U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

79–966 PDF 2013

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE 

MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY 

CONSERVATION AND 

MANAGEMENT ACT 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Wednesday, March 13, 2013 

Serial No. 113–3 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Steve Southerland, II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Mark E. Amodei, NV 

Markwayne Mullin, OK 

Chris Stewart, UT 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Vacancy 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Tony Ca ́ rdenas, CA 

Steven A. Horsford, NV 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Carol Shea-Porter, NH 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel 

Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel 
(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Wednesday, March 13, 2013 ....................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Washington .................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Markey, Hon. Edward J., a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts ................................................................ 5 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Dooley, Robert E., President, United Catcher Boats ..................................... 18 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19 

Gill, Robert P., Co-Owner, Shrimp Landing, Florida .................................... 34 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 36 

Jones, Bob, Executive Director, Southeastern Fisheries Association, Inc., 

Tallahassee, Florida ...................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Letter from members of the U.S. Senate requesting GAO study on 

NMFS Stock Assessments submitted for the record ........................... 15 

Logan, Captain Keith, Charter Boat Captain, Myrtle Beach, South 

Carolina ......................................................................................................... 28 

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

Pappalardo, John, Chief Executive Officer, Cape Cod Commercial Hook 

Fishermen’s Association ............................................................................... 24 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 25 

Plesha, Joseph T., Chief Legal Officer, Trident Seafoods Corporation ........ 41 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 42 

Rauch, Samuel D., III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory 

Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce .................. 76 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 78 

Shipp, Dr. Robert L., Chair and Professor, Department of Marine 

Sciences, University of South Alabama ...................................................... 16 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 17 

Additional materials supplied: 

Charter Fishermen’s Association, Statement submitted for the record ....... 94 

Crockett, Lee R., Director, U.S. Fisheries Campaigns, The Pew Charitble 

Trusts, Letter and statement submitted for the record ............................. 97 

Gulf Fishermen’s Association, Statement submitted for the record ............. 100 

Keating, Hon. William R., a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Statement submitted for the record .. 101 

Mitchell, Elizabeth, Association for Professional Observers, Eugene, 

Oregon, Statement submitted for the record .............................................. 102 

Scott, Hon. Austin, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Georgia, Statement submitted for the record ............................................. 105 

South Atlantic Fishermen’s Association, Statement submitted for the 

record ............................................................................................................. 62 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE ‘‘REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT 

ACT.’’ 

Wednesday, March 13, 2013 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doc Hastings [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Hastings, Young, Wittman, Fleming, 

Labrador, Southerland, Runyan, Mullin, LaMalfa; Markey, 

DeFazio, Pallone, Holt, Bordallo, Sablan, Hanabusa, Horsford, 

Shea-Porter, Lowenthal, and Garcia. 

Also Present: Representative Keating. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come to order. And the Committee on Natural Resources today is meeting to hear testimony on 

an oversight hearing on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and Conservation Act. And I note that we do have a 

quorum. 

Under Rule 4(f), opening statements are limited to the Chairman 

and the Ranking Member of the Committee. However, I ask unanimous consent to include any Members’ opening statements in the 

hearing record if it is submitted to the Clerk by the end of business 

today. 

[No response.] 

The CHAIRMAN. And without objection, so ordered. I also ask 

unanimous consent that the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. 

Keating, be allowed to join us on the dais and participate in the 

hearing if he chooses to. 

[No response.] 

The CHAIRMAN. And, without objection, so ordered. And I will introduce Mr. Keating when we introduce the first panel. 

I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for my opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to welcome all of the Members and 

today’s witness for the first hearing this Congress on the reauthorization of the Nation’s premiere fisheries law, the Magnuson-Ste-
2 

vens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, more popularly 

known as the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

As many of you know, both the full Committee and the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs held 

several hearings in the 112th Congress on topics related to this 

Act. However, because the Act expires at the end of Fiscal 

Year 2013, the real work on this reauthorization will take place in 

this Congress. 

Managing fish and fishermen is a challenge. It requires a balancing act between a sustainable harvest level and the maximum 

economic value for the fisheries, between recreational and commercial users of the same resource, between different gear types in the 

same fisheries, and between different States. As we begin the reauthorization process, we will review the successes of the Act and determine what provisions Congress should examine to make the Act 

work better. 

This hearing is intended to highlight issues that could provide 

the basis for further hearings. I want to emphasize that. This hearing is intended to highlight issues that will provide basis for further hearings. We will examine how the Act could or should be 

modified to provide better management of the Nation’s fishery resources, as well as provide better economic certainty for recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen, and those communities 

dependent on fisheries. 

In 2006, Congress passed the last reauthorization of this Act. 

The goals of that reauthorization were to base management decisions on science and require accountability. While both are good 

goals, they have been difficult to achieve. As we found out during 

hearings last Congress, many of the current challenges may not be 

due to the Act itself, but rather with its implementation. We also 

heard loud and clear that there is a lack of accurate, timely data 

for making sound management decisions. 

Judging by the number of bills to amend the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act introduced in the last Congress, there is certainly an interest 

among Members and their constituents in modifying the Act. Legislation introduced in the last Congress, including proposals to modify a number of provisions in the Act include: modification of the 

annual catch limit requirement; additional flexibility in rebuilding 

time frames; additional transparency for councils and councils’ 

science and statistical committees; new uses of funds collected from 

fisheries, fines, and penalties; modification of the disaster assistance provision; and a definition and restrictions on catch-share 

management programs. All of these issues were part of bills introduced in the last Congress. 

Fishermen in coastal communities that depend on healthy fisheries are certainly facing challenges. The Secretary of Commerce 

declared seven fishery disasters in 2012 and several more have 

been requested. New England is facing severe cuts in the quotas 

for important fisheries. The Gulf of Mexico is facing severe restrictive fishing seasons for recreational fishermen. The Pacific Northwest is seeing management and data collection costs growing, with 

an ever-increasing burden falling on fishermen. All of these fisheries and all of these regions need economic stability. 
3 

During this reauthorization process I also hope to examine the 

need for better data collection. There has got to be a better way to 

get up-to-date accurate data on fishery resources and on the harvest levels. Congress attempted to start this process in 2006 by requiring an overhaul of the recreational data process. Unfortunately, that work is still underway. 

But this is not just an issue for recreational fisheries. Increasing 

burdens are being placed on commercial fishermen in the Pacific 

and in the North Pacific. And, at the same time, new uses of technology are not keeping pace with innovation. 

The Committee will examine all of these issues. And I am sure 

more will arise, as the process continues. Luckily, congressional 

hearings will not be the only source of information for this Committee. The eight Regional Fishery Management Councils are 

hosting a Managing Our Nation’s Fisheries III conference in May 

that will certainly add information for us to consider. 

In addition, the General Accounting Office, the Department of 

Commerce Inspector General, and the Ocean Studies Board of the 

National Academy of Sciences have, or will be, releasing reports 

that will aid us in this effort. 

So, I look forward to hearing from the testimony of the Committee, or of the witnesses today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman, 

Committee on Natural Resources 

I would like to welcome Members and today’s witnesses to the first hearing this 

Congress on the reauthorization of the Nation’s premiere fisheries law—the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act—more popularly known as 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

As many of you know, both the Full Committee and the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs held several hearings in the 112th Congress on topics related to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. However, because the Act expires at the end of Fiscal Year 2013, the real work for the reauthorization will take 

place this Congress. 

Managing fish—and fishermen—is a challenge. It requires a lot of balancing acts: 

between a sustainable harvest level and the maximum economic value for the fisheries; between recreational and commercial users of the same resource; between different gear types in the same fisheries; and between different states. 

As we begin the reauthorization process, we will review the successes of the Act 

and determine what provisions Congress should examine to make the Act work better. 

This hearing is intended to highlight issues that could provide the basis for further hearings. We will examine how the Act could or should be modified to provide 

better management of the Nation’s fishery resources as well as provide better economic certainty for recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen, and fishery dependent communities. 

In 2006, Congress passed the last reauthorization of the Act. The goals of that 

reauthorization were to base management decisions on science and to require accountability. While both are good goals, they’ve been difficult to achieve. 

As we found out during hearings last Congress—many of the current challenges 

may not be due to the Act itself, but rather with its implementation. We also heard 

loud and clear that there is a lack of accurate, timely data for making sound management decisions. 

Judging by the number of bills to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Act introduced 

last Congress, there is certainly an interest among Members—and their constituents—in modifying the Act. 

Legislation introduced in the 112th Congress included proposals to modify a number of provisions in the Act including: modification of the Annual Catch Limit requirement . . . additional flexibility in rebuilding timeframes . . . additional transparency for councils and councils’ scientific and statistical committees . . . new uses 
4 

of funds collected from fisheries fines and penalties . . . modification to the disaster 

assistance provision . . . and a definition and restrictions on catch share management programs. 

