying or 

changing allocations. When allocations between the various user groups were first 

established, the allocations were based largely on historical harvest of the fishery 

resource. Generally, the Council looked at the average commercial and recreational 

landings of a particular species over a period of time (series of years). Whatever percentage of harvest each group achieved over the agreed to historical time-frame was 

then established as their allocation. 

We are currently dealing with 51 separate allocations for the snapper grouper 

complex species alone. These allocations vary from primarily commercial species 

such as golden tilefish, where the commercial fishery gets 93 percent of the allocation, to primarily recreational species such as mutton snapper where the recreational fishery receives 83 percent of the allocation. For other species the allocations are more evenly divided (e.g., black sea bass 43 percent commercial and 57 

percent recreational, gag grouper 51 percent commercial and 49 percent recreational). 

There was considerable controversy when the initial allocations were established. 

In many instances the time series of years used in determining each group’s historical catch made a big difference in their allocation. Understandably the Council is 

reluctant to go through that controversy (and associated pain) again without good 

reason. However, I believe our Council is willing to seriously examine allocations 

when there is good justification. We have a history of addressing changes in allocations over time. Spanish mackerel is a good example. In 1987 when the initial allocation was established it was 76 percent commercial and 24 percent recreational 

(based on historical landings). In 1989 it was determined that Spanish mackerel 

were overfished and the quota (now referred to as Annual Catch Limit or ACL) was 

lowered. At the same time since the commercial harvest was high and the recreational harvest was low, the allocation was changed to 50 percent commercial and 

50 percent recreational. In 1998 the allocation was changed again to 55 percent 

commercial and 45 percent recreational, as the Spanish mackerel stock was rebuilt 

and the recreational sector was not harvesting it’s allocation. Another recent example of where the Council has addressed reallocation is wreckfish. Wreckfish are a 

deepwater species that occur far offshore. The fishery was initially developed by the 

commercial industry and managed under an ITQ program, with the allocation being 

100 percent commercial. More recently a deep drop charter fishery has developed 

and recreational interest in harvesting wreckfish has grown. In response the Council amended the Snapper Grouper FMP in 2013 to change the wreckfish allocation 

to 95 percent commercial and 5 percent recreational, which now allows for recreational harvest of wreckfish. 

Future shifts in allocation for snapper grouper complex species will be considered 

as part of the Council’s long-term ‘‘vision’’ for managing the snapper grouper fishery 

into the future, which is currently in progress. 

Question 4. Would you please elaborate on the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program? How does it work and why hasn’t it yet been implemented in the 

southeast? 

86 

Answer. The Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program or ACCSP is a partnership between the Atlantic states, Potomac River Fisheries Commission, District 

of Columbia Fisheries and Wildlife Division, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 3-East Coast Councils, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service. ACCSP (www.accsp.org) is a cooperative state-federal program that designs, implements, and conducts marine fisheries statistics data collection programs and integrates those data into a single data management system that 

will meet the needs of fishery managers, scientists, and fishermen. In 1995, representatives from 23 coastal resource agencies along the Atlantic coast signed a 

Memorandum of Understanding to become partners in the ACCSP. 

The Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP) Strategic Plan for 

2002–2006 outlined the Program’s overall goals and strategies for implementation 

of its standards for data collection and management for commercial, for-hire, and 

recreational fisheries. Upon approval of the Strategic Plan, the ACCSP Coordinating 

Council also recognized the need for a more specific plan to address partner status 

and more detailed tasks, given that needs are projected to exceed resources. The 

ACCSP 2004–2008 Implementation Plan (the Plan) outlined actions the ACCSP 

partners and program staff must take to implement a coast-wide program over the 

next five years (2004–2008). 

The program partners are now implementing the Program’s standards within 

their respective areas. The Atlantic Coast Fisheries Data Collection Standards document, available on the website, includes details on the Program’s standards, policies, and procedures. The latest version of this document and its accompanying appendices were approved May 2012. 

One of the primary goals of ACCSP was that of transparency. There was and still 

is a great deal of concern on the part of fishermen and other stakeholders about 

the data being used. To address this, the partners had a common goal of using data 

available from ACCSP for fishery management (landings, tracking quotas, bycatch, 

etc.). In this way, a fisherman or other member of the public could reproduce the 

data being used by a Council, NMFS, or other partner to verify that the correct data 

were being used. The Southeast Fisheries Science Center and Southeast Regional 

Office have not implemented this system. The following points outline issues that 

continue today: 

1. Lack of Transparency—while data from the ACCSP program are compiled in 

the southeast, these data are not used directly for analyses or quota tracking. 

This makes it impossible for a fisherman or other member of the public to reproduce the data being used by visiting the ACCSP website. This results in the 

SAFMC using proprietary NMFS data, not data from the ACCSP website, 

which reduces transparency. 