Fishermen and coastal communities that depend on healthy fisheries are certainly 

facing challenges. The Secretary of Commerce declared seven fisheries disasters in 

2012 and several more have been requested. New England is facing severe cuts in 

the quotas for important fisheries. The Gulf of Mexico is facing severely restrictive 

fishing seasons for recreational fishermen. The Pacific Northwest is seeing management and data collection costs growing with an ever increasing burden falling on 

fishermen. All of these fisheries and all of these regions need economic stability. 

During this reauthorization process I also hope to examine the need for better 

data collection. There has got to be a better way to get up-to-date, accurate data 

on the fishery resources and on the harvest levels. Congress attempted to start this 

process in 2006 by requiring an overhaul of the recreation data collection process. 

Unfortunately, that work is still underway. But this is not just an issue for the recreational fisheries. Increasing burdens are being placed on commercial fishermen in 

the Pacific and the North Pacific and, at the same time, new uses of technology are 

not keeping pace with innovation. 

The Committee will examine all of these issues and I am sure more will arise as 

the process continues. Luckily, Congressional hearings will not be the only source 

of information for this Committee. The eight regional fishery management councils 

are hosting the ‘‘Managing Our Nation’s Fisheries 3’’ conference in May that will 

certainly add information for us to consider. In addition, the General Accounting Office, the Department of Commerce’s Inspector General, and the Ocean Studies Board 

of the National Academy of Sciences have or will be releasing reports that will aid 

us in this effort. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony from today’s witnesses. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I will note that the Ranking Member is not 

here. I will allow him to make his statement when he comes. But 

let me introduce the panel, the first panel that we have seated, and 

I will yield to Mr. Keating to introduce his constituent here. 

First, we have Mr. Bob Jones, Executive Director of the Southeastern Fisheries Association. We have Dr. Robert Shipp—do you 

go by Bob, too? OK, good, two Bobs. Chair and Professor of the Department of Marine Sciences, University of South Alabama. We 

have Mr. Robert Dooley—is that another Bob? President of United 

Catcher Boats. We have Captain Keith Logan, Charterboat Captain, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Mr. Bob Gill, are you Robert? 

Bob is fine? OK. Co-owner of Shrimp Landing, in Florida. And Mr. 

Joe Plesha, Chief Legal Officer of Trident Seafoods. 

And I will recognize now Mr. Keating to introduce his constituent. 

Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I noted 

your opening statement, where you covered so much ground, and 

it is so important in all those things. As a matter of fact, I want 

to thank you for last session, having myself and then-Member Mr. 

Frank testifying on issues. 

And I want to take the opportunity to introduce a constituent of 

mine who is here, as well. He is the CEO of the Cape Cod Hook 

Fishermen’s Association, and a former Chair of the New England 

Fisheries Management Council, John Pappalardo. In our area, he 

has a long-standing interest, represents over 100 commercial fishermen. 

But as you know, there are so many areas of interest in this. I 

just want to commit with written testimony today to the Committee, and my commitment going forward, as I go back to—I am 

supposed to testify in another Committee right now—but to work 

with you in any way. We represent a diverse area, and the largest 
5 

fishing port in the United States, in Bedford, as well. And we will 

work hard. 

I honestly think this Committee represents the best opportunity 

for significant change in Magnuson-Stevens. We will be able to go 

forward and look at socio-economic as well as environmental issues 

in a very even-handed manner. 

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I look forward to 

coming back and listening. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Was that the proper introduction of your constituent, there? 

Mr. KEATING. He has more, unless you want it to be more 

lengthy, Mr. Chair—— 

The CHAIRMAN. No, that is fine. 

Mr. KEATING [continuing]. I could give you more of his background. 

The CHAIRMAN. No, that is fine. 

Mr. KEATING. I think he could—— 

The CHAIRMAN. We don’t want to know all the bad details, we 

just want to know—— 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. At this time I will recognize the Ranking Member of the Committee for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF 

MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me thank you, 

Mr. Chairman, first, for allowing my good friend, Bill Keating, to 

introduce his constituent, Mr. Pappalardo, this morning. He is a 

very distinguished part of the fishing community of Massachusetts, 

and it means the world to us that you would allow Congressman 

Keating to make that introduction. We thank you so much. 

From Cape Cod to Cape Ann, New Bedford to Newburyport, Massachusetts has long been home to some of the best fishermen and 

most productive fisheries in the world. Our proud fishing tradition 

and vibrant coastal communities are a critical part of the cultural 

heritage and economy of my State. 

In 1976, Don Young and Gerry Studds moved the original Fishery Conservation and Management Act through the House. Subsequent amendments of the law have sought to ensure healthy fish 

populations and the jobs, the income, and the prosperity for fishing 

communities that come with them. Along the way, the bill also 

picked up the name of its Senate sponsors, Warren Magnuson of 

Washington and Ted Stevens of Alaska, shortchanging the contributions of both the House and the Atlantic Ocean, because the 

bill originated here, with Gary Studds and with Don Young. So all 

four of them should have their names on the bill. 

That is a shame, because in the waters off of Massachusetts, we 

have one of the best examples of how rebuilding stocks and using 

science-based management can create a conservation and economic 

success story. The Atlantic sea scallop fishery landed only 2 million 

pounds in 1995. But cooperation among scientists, managers, and 

the industry increased landings to 125 million pounds in 2011. This 

created thousands of new jobs, generated billions of dollars for the 
6 

Massachusetts economy, and helped make New Bedford the highest-valued fishing port in the United States. 

Not all Massachusetts fisheries are doing as well. Last fall, the 

Secretary of Commerce took the unprecedented step of declaring an 

economic disaster for the New England groundfish fishery before 

the 2013 season even started. Anticipating reductions in the catch 

limits for the iconic cod and other key fish based on the latest stock 

assessment prompted Commerce to action. Fishermen that depend 

on this fishery now face an uncertain future, and their fears and 

frustrations are justified. 

I am frustrated that the Majority here in the House has ignored 

the needs of the fishermen. House leadership refused to even allow 

a vote on an amendment I proposed to restore $150 million in fisheries disaster aid passed by the Senate. This hurt fishing families 

not only in Massachusetts and New England, but in Alaska, Mississippi, and Texas, as well. 

House Republican leaders have also rejected calls for increased 

funding to improve the scientific understanding of our fisheries and 

oceans. Rather than helping to find real solutions to deal with climate change, many have denied its existence. Instead, they have 

backed budgets that undercut science and offered alternatives to 

the sequester that would have cut science even more to spare the 

Pentagon’s bloated budget. 

While fishermen in Massachusetts and across the country deserve this Committee’s oversight of what is and isn’t working for 

managing our Nation’s fisheries, they deserve improved and more 

frequent stock assessments to reduce uncertainty and increased 

harvest quotas. They deserve Federal assistance to help them 

weather the storm of declared economic disasters. And they deserve 

a better understanding of how global warming and changes in 

ocean chemistry are affecting the fish and the sea they depend on 

for their livelihoods. 

Changing the Magnuson-Stevens Act cannot create more fish. 

Changing it cannot create additional science to inform fisheries 

management and build healthy stocks. Inadequate funding for 

science makes poor management and failing fisheries a self-fulfilling prophecy. Not funding disaster relief makes certain that 

fishing families will suffer. 

As we begin to consider reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act today, I hope we can focus on the fact that fisheries are made 

up of fish and fishermen, and that healthy fisheries have both. I 

look forward to hearing about innovative solutions from our witnesses, especially John Pappalardo, Executive Director of the Cape 

Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association, that will improve 

the health of our Nation’s fish stocks and the economies of the 

coastal communities that depend upon them. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Thank you Mr. Chairman for allowing my good friend Bill Keating to introduce 

his constituent John Pappalardo, a very distinguished constituent. 

From Cape Cod to Cape Ann, New Bedford to Newburyport, Massachusetts has 

long been home to some of the best fishermen and most productive fisheries in the 
7 

world. Our proud fishing tradition and vibrant coastal communities are a critical 

part of the cultural heritage and economy of my state. 

In 1976, Don Young and Gerry Studds moved the original Fisheries Conservation 

and Management Act through the House. Subsequent amendments of the law have 

sought to ensure healthy fish populations and the jobs, income and prosperity for 

fishing communities that come with them. Along the way the bill also picked up the 

name of its Senate sponsors Warren Magnuson of Washington and Ted Stevens of 

Alaska, short-changing the contributions of both the House and the Atlantic Ocean. 

The bill originated here with Gerry Studds and Don Young. 

That’s a shame because in the waters off of Massachusetts is one of the best examples of how rebuilding stocks and using science-based management can create a 

conservation and economic success story. The Atlantic sea scallop fishery landed 

only 2 million pounds in 1995, but cooperation among scientists, managers and the 

industry increased landings to 125 million pounds in 2011. This created thousands 

of jobs, generated billions of dollars for the Massachusetts economy, and helped 

make New Bedford the highest value fishing port in the United States. 

Not all Massachusetts fisheries are doing as well. Last fall, the Secretary of Commerce took the unprecedented step of declaring an economic disaster for the New 

England groundfish fishery before the 2013 season even started. Anticipating reductions in the catch limits for the iconic cod and other key fish based on the latest 

stock assessment prompted Commerce to action. Fishermen that depend on this 

fishery now face an uncertain future, and their fears and frustrations are justified. 

I’m frustrated that the majority here in the House has ignored the needs of fishermen. House leadership refused to even allow a vote on an amendment I proposed 

to restore $150 million in fisheries disaster aid passed by the Senate. This hurt fishing families not only in Massachusetts and New England, but in Alaska, Mississippi, and Texas as well. House Republican leaders have also rejected calls for 

increased funding to improve the scientific understanding of our fisheries and 

oceans. Rather than helping to find real solutions to deal with climate change, many 

have denied its existence. Instead, they have backed budgets that undercut science, 

and offered alternatives to the sequester that would have cut science even more to 

spare the Pentagon’s bloated budget. 

Fishermen in Massachusetts and across the country deserve this committee’s 

oversight of what is and isn’t working for managing our nation’s fisheries. They deserve improved and more frequent stocks assessments to reduce uncertainty and increase harvest quotas. They deserve federal assistance to help them weather the 

storm of declared economic disasters. And they deserve a better understanding of 

how global warming and changes in ocean chemistry are affecting the fish and the 

sea they depend on for their livelihoods. 

Changing the Magnuson-Stevens Act cannot create more fish. Changing it cannot 

create additional science to inform fisheries management and build healthy stocks. 

Inadequate funding for science makes poor management and failing fisheries a selffulfilling prophecy. Not funding disaster relief makes certain that fishing families 

will suffer. 

As we begin to consider reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act today, I 

hope we can focus on the fact that fisheries are made up of fish and fishermen, and 

that healthy fisheries have both. I look forward to hearing about innovative solutions from our witnesses, especially John Pappalardo, Executive Director of the 

Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association, that will improve the health 

of our nation’s fish stocks and the economies of the coastal communities that depend 

on them. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the Ranking Member for his statement. 

And for those of you on the panel that have not testified here before, I just want to give you the ground rules. 

First of all, you all were asked to submit a statement. Your statement, in total, will be made part of the record. But you have 5 minutes for your oral remarks. And the lights there, you have the 

green, yellow, and red. Total of 5 minutes. When the green is on 

you are in the 4-minute window. When the yellow goes on, it 

means that you have 1 minute remaining, and I would ask you to 

try to wrap up your remarks. And when the red goes on, it means, 

unfortunately, you are out of time. 
8 

So, if you could, be cognizant of that. Obviously, with the number 

of witnesses and, obviously, the interest of Members that want to 

pursue different parts here, I would ask you to keep your remarks 

to 5 minutes. 

So, with that, we will start, Mr. Jones, with you, from the Southeastern Fisheries Association. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF BOB JONES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

SOUTHEASTERN FISHERIES ASSOCIATION, INC. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 

honor to be here this morning. 

Under the modification of annual catch limits, when the Magnuson Act was amended in 2006, giving the Scientific and Statistical 

Committee total control over the amount of fish that can be harvested, we expressed concern then, and we still express concern. 

We prefer that the Regional Fishery Management Council set the 

annual harvest, based upon the recommendations from the SSC, 

and that any significant deviation from their recommendation must 

be enumerated and approved by the council during a public forum. 

Uncertainty of data. NOAA’s mandate that councils allow for uncertainty must be buffered by social and economic factors. Without 

additional empirical data available for stock assessments, we will 

always have significant uncertainty, resulting in precautionary 

science and lower quotas. The Science Center should provide all 

stock assessment modeling and fish sampling protocols to stakeholders upon request. 

Flexibility. We request flexibility for the council to set total allowable catch, nor should we build fisheries without banning all 

fisheries, such as the South Atlantic Red Snapper, which was 

based on incomplete and imprecise stock assessments. The motion 

to ban red snapper fishing in the South Atlantic passed on a very 

contentious seven to six vote within the council. 

Need for stock assessments. Appendix one of my written testimony is a copy of the letter from eight U.S. Senators to the Comptroller General dated February the 28th. They are concerned that 

NOAA does not place a high-enough priority on conducting robust, 

peer-reviewed stock assessments in the Southeast, and we totally 

agree with that letter. 

Additional transparency. MSA says—and I quote—‘‘Conservation 

and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific 

information available.’’ Unfortunately, the councils in the Southeast are forced to use imprecise information as the best information 

available. We know that a transparent stock assessment process 

would create better options for management. 

NOAA law enforcement. We believe transferring NOAA’s law enforcement division to another agency separating fisheries management from fisheries law enforcement would reduce discord. We believe that many regulations are approved by the councils to make 

law enforcement easier, at the expense sometimes of fishermen 

who can’t fish in the areas where the fish are. It is easier to draw 

a straight line. 

But if the present law enforcement system continues, we believe 

that the MSA fines should be used for cooperative fisheries dependent and fisheries independent research, and we think they ought 
9 

to establish a mandatory training school for anyone that violates 

the provisions of MSA. 

Catch-shares. We believe the catch-shares program should be in 

the council’s toolbox, but only used if there is a current peer-reviewed stock assessment for the fishery under consideration, and if 

the entire fishing community is involved in the process and if the 

catch-shares remain with the commercial fishing sector. We do not 

think they should be traded on the open market. We think that 

they are there to help sustainable harvest of fish for the market. 

That is where they ought to be. 

State noncompliance in the Gulf of Mexico. Texas and perhaps 

Louisiana are noncompliant with the Gulf Council’s red snapper 

management regulations. Florida seems poised to go that same direction at their next council meeting. And if they do, that will leave 

Alabama and Mississippi alone not in compliance, and they will 

probably be forced to become noncompliant, just to stay with the 

rest of their sister States. 

Right now the Gulf is looking for 27-day fishing season for recreational fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico. That is not very many 

days. NOAA’s analysis of the 2013 red snapper season length 

shows that the days could be increased, or shows how it could be 

increased, by reallocating the consumer’s share of the red snapper 

quota to the sport fishermen. Even if NOAA reallocated the entire 

4.3 million pounds of consumers current quota, there might be a 

54-day recreational fishing season, but there would be zero red 

snapper on the market. Such action would take Gulf Red Snapper 

from the fully accountable sector and gift them to an unaccountable 

sector. Honest, transparent, peer-reviewed stock assessments 

would remove most of the scientific controversy in the Southeast, 

and significantly diminish the fishing industry’s distrust of NOAA. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:] 

Statement of Bob Jones, Executive Director, 

Southeastern Fisheries Association, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, Good Morning 

My name is Bob Jones. I am the executive director of Southeastern Fisheries Association (SFA), serving in that capacity since June 1964. SFA was formed in 1952 

and currently represents over 350 seafood companies employing over 5,000 men and 

women engaged in every type of seafood harvesting and processing of seafood from 

Texas through North Carolina with worldwide distribution of our products. We have 

member companies in Cape May, New Jersey (Lund’s Fisheries) and New Bedford, 

Massachusetts (Packaging Products Corporation). We promote sustainability. We 

are leaders in fighting seafood fraud, and promoting safe, traceable, seafood. 

From a historical perspective, I served on the U.S. State Department Ocean Affairs Advisory Committee in the late 1960s under Ambassador Don McKernan. Two 

of the main issues we debated during that time were the Law of the Sea Treaty 

and the creation of an Exclusive Fishing Zone from U.S. shoreline out to 200 miles. 

We are still debating the Law of the Sea Treaty, but Congress did create the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA). I was appointed by Elliot Richardson, U.S. Secretary of Commerce, to the original Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council in 1976. I served as Vice Chairman from 1976 to 1979 and as Chairman in 1980. 

Chairman Hastings listed major fishery management issues in his invitation. I 

submit the following: 

Modification of the Annual Catch Limit (ACL) requirement 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) should be amended, mandating that each Regional Fishery Management Council set an Allowable Biological Catch (ABC) based 
10 

upon guidance from its Scientific & Statistical Committee (SSC) instead of having 

the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) independently setting an ABC. If this 

amendment is adopted, and some Council prefers their SSC to continue to set the 

ABC, those Councils could opt out of the amendment. Also, we do not believe appropriate ACL’s can be determined without quantifiable stock assessments. We believe 

it is inappropriate to require ACL’s to be established for stocks that have not had 

a comprehensive stock assessment in the past five years. 

This amendment to MSA would force a SSC to reach a consensus when presenting 

its ABC recommendations to their Council. Any significant deviation from the SSC 

recommendation for ABC would be discussed and debated by the council at a public 

meeting and made part of the administrative record. 

When the MSA was amended in 2006, giving the SSCs total control over all allowable harvest, great concern about the survival of the fishing industry in our region 

was expressed. Our concerns in 2006 are still valid in 2013. 