2. Separate data systems—the use of the separate ACCSP and NMFS data systems in the southeast result in a number of errors (ACCSP and NMFS data 

often differ) and the NMFS data cannot be verified by anyone outside of the 

NMFS Southeast program. In addition, there is an ongoing cost to maintaining 

these duplicative datasets. 

3. Commercial quota monitoring system—rather than expand the existing ACCSP 

Quota Monitoring System used from North Carolina northwards and used by 

the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, the Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

decided to contract for a new, stand-alone system. The costs to extend the 

ACCSP program would have been minimal and it would have been ready when 

the South Atlantic Council moved to ACLs as required by the last revision to 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The contracted system is just now becoming effective and once the mandatory dealer reporting is implemented, the accuracy 

should improve. The extensive delay and expenditure of limited funds was unnecessary. 

4. Tracking recreational ACLs—the Southeast Fisheries Science Center uses a different method of expanding for weight and numbers than is done in the rest 

of the United States. This methodology results in delays and errors in addition 

to the length of time required for MRIP to produce estimates of the recreational catch in numbers of fish. 

5. ACCSP Bycatch Program—this program details the level of samples and observers necessary to produce reliable estimates of bycatch. This program was 

implemented in the northeast but not the southeast. NMFS has expressed concern about funding shortfalls to meet the minimum level of observer coverage. 

At the Council’s March 2013 meeting, where the Council was finalizing an 

amendment to implement the ACCSP Bycatch Program, NOAA GC offered to 

prepare a report on how the agency is meeting the Magnuson-Stevens Act byVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:11 Jul 13, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\95418.TXT JACKIE
87 

catch reporting requirements through existing programs at the September 

2013 meeting. We are still waiting for this report. 

In summary, we suggest an implementation meetings be held in the southeast 

with ACCSP, NMFS, State, and Council staff to determine how best to fully implement ACCSP, how to minimize duplicative/redundant data systems, and how to 

move to using data from the ACCSP website for FMP analyses to the greatest extent possible. These meetings should be held in 2014 with the goal of implementation being January 2015. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARCO RUBIO TO

JOHN D. BROWNLEE

Question 1. In your opinion, why do you think the Councils seem so unwilling or 

unable to consider reallocations of mixed-use fisheries? 

Answer. Reallocating quotas between commercial and recreational users is understandably contentious, and can bring harsh reaction from the party being asked to 

relinquish some of its share. The Councils have too often taken the easy road and 

been hesitant to engage in reallocation discussions given the inevitable confrontations that will result, especially given the litany of other issues that face the Councils. However, there is too much at stake in terms of economic impacts and social 

benefits to continue to ignore reallocation. The Councils should be more willing to 

explore allocations, especially in instances where it is clear that the present allocation is not the highest and best use of fishery resources. 

Question 2. Why do you think MSA has to date not dealt more directly with recreational fishing? 

Answer. It’s important to remember that the original Act sought to create the 200- 

mile Exclusive Economic Zone in U.S. waters, with the primary goal of expelling foreign commercial fishing fleets that had encroached upon our shores and displaced 

some of our domestic commercial fleet. MSA was, from the beginning, a tool to manage commercial activity. In a way, this makes sense when you consider that 98 percent of all finfish are harvested commercially, compared to only two percent harvested recreationally. However, from an economic standpoint, the two sectors have 

similar impacts to the nation, which makes a much stronger case for improved focus 

on recreational fisheries management. In addition, recreational fishing has experienced tremendous changes and growth since the original passage of MSA in terms 

of participation, technology and fishing practices. Congress and fishery managers 

alike have only recently begun to recognize these changes and view the recreational 

fishing industry as a vital and vibrant economic force. 

Question 3. What have the consequences of this been for anglers and sport fishing 

businesses in the South Atlantic and Gulf? 

Answer. The most pressing problems with MSA and how it relates to the recreational industry began with the 2006 reauthorization of the Act, during which the 

rigid Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures were adopted. Coupled with 

the lack of adequate science for many species of fish, this led to questionable or outright unjustifiable closures in many fisheries, as managers were forced by law to 

comply with these new managers. This created great hardship for many small businesses in the Gulf and South Atlantic. 

Question 4. What kind of adjustments to MSA could bring the statute up-to-date 

if you will, given all of the information you have laid out in your testimony regarding the number of people who fish in saltwater and the amount of economic return 

that comes from this fishing? 

Answer. Fishery managers need the ability to manage on a case-by-case basis, 

taking appropriate action where overfishing is clearly occurring, but also being 

given the latitude not to act in a strict and arbitrary manner where the data is less 

compelling, or in fact, non-existent. It simply makes sense to manage this way as 

opposed to the ‘‘one size fits all’’ approach we’ve endured since 2006. It’s time to consider the economics of management actions in terms of how these myriad small 

businesses are affected by them as being equally important as doing the right thing 

biologically for the fish. Finally, it’s time to recognize that our current management 

system is tailored towards commercial fishing. We need managers to consider alternative management approaches for recreational fisheries that meet the needs and 

goals of anglers. 

Æ