I was told many years ago by a red snapper expert, a fish stock assessment can 

be accomplished by using only two fish. At the time I scoffed at this. Then I learned 

the hard way that he was correct. He didn’t qualify how good the stock assessment 

would be or that it could be much more robust using up-to-date empirical data. Instead, he used what NOAA decided was the ‘‘best available data’’ and thus the original red snapper stock assessment estimate for the Gulf of Mexico became doctrine. 

SSCs recommendations often focus exclusively on the estimated status of fish 

stocks while excluding adequate concern about corresponding social and economic 

factors. An MSA amendment should require more consideration of these two key 

factors. 

NOAA’s National Standard 1 (NS1) guidelines mandate a calculation and allowance for ‘‘uncertainty.’’ The ‘‘uncertainty factor’’ should be buffered by social and economic factors. We are not aware of any explicit mechanisms NOAA has for incorporating social and economic factors into their calculations of what ‘‘uncertainty’’ is. 

‘‘Uncertainty’’ is hard to define and should be removed from the process unless 

it is properly quantified in a guideline; and comprehensive stock assessments must 

actually be performed. SSC committee members can discuss methods to try this or 

try that, but unless the basic stock assessment data is real, and contemporaneous, 

SSC conclusions concerning uncertainty are meaningless. For example, it was recently determined that the estimated historical recreational catch of red snapper in 

the South Atlantic region was five times too high because of a computer error. We 

think that error had a lot to do with red snapper fishing being banned from Virginia 

to Key West for the last two years. 

From an ethical perspective, participants of each SSC should declare their affiliations with any Non-Government Organization (NGO)—past and present—and 

should sign a declaration if that NGO has received grants from NOAA. If SSC members are employed by NOAA in any fashion we believe they should not be a voting 

member of the SSC. 

To NOAA’s credit there has been improvement in the SSC and SEDAR process 

of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils in the last 

few years, but there is still a strong need for more transparency and open dialogue 

with the fishing industry. 

A major reason for modifying the Annual Catch Limit (ACL) requirement is the 

fact that the science center in the southeast does not allow stakeholders or the council, to review their sampling protocols which determine what science makes the list 

of ‘‘best available data’’. The doctrine of ‘‘best available data’’ is not workable as currently used. The Fishery Management Councils and their respective SSC must develop standards for what constitutes ‘‘best available data. ‘‘ 

Unless a Council reviews the annual data collection methods and results of such 

methods, there will be less confidence in the science. From our perspective, it takes 

an act of Congress (and that might not even be strong enough) to review the scientific protocols used to control fishing in federal waters. The Science Centers 

should provide every aspect of computer modeling used to control our nation’s fisheries. The Councils should review the NOAA sampling protocols on an annual basis 

and share same with our fishing communities. I paraphrase a quote by Sir Winston 

Churchill made in 1939 in which he said, ‘‘I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.’’ We believe the NOAA 

Science Center in the southeast is an ‘‘enigma, within an impenetrable conclave 

shrouded by a stone mountain.’’ 

Port samplers 

More port sampling, more tagging of red snapper using commercial and recreational fishermen, would give credence to the science being used by the southeast 

science center. The lack of an adequate number of Port Samplers is a major problem 
11 

for the southeast. We believe the number of samplers today is the same or less than 

NOAA authorized nearly three decades ago. We understand NOAA funds state 

agencies, through the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission who hire state 

personnel to supplement the sampling done by the contracted NOAA port samplers. 

Funding state personnel for port sampling rather than using them for more robust 

biological sampling (age/growth empirical data), results in less than adequate stock 

assessment science. We need more port samplers and we need the kind of biological 

data that can best be obtained by state biologists working on or near the water. 

Contemporaneous port sampling data is critical to prevent NOAA’s premature closure of fisheries. Many times the amount of fish authorized by a quota for commercial fishing are ‘‘left on the table’’ and lost to the consumers. If the science centers 

in the southeast would open their doors and let stakeholders see what they do, and 

how they do it, much of the angst and mistrust of government would disappear. We 

don’t believe the MSA prevents transparency within NOAA. 

One of our speakers noted at a meeting in Miami, ‘‘Without valid measurements 

of the fish stock, harvesting cannot be made proportional to abundance. Without 

valid measurements, model predictions cannot be tested for accuracy. Without accurate predictions, you cannot in good faith, use the models in management. Wherever 

a quota is based upon mixed stocks, it over exploits the small stocks and under exploits the large stocks. Given sufficient time under this type of fishing regime, the 

assumption of one fish stock in large ocean areas should come true (at the expense 

of genetic diversity).’’ 

To the fishing industry his statement means, ‘‘If you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it.’’ 

Additional flexibility in rebuilding timeframes 

We urgently need to employ flexibility to reach optimal judgments to rebuild fisheries in these austere economic times. Flexibility would significantly reduce suffering in our fishing communities because of fishing regulations based on incomplete 

or absent scientific information. A further reduction in fishing effort for red snapper 

in the South Atlantic instead of the total fishing ban enacted on a 7 to 6 vote would 

not have harmed the red snapper rebuilding process, and would have kept fishermen working and protected our seafood industry infrastructure. 

NOAA needs a process for creative management adjustments providing assistance 

to the beleaguered recreational and commercial communities experiencing one of the 

greatest economic downturns in our history. This harsh economy was not perceived 

in 2006 when MSA was reauthorized. The social and economic realities of today 

must be weighed more seriously by NOAA and the councils. 

Fishing ‘‘communities’’ must be fully defined and receive more consideration by 

the councils. The traditional, independent seafood markets that depend on a consistent and varied supply of domestic seafood must be considered from an economic 

and social viewpoint. Just as the sustainability of fish stocks is a critical aspect of 

current fishery management policy, there should be careful and deliberate consideration of the socioeconomic sustainability for the human community supported by 

those same fish stocks. 

These thousands of small businesses require local seafood for customers from the 

entire economic spectrum. Not everyone can afford jumbo shrimp or lump crabmeat, 

but they can afford whiting, flounder, bee liners, mahi, yellowtail snapper, black sea 

bass and a favorite Key West delicacy—grunts and grits. 

The MSA should allow a management regime and harvest system for as many different species of fish, even in small amounts, available for as much of the year as 

possible. Flexibility would benefit the consumers by having a variety of highly nutritious and healthy local seafood items on the market all year long. 

Not every group supports more flexibility and use court decisions to support their 

position that there is too much flexibility already. Following are the comments filed 

by the World Wildlife Foundation concerning National Standard 2 (NS2) in which 

they write: ‘‘Although some procedural constraints apply to NOAA Fisheries when 

determining the best science, the existing procedure allows far too much flexibility 

(emphasis added) to make the ‘‘best scientific information available’’ standard effective. There are several baseline rules established by the courts that NOAA must follow: 

• In developing its administrative record, NOAA Fisheries may rely on research 

science, commercial data, regulatory science, and agency research. 

• NOAA Fisheries has no obligation to seek out information not available in the 

general scientific literature. 

• NOAA Fisheries may choose to ignore relevant scientific studies only if it 

states a basis for doing so. 
12 

• NOAA Fisheries must extrapolate from limited data, even in light of potential 

increased error, when the necessary means to produce more reliable information is infeasible. 

• NOAA Fisheries must also consider any significant information of which it is 

made aware of by interested persons. 

• If NOAA Fisheries fails to recognize relevant research or establish its reasons 

for doing so, it risks having its decision overturned by the court. 

• In the event the court determines that NOAA’s decision is arbitrary and capricious, the court must ‘‘remand to NOAA Fisheries for additional investigation or explanation.’’ 

We suggest the Committee examine these court based requirements. If MSA 

needs to be amended to address any of them to improve fisheries management, it 

should be done. 

MSA should mandate that there be a certain allocation of scientific data collection 

for each fishery which is closed to harvest in the EEZ. When no fishing is allowed, 

scientists miss the age/growth data that could be collected every day. Nobody has 

any facts on the relative abundance of a stock of fish if there is no harvest. NOAA 

could hire commercial and recreational fishermen to work on cooperative research 

for fish harvested in their region. This committee might consider directing revenue 

generated by licensing and permitting into a special fund and mandate NOAA work 

with the states for implementation of fisheries management projects that generate 

up-to-date empirical data for stock assessments. 

Appendix 1 of my testimony is a copy of the letter to the Comptroller General 

dated February 28, 2013, from a bi-partisan group of eight U.S. Senators concerned 

that ‘‘NOAA may not place a high-enough priority on conducting robust, peer-reviewed stock assessments on fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic.’’ 

The fishing industry supports this request for a GAO study knowing that if the 

basic stock assessment numbers used to manage a fishery are not correct, every regulation based on those numbers is suspect. We request the House Natural Resources 

Committee endorse the letter to the Comptroller General supporting the request for 

better stock assessments. 

Additional transparency for councils and councils SSCs 

MSA was created to promote the domestic fishing industry’s optimal harvest of 

coastal fisheries for food and for recreational opportunities. Without total transparency of the management system, there is a possibility of creating under-utilized 

fisheries resources due to regulations based on imprecise and poor stock assessment 

data. Transparency begins before any data is entered into the computer for modeling. 

Transparency would better indicate true status of fish stocks after the hypothesis 

is stated, research is conducted and replicated then the conclusions are reached 

based on the results of the research. This is our understanding of the scientific 

method. We do not believe the conclusion should ever precede the hypothesis and 

only transparency will answer our doubts. 

All stakeholders should be able to review every aspect of the NOAA modeling 

process including assumptions, scientific theories and formulas that produce stock 

assessments the SSCs use to determine the ABC. We think much of the angst would 

be improved if NOAA’s legal division published the revised MSA National Standard 

2 (NS2) guidelines that have been held up for years. 

Section 301(a)(2) MSA says, ‘‘Conservation and management measures shall be 

based upon the best scientific information available.’’ Unfortunately in our region 

NOAA and the councils are often forced to use poor and imprecise information as 

the ‘‘best scientific information available.’’ And to our dismay, NOAA alone decides 

what the ‘‘best scientific information available’’ is. We believe what ends up as ‘‘best 

scientific information available’’ should be examined by a peer-review entity that includes scientists outside the control of NOAA. Without honest peer-review NOAA’s 

decisions are often seen as political science. 

Since 2008 the fishing industry and the general public have been asked to comment on portions of the NS2 after the Reauthorization of MSA in 2006. In 2010 the 

proposed rule for NS2 allowed further comment to be submitted. The final rule was 

expected to be published in the Federal Register by early 2012, but that deadline 

has come and gone. The latest information is the Office of General Counsel may finish their review by April 2013 and allow publication in the Federal Register sometime in the future. 

When the NS2 guidelines are finally adopted will we be able to examine them and 

suggest ways for more transparency at all stages of fishery management? 
13 

New use of funds collected from fisheries fines and penalties 

We will not revisit the drama and trauma associated with the ill-conceived NOAA 

law enforcement’s collection and expenditures of commercial fishing industry fines 

in the past. We complained about the way it operated because it was like a speed 

trap. In order to finance the law enforcement they had to make an ever increasing 

number of arrests and fine fishermen in huge amounts to perpetuate their operation. No law enforcement program should be funded based on how much money 

it can take from the user group they are regulating. We strongly believe all law enforcement should be funded from general revenue. 

I did not know the previous head of NOAA law enforcement, but I know the current one from working with him for several decades in Florida. He is an honest lawman who will drink coffee with you in the morning and arrest you the same afternoon if you break the law. He understands the responsibilities of a sworn officer and 

knows to never use the power of the badge and gun for a personal policy preference 

or vendetta. He is the kind of officer that protects us under the rule of law. 

There are many of us who would like the NOAA law enforcement division transferred to another agency in order to separate fish management from fish law enforcement. We believe regulations are written on many occasions to make law enforcement easier at the expense of fishermen being able to work where the fish are 

located. We realize a straight line is easier to patrol than a curved line, but with 

modern GPS equipment, vessels can easily stay outside of any type of line configuration. We believe there will be many more areas with buffer upon buffer built into 

the demarcation lines, establishing no fishing areas. This will become more serious 

as the push for large marine protected areas makes its way through the council 

process. 

If the current law enforcement system continues as it is, we believe fines from 

MSA fishing violations should be used to fund cooperative fisheries dependent and 

fisheries independent research projects and to establish a mandatory training program for MSA violators. The cooperative research projects would be managed by the 

states under a NOAA protocol. The mandatory training of those who violate fishing 

regulations in the EEZ would be conducted by the state agencies in conjunction with 

NOAA fishery managers. The fines would not go to the NOAA law enforcement division, but to specific data gathering programs and a strong education program to reduce fishing violations. 

Definition and restrictions on catch share management programs 

The Southeastern Fisheries Association believes catch-share initiatives should be 

a tool in NOAA’s toolbox, but only used if there is a current, complete stock assessment for the fishery under consideration and only if the entire fishing community 

is involved in the process. As I stated before, stock assessments must be developed 

in a totally transparent manner, because everything that follows, including the 

stringent regulations, depend on the stock assessment documents. 

We are not suggesting specific changes in the current Gulf of Mexico red snapper 

catch-share program. However, we believe when red snapper quotas are increased, 

fishermen in areas where red snapper have become abundant, should be allowed to 

enter the red snapper fishery. We believe catch-shares allocated to the consumers 

(through the commercial catch-share holders) should never be sold or traded to any 

individual or entity to remove them from commercial harvest and therefore the marketplace. Catch shares must stay in the commercial fishing sector for consumers. 

The fish that live in our defined areas of the ocean belong to all the citizens and 

are managed under the provisions of the MSA. Most non-boaters have the opportunity to enjoy a predetermined share of fish through sustainable harvests by federally licensed commercial fishermen. The amount of fish awarded under a catchshare regime must continue as a commercial fishing harvest in order to preserve 

non-boaters access to fresh, local seafood. 

Non-compliance with federal fishery management plans in the Gulf of 

Mexico 

Southeastern Fisheries Association believes NOAA red snapper stock assessment 

does not reflect the actual status in the Gulf of Mexico. The small number of days 

NOAA allows for recreational red snapper fishing is causing great angst and alarm 

all along the Gulf. The true recreational harvest is suspect. NOAA’s regulations 

count estimated number of pounds of red snapper instead of an accurate determination on the number of fish caught. This issue needs to be addressed and every aspect of the modeling used for determining the abundance of red snapper in the Gulf 

of Mexico should be open for review by any interested stakeholder. 

Because of such short red snapper recreational fishing seasons Texas and Louisiana will now be non-compliant with the federal fishery management plan. Florida 
14 

seems poised to go noncompliant as well and that decision might force Alabama and 

Mississippi to join with their sister states. While going non-compliant allows states 

to manage the red snapper in their state waters, NOAA will determine what the 

states catch and will use that amount in calculating when the federal quota is 

reached. NOAA, more than likely, will further reduce the number of days for red 

snapper fishing in the Gulf of Mexico. There might be less than 20 days red snapper 

recreational fishing in 2013 and the days will get less, as long as there is non-compliance or until more empirical data can be included in an updated stock assessment. 

The projected ABC for GOM red snapper in 2013 is 8.462 million pounds. The 

consumer’s share (51%) is 4.310 million pounds, (harvested by commercial fishermen) and the recreational fishing share (49%) is 4.146 million pounds. These allocation percentages reflect historical catches determined by easily accountable landing 

records for the commercial sector and random based surveys for the recreational sector which Congress mandated to be improved. 

NOAA presented a Power Point (Analysis of the 2013 Red Snapper Season LengthSoutheast Regional Office-Jan. 7–8, 2013) that showed the following scenarios. Taking 0.5 million pounds from consumer’s quota would allow a 31 day red snapper season. Taking 1.0 million pounds from consumer’s quota would allow a 34 day red 

snapper season. Taking 1.5 million pounds from consumer’s quota would allow a 37 

day red snapper season. Taking 2.0 million pounds from consumer’s quota would 

allow a 41 day red snapper season. 

It has been determined that if NOAA took all 4.3 million pounds of the consumer’s 

quota, they might allow a 54 day red snapper recreational fishing season at the expense of zero domestic red snapper on the market. Such a decision would not pass 

the fair and equitable requirement. 

Southeastern Fisheries Association supports direct measurement of the abundance and distribution of fish stocks be gathered by repeated, independent, standardized surveys. Having scientists on the water through cooperative research 

projects with fishermen is one of the best ways to gather true ecological data. We 

believe traditional catch per unit of effort protocols using professional fishing gear 

and human visual estimates of fish numbers is necessary for collecting empirical 

data. It seems empirical data gathering has been deemphasized in favor of the less 

expensive development of theoretical models to estimate fish stock abundance. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

[The letter submitted for the record by Mr. Jones follows:] 
15 

'lanitf11 tStatts ~fnilU 

The Honorilble Gene L. Dodaro 

Comptroller General oftlte United States 

U.S, Government Accountability Offi.ce 

441 G Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Dear Mr. Dodaro: 

WASHINGTON, DC 20510 

February 28,2013 

We are writing to request a study on issues related to fishery stock assessments conducted by the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the Department of Commerce; As you know, stock 

assessments are the biological evaluation of the status of fish stocks. These assessments provide official 

estimates in key areas, such as the size of the stock's population, the size of the spawning population, and 

fish mortality. Importantly, stock assessments form the scientific basis used by regional fishery 

management councils and are a vital first step towards proper fishery management. For example, regional 

councils use stock assessments and other indicators of biological productivity to recommend to NMFS a 

maximum" or total allowable catch, in Ii particular fisbery--typicalJy for a year. 

It has rome to our attention that NOAA may not be placing a high enough priority on conducting 

robust, peer-reviewed stoc" assessments on fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and in the South Atlantic. 

TIlis lack of empirical data forces fishery council managers and their Scientific and Statistical 

Committees, who establish total allowable catch, to rely on what the councils have referred to in 

Congre.ssiollal testimony as "flawed" and incomplete science. 

Because ofthe importance of ensuring aecurate stock assessments for the health of our nation's 

ecosystems as well as the vitality of our fishing communities, we would like for your office to examine: 

(I) the frequency with which NMFS conducts stock assessments; (2) the amount of federal resources 

spent annually on such assessments; (3) how NMFS determines which assessments to undertake and the 

frequency for doing so, including the relative costs and benefits considered when committing resources to 

improving stock assessments and prioritizing them; (4) the extent of diserepancies, if any, in the number 

and frequency of stock assessments conducted across regions of the country; (5) what resources are 

necessary to adequately sustain regular collection of information tor fishery stock assessments; and (6) 

the various options for involving stakeholders in gathering valid fishery data directly supportive of 

regional conllcil fisheries management decision-making and what gaps, if any,could be filled by guided 

stakeholder input 

As your work proceeds, please keep our staff advised of your progress. If you have any questions 

regarding this request please contact Sara Decker at (202) 224-304 L Thank you for your prompt 

attention to this request. 
16 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Jones. 

Next we will go to Mr. Bob Shipp, who is Chair and Professor 

of the Department of Marine Sciences at the University of South 

Alabama, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT L. SHIPP, CHAIR AND 

PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MARINE SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH ALABAMA 

Dr. SHIPP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Bob Shipp, 

and I am the Professor of Marine Sciences at the University of 

South Alabama. In addition, I have served 17 years on the Gulf of 

Mexico Fishery Management Council, three times elected Chair of 

the Council, and presently serve as Chair of the Council’s Reef Fish 

Committee. 

The current management of reef species for the recreational sector in the Gulf of Mexico is failing. I am suggesting a shift in management authority, as described below. I am in support of increasing fishery management authority to the Gulf States by extending 

the States’ authority to manage reef species of finfish out to 20 

fathoms. I will address three fundamental reasons why this would 

be beneficial. 

First, most reef species, and especially red snapper, inhabit the 

Gulf waters to depths of 100 fathoms. So, by extending State authority to 20 fathoms in no way threatens optimum management 

of reef species. In fact, the Gulf States have excellent histories of 

successful fishery management. And it is in their best economic interests to optimally manage these species. Beyond 20 fathoms, the 

fishery management councils and National Marine Fishery Service 

would continue their authority. 

Second, I refer to language in National Standard 1 of the Magnuson Act: ‘‘Prevent overfishing and achieve optimal yield.’’ Recently 

we have been primarily concerned with ‘‘prevent overfishing’’ verbiage, often times ignoring achieving optimal yield. By allowing individual States to manage reef fish stocks to 20 fathoms would 

markedly improve the likelihood of achieving optimal yield. 

As an example, in Florida spotted sea trout, speckled trout, has 

a bag limit of four. In Louisiana, it is 25. This is because the habitat for spotted sea trout in Louisiana can support a stock with a 

larger yield. A similar situation exists for red snapper. Off the Alabama coast some 17,000 artificial reefs have been constructed. 

Each holds a tremendous number of red snapper, which could easily support a fishery with a far higher yield, an optimal yield, than 

the current 28-day season with a 2-fish bag limit. 

Third is a matter of logic. I was trained by the Jesuits, and one 

of the first required courses was logic. With red snapper populations, we have a conundrum of logic. Red snapper stocks are considered overfished. Projections of red snapper maximum sustainable yield made during the past 20 years have varied between 15 

and 30 million pounds annually for the Gulf of Mexico. But we 

have never harvested more than 10 million pounds, and often much 

less than that. 

So, if a stock can yield 15 or more million pounds annually, but 

has never yielded anywhere near that number, how can it be overfished? There is an answer to this riddle. The habitat for red snap-
17 

per has increased dramatically. Before World War II there was little or no red snapper harvest from the Northwestern Gulf, despite 

numerous attempts to locate productive fishery areas there. 

But from the mid-forties on, the harvest in the Western Gulf has 

increased dramatically. The reason? About 4,000 petroleum platforms and thousands of artificial reefs. Currently, more than 60 

percent of snapper harvest comes from these areas with artificial 

habitat. In total, the harvest potential of red snapper in the Gulf 

has increased. State management would insure every effort to 

maintain these habitats in near-shore waters. 

And related, the current practice of removing these platforms 

with explosives kills thousands of pounds of reef species. A recent 

video obtained by the NBC affiliate in Mobile revealed the mortality of about 10,000 pounds of red snapper at the surface. Divers 

tell me that probably four to five times that much is hidden beneath. Far better would be to dismantle these structures, lay them 

on their sides on the bottom, as is done in the ‘‘rigs to reef’’ program off Louisiana. 

So, we have the most valuable finfish in the Gulf of Mexico not 

being harvested at optimal yield, and with its habitat under duress. Reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens, as described above, 

would rectify this dilemma. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shipp follows:] 

Statement of Dr. Robert L. Shipp, Professor of Marine Sciences, University 

of South Alabama, and Chair, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council 

My name is Bob Shipp, and I am a professor of Marine Sciences at the University 

of South Alabama. In addition I have served 17 years on the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council, three times elected chair of the Council, and presently serve 

as chair of the Council’s reef Fish Committee. 

The current management of reef species in the Gulf of Mexico is failing. I am suggesting a shift in the management authority as described below. 

I am in support of increasing fishery management authority to the Gulf states by 

extending the state’s authority to manage reef species of finfish out to 20 fathoms. 

I will address three fundamental reasons why this would be beneficial. 

First, most reef species, and especially red snapper, inhabit the Gulf waters to 

depths of 100 fathoms. So by extending state authority to 20 fathoms in no way 

threatens optimal management of reef species. In fact, the Gulf states have excellent histories of successful fishery management, and it is in their best economic interests to optimally manage these species. Beyond 20 fathoms, the Fishery Management Councils and National Marine Fisheries Service would continue their authority. 

Second, I refer to the language of National Standard 1 of the Magnuson Act: ‘‘prevent overfishing and achieve optimal yield.’’ Recently we have been primarily concerned with the ‘‘prevent overfishing’’ verbiage, often times ignoring ‘‘achieving optimal yield.’’ By allowing individual states to manage reef fish stocks to 20 fathoms 

would markedly improve the likelihood of achieving optimal yield. As an example, 

in Florida spotted sea trout (=speckled trout) bag limit is 4. In Louisiana it is 25. 

This is because the habitat for spotted sea trout in Louisiana can support a stock 

with the larger yield. A similar situation exists for red snapper. Off the Alabama 

coast, some 17,000 artificial reefs have been constructed. Each holds a tremendous 

number of red snapper, which could easily support a fishery with a far higher yield, 

an optimal yield, than the current 28 day season with a 2 fish bag limit. 

Third is a matter of logic. I was trained by the Jesuits, and one of the first required courses was ‘‘logic.’’ With red snapper populations we have a conundrum of 

logic. Red snapper stocks are considered overfished. Projections of red snapper maximum sustainable yield (MSY) made during the past twenty years have varied between about 15–30 million pounds annually for the Gulf of Mexico. But we have 

never harvested more than 10 million pounds, and often much less than that. So 

if a stock can yield 15 or more million pounds annually, but has never yielded anywhere near that number, how can it be overfished? There is an answer to this rid-
18 

dle. The habitat for red snapper has been increased dramatically. Before World War 

II, there was little or no red snapper harvest from the northwestern Gulf, despite 

numerous attempts to locate fishery productive areas there. But from the mid-forties on, the harvest in the western Gulf has increased dramatically. The reason? 

About 4,000 petroleum platforms, and thousands of artificial reefs. Currently more 

than sixty percent of snapper harvest comes from these areas with artificial habitat. 

In total the harvest potential of red snapper in the Gulf has increased. 

And related, the current practice of removing these platforms with explosives kills 

thousands of pounds of reef species. A recent video obtained by the NBC affiliate 

in Mobile, revealed a mortality of about 10,000 pounds of red snapper at the surface. 

Divers tell me that probably 4 to 5 times that much is hidden beneath. Far better 

would be to dismantle these structures, lay them on their sides on the bottom, as 

is done in the ‘‘rigs to reefs’’ program off Louisiana. 

So we have the most valuable finfish fishery in the Gulf of Mexico not being harvested at optimal yield and with its habitat under duress. Reauthorization of Magnuson as described above would rectify this dilemma. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Shipp. 

And next we will go to Mr. Bob Dooley, who is the President of 

the United Catcher Boats. Recognized for 5 minutes, Mr. Dooley. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. DOOLEY, PRESIDENT, 

UNITED CATCHER BOATS 

Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you. Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member 

Markey, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify before you today. My name is Bob Dooley. I am the President of United Catcher Boats, a trade association of 70 commercial 

fishing vessels that participate in the Alaskan pollock, crab, cod, 

and West Coast groundfish fisheries. My brother, John, and I are 

co-owners of a commercial fishing business that operates three vessels from Alaska to the central coast of California. I have been a 

commercial fisherman for over 40 years. 

I would like to begin my testimony by stating that, overall, the 

MSA is an excellent law. But there are areas that need improvement or outright change. To that end, my testimony will focus on 

National Standard 1 guidelines, catch-shares, and industry agency 

collaboration. 

Underlying all my comments is a desire for a standard of reasonableness. Many of our concerns do not stem from the legislative 

language itself, but rather, from its interpretation and application. 

However, if the Agency and the councils cannot apply a standard 

of reasonableness, then Congress needs to amend the MSA to clarify the intent behind its various provisions. 

National Standard 1 states that conservation and management 

measures shall prevent overfishing, while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery. UCB strongly 

supports this national standard. We must prevent overfishing, but 

we must also achieve optimum yield from each fishery. 

It is important to remember that the fundamental objectives of 

fisheries conservation and management is production of food and 

economic value on a long-term, sustainable basis. This is the reason that NOAA fisheries, the Regional Fishery Management Councils, and the MSA itself exist. If not, we should simply replace all 

of this with one line of Federal law: No fishing allowed. Such a law 

would certainly prevent overfishing. Needless to say, it would not 

produce optimum yield. 
19 

Fish don’t have calendars. Yet harvest targets are applied as if 

there are annual limits, when they should be applied as long-term 

averages. Maximum sustainable yield and optimum yield must be 

understood as dynamic in nature, subject to fluctuation, and objectives to be achieved on an average over the years. With reasonableness and flexibility, optimum yield itself becomes a powerful conservation mandate. Overfishing cannot provide OY. Optimum yield 

is essentially a call for long-term sustainability. 

UCB firmly believes that catch-shares should be a tool available 

to the Regional Fishery Management Councils. Our members participate in several successful catch-share programs, and are familiar with their many conservation and economic benefits. Measures 

such as fisherman-based risk pools, cooperative associations, and 

quota transferability are important components of a well-designed 

catch-share program. For example, West Coast groundfish went from a $38 million fishery before catch-shares to a $54 million fishery with dramatically reduced bycatch and discards under catch-shares. An example 

would be the whiting fleet, where the bycatch of canary rockfish 

was reduced by 79 percent, and for Pacific Ocean Perch the reduction was 96 percent. 

We strongly feel that catch-shares should be developed by the 

participants in the fishery at the regional level. MSA provides sufficient guidance to the councils on development and implementation of catch-share programs. Additional requirements are not 

needed at this time. 

UCB supports science-based fisheries management. We recognize 

that better data results in more robust fisheries. UCB has been on 

the forefront of cooperative management with fisheries managers. 

Examples of our efforts include the development of a salmon excluder for the mid-water pollock trawl fleet, funding and employment of trawl catcher vessels to assist in stock assessment surveys, 

and the collaboration of fishery data for Federal and State research 

projects. 

We believe such cooperative work should be incentivized and encouraged. When managed under a catch-share program, UCB believes the cost of such activities should be included as a credit 

when calculating cost recovery fees. 

In conclusion, UCB believes the MSA is a strong and largely 

well-crafted piece of legislation with a proud history of 40 years of 

fisheries governance. With changes to the law to address the issues 

outlined in this testimony, we believe it will ensure robust and sustainable U.S. fisheries, fisheries that will help feed our Nation and 

promote economic stability for decades to come. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dooley follows:] 

Statement of Robert E. Dooley, President, United Catcher Boats 

Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey, and Members of the Committee; 

thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today regarding the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. My name is Bob Dooley. I am 

the President of United Catcher Boats and co-owner of a commercial fishing operation with my brother John. 

John and I have lived in Half Moon Bay, CA our entire lives and have been commercial fishermen for over 40 years. Our families have been active in commercial 

fishing and it’s supporting businesses on the West Coast for over 70 years. Over the 

course of our careers we have owned and operated several vessels. To this day we 
20 

operate 2 vessels in the Bering Sea Pollock, Cod and West Coast Pacific Whiting 

fisheries and one in the state-managed Dungeness Crab fishery. 

United Catcher Boats (UCB) is a trade association of 70 commercial fishing vessels that participate in the Alaskan Pollock, Alaskan crab, and West Coast groundfish fisheries. Our vessels are called catcher boats because that is all we do—we 

catch fish and deliver our catch ‘‘in the round’’ to processing facilities. We do not 

process the fish, even minimally. UCB is deeply committed to science-based management of fishery resources. 

I would like to begin my testimony by stating that overall, the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation & Management Act (MSA) is an excellent law. Under it, the 

North Pacific Fishery Management Council has been able to manage robust, valuable, and healthy fish stocks. However, it is the nature of congressional testimony 

that it focus not on those aspects of the law that work well but on those that need 

improvement or outright change. To that end, my testimony will focus on the following issues: 

• National Standard #1 Guidelines 

• Catch Shares 

• Accountability Measures 

• State-Federal Fishery Management Plan Coordination & Consistency 

• Bycatch 

• Cooperative Management. 

Overarching all of the following comments is a desire for a ‘‘Standard of Reasonableness’’ for implementation of the requirements of the MSA. Many of our concerns 

do not stem from the legislative language itself but from NOAA Fisheries and the 

Councils interpretation and application thereof. However, if the agency and the 

councils cannot apply a ‘‘Standard of Reasonableness’’ then Congress needs to 

amend the MSA to clarify the intent behind its various provisions. 

National Standard #1 Guidelines 

National Standard #1 states that 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. UCB strongly supports this national standard. We must prevent overfishing. We also must achieve optimum yield 

from each fishery. 

It is important to remember that the fundamental objective of fisheries conservation and management is the production of food and economic value on a long-term 

sustainable basis. This is the reason that NOAA Fisheries, the Regional Fishery 

Management Councils, and the MSA itself exist. If not, we can simply replace all 

of it with one line of federal law prohibiting commercial fishing. Such a law would 

certainly prevent overfishing. Needless to say, it would not produce optimum yield. 

National Standard #1 (NS1) is well written. Achieving optimum yield is an equal 

objective to the prevention of overfishing. Unfortunately, the Guidelines for implementation of NS1 issued by NOAA Fisheries do not allow this balanced approach. 

Under the Guidelines, overfishing is certainly prevented but optimum yield is essentially impossible to achieve. The emphasis on ending and preventing overfishing 

over the past decade has essentially resulted in ‘‘underfishing’’ in several fisheries. 

This is not consistent with NS1. 

Fisheries are now subject to a literal array of harvest targets. There is an Overfishing Limit (OFL), Allowable Biological Catch (ABC), Maximum Sustainable Yield 

(MSY), Optimum Yield (OY), Total Allowable Catch (TAC), an Annual Catch Limit 

(ACL), and a Maximum Fishing Mortality Threshold (MFMT). This array is not only 

confusing; it is often contradictory, and needlessly inefficient. 

The fisheries management process needs to recognize that Maximum Sustainable 

Yield (MSY) and Optimum Yield (OY) are long-term averages, not yearly mandates. 

The MSA needs to be amended to make this principal explicit. 

Fish don’t have calendars. Yet all of these harvest targets are applied as if they 

are annual limits when in reality several are better defined as and should be applied as long-term averages. We are not suggesting that a fishery be allowed to exceed the OFL year after year and never address the issue. Rather, we are suggesting that the targets of Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY) and Optimum Yield 

(OY) be understood as dynamic in nature, subject to fluctuation, and objectives to 

be achieved on average over the years. 

Rollovers, or overages and underages of catch targets can be and should 

be allowed to carry over from year to year so long as the prevention 

of overfishing and the long-term achievement of OY occur. 

In addition, the rigidness of ACLs is undermining improvements in fisheries 

science and fishing practices. In the North Pacific, the OFL for pollock is 2.550 mil-
21 

lion metric tons and the ACL is 1.247 million mt. Yet when the industry applies 

for an Experimental Fishing Permit (EFP) to test salmon and halibut excluders, 

NOAA Fisheries has recently determined that it cannot allow the EFP-caught fish 

to exceed the ACL. Harvesting fish under this permit is research and catch volumes 

associated with that research would not pose a risk of overfishing occurring. Furthermore, the stock assessment author counts the research removals as mortality 

so it is accounted for in the stock assessment. For years this practice was widely 

regarded as acceptable and sustainable, but recently the agency has taken a hard 

line approach and interpreted these ACLs as hard caps even when catch is nowhere 

near the overfishing level. The unfortunate and ironic result has been an unnecessary reduction in research to spur fishery innovations that would improve and advance sustainable fishing practices. 

We all recognize that there is uncertainty in fisheries science. Fishermen know 

about uncertainty all too well. We recognize that the weaker the science is to base 

fisheries management on, the more conservative such management needs to be. 

What is needed is a reasonable application of this precautionary approach. 

Under the NS1 Guidelines, the only way to address scientific uncertainty is to further reduce the allowable harvest below levels that would generate optimum yield. 

This virtually guarantees that the Magnuson-Stevens Act goal of ‘‘attaining optimum yield’’ will not be met. Such an outcome is not necessary because there are 

several other management options available to address uncertainty. 

For example, when closed areas are established for habitat protection, for bycatch 

reduction, or any similar goal they can, in certain circumstances, have the added 

effect of protecting a sub-population of a fish stock within that area. This helps ensure that the long-term goal of attaining optimum yield is achieved, and by definition is a hedge against uncertainty. However, when these types of protections are 

put in place no credit is given to their role in addressing uncertainty. The agency 

insists that catch reductions are the only viable tool for addressing uncertainty. 

Identical to the need for reasonableness and flexibility in the application of NS1 

harvest caps is the need for such when establishing rebuilding targets and timelines 

for overfished stocks. There is nothing scientific about the arbitrary ten-year rebuilding period required by the MSA. 

Let me be clear. Overfished stocks need to be rebuilt. Even if NS1 did not call 

for the prevention of overfishing, the achievement of OY itself requires overfished 

stocks to be rebuilt so that food production and economic benefits can be realized. 

There is no magic timeline, however. Instead of an arbitrary fixed rebuilding period 

of ten years, rebuilding timelines should be allowed to be established by the Regional Fishery Management Council consistent with the biology of the fish stock, the 

needs of fishing communities, and the NS1 requirements to prevent overfishing and 

achieve optimum yield on a continuing basis. 

A reasonable application of NS1 to rebuilding would not allow overfished stocks 

to remain so indefinitely. A perpetually overfished stock that is not rebuilding is 

fundamentally inconsistent with the NS1 standard of achieving OY. 

With reasonableness and flexibility, Optimum Yield itself becomes a powerful conservation mandate. Overfished stocks cannot provide OY. Ongoing overfishing undermines achieving OY on a continuous basis. Understood as the long-term production of optimum levels of food production and economic benefits from a fishery, optimum yield is essentially a call for sustainability. 

Catch Shares 

UCB firmly believes that catch shares should be available to the regional fishery 

management councils as one among many conservation and management tools. UCB 

members are very familiar with the benefits of catch share programs, participating 

in American Fisheries Act Pollock cooperative and the Alaskan crab IFQ program, 

both of which were approved by Congress, as well as the west coast groundfish catch 

share program. Our catch share programs have provided incredible conservation and 

economic benefits. For example, west coast groundfish went from a $38 million fishery before catch shares to a $54 million fishery with dramatically reduced bycatch 

and discards under catch shares. In the whiting fleet, for example, bycatch of canary 

rockfish was reduced by 79 percent, and for Pacific Ocean perch, the reduction was 

96 percent. 

As I stated in my April 2010 testimony before the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife of this Committee, catch shares should be initiated and 

driven by the participants in the fishery. The west coast groundfish catch share program was developed from the ground up with full participation of all stakeholders 

in the fishery from Southern California to Northern Washington. It was not an example of NOAA Headquarters in Washington, DC trying to impose catch shares on 

the fishery. The PFMC established a special stakeholders committee that included 
22 

a very broad membership including fishermen, processors, NGOs and community 

representatives. Out of this open process came a preferred option for an IFQ-based 

system for the shoreside fisheries and a Co-opbased system for the offshore Whiting 

fisheries. 

The MSA provides sufficient guidance to the Councils on the development and implementation of catch share programs. Additional requirements are not needed at 

this time. Within the existing framework, the Councils have the ability to develop 

catch share programs on fishery-by-fishery basis so they address the particular objectives and needs of the fishery. Important to note is under current MSA law, the 

Councils may chose not to develop catch share programs. In particular, UCB does 

not support proposals to include sunset provisions or similar catch share terminations in the MSA. Such time restrictions undermine the very utility of catch share 

programs by removing the certainty that catch shares provide fishermen. This certainty empowers fishermen to make better operational decisions resulting in improved conservation and economic outcomes. Long-term investment stability directly 

leads to improved safety-at-sea conditions for vessels. 

Multi-species catch share programs like the west coast trawl IQ program require 

proper measures to insure that hoarding of small allocations of constraining species 

do not thwart the intentions of the program. Measures such as fishermen-based risk 

pools, cooperative associations, and an emphasis on allowing fishermen to transfer 

quota during the season are important components to a well-designed catch share 

program. 

Accountability 

UCB members have long participated in federal fishery observer programs. We 

recognize the value and utility of such programs. Observers collect valuable fisheries 

data and help ensure compliance with conservation and management measures. Accountability assures sustainability but needs affordability. Observers in combination with ongoing technology advances such as electronic-monitoring systems 

(EM) are important components of good fisheries management but they need to be 

cost-effective. In the North Pacific, the industry bears the full cost of observers and 

always has. In West Coast groundfish we soon will. Other regions should do the 

same. 

Since we pay for the cost of observer programs, we are extremely sensitive to the 

costs associated with them. Such industry expenditures should be included in the 

cost recovery calculations for catch share programs. 

In most fisheries, 100% Human observer coverage is not necessary to ensure good 

data collection or compliance with regulations. A statistical subsample of fishing activity would suffice. Greater than 100% coverage is simply superfluous. For example, in the west coast groundfish trawl fishery, observers are placed on mothership 

catcher vessels even though fish never touch the deck of the vessel. These fishing 

vessels mid-water trawl for whiting, pull up the net but leave the codend in the 

water from where it is directly transferred to the mothership, where there is an observer onboard. There is literally nothing for the observers on these vessels to observe. 

We need to transition away from physically present observers to potentially more 

cost effective electronic monitoring systems. Electronic Monitoring might not be potentially more cost effective because some NOAA Fisheries personnel want to design 

and implement EM systems that collect all conceivable forms of data. They are designing Cadillacs when all we need are reliable Chevys. Such elaborate EM systems 

will reduce if not eliminate the potential cost savings. Electronic monitoring systems 

should be designed and implemented in response to a specific problem statement 

that clearly identifies the data needed to ensure accountability. For example, in a 

full retention fishery an EM system that can identify the species of fish being discarded is superfluous since any discard is a violation of the fishery management 

plan. A high-tech camera is not needed to discern if a discard event has occurred. 

Finally, commercial fishermen are not the only fishery participants that need to 

be held accountable. In many fisheries, charter and recreational fishing activities 

and harvest have a dramatic impact on fish stocks. These catches and their compliance with conservation and management measures need to be held much more accountable than is current practice. Tools such as VMS, AIS, check-in/check-out requirements, logbook accounting and perhaps observer coverage should be considered. 

State-Federal FMP Coordination & Consistency 

As you know, the MSA governs fisheries outside of state waters and inside the 

U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Of course, fish do not recognize these boundaries. Many fish stocks managed under the MSA are also managed by various 
23 

States within their waters. In some cases, the State management plans can be contradictory or even undermine the conservation and management objectives of the 

federal FMP. Uncontrolled fishing effort within state waters can lead to the overcapitalization of a federally rationalized fishery. Effective coordination between state 

and federal fishery managers is required. For example, the Bering Sea crab fisheries 

are jointly managed under a ‘framework’ arrangement between the State of Alaska 

and the federal government. This agreement clearly details the jurisdiction, authority and responsibility of each government and the result is a successful management 

program that governs stock assessment, effort control, harvest record keeping and 

also a newly established catch share program for the crab industry. 

UCB believes State fishery management plans for stocks of fish predominantly 

managed by the federal regional fishery management councils should be subject to 

review and approval by the Secretary of Commerce for compatibility with the federal FMP. States should be required to meet or exceed the conservation and management standards of the federal FMP. States that have no fisheries management 

for a federally managed stock should be required to develop one or have the federal 

FMP reach into state waters. 

UCB also believes that went a designated fish stock is fully utilized by a developed fishery and the federal management of such fishery is well defined, the states 

should not be allowed to establish a new fishery that utilizes the same fish stock. 

This leads to ‘leakage’ in management and can result in overfishing of the fish stock 

or overcapitalization of the fishing fleet. One stock of concern we have in Alaska 

is Pacific Cod. 

Bycatch 

National Standard #9 requires bycatch and the mortality thereof to be minimized 

to the extent practicable. In many cases this is more of an allocation issue than a 

conservation issues. 

Nonetheless, UCB supports the principal of minimizing bycatch. Again, however, 

a standard of reasonableness needs to be applied. In the North Pacific, many bycatch limits are set as hard numerical caps that have no relationship to natural variability of the fish stock. When stocks are low, the numerical cap may provide very 

little benefit. When stocks are high, the cap may be overly constraining and if exceeded may have little or no impact on stock. UCB supports proper bycatch management programs in order to insure the conservation of all fish stocks. However, these 

measures need to be reasonable and also allow input into the design and management by fishermen. 

Cooperative Management 

As previously mentioned, UCB believes strongly in science-based fisheries management. We recognize that the better the data the more robust the fisheries management. There are many instances were industry supports the collection of fisheries data: industry-funded observers, industry-funded surveys, Experimental Fishing Permits, and industry-charter work for fisheries scientists. We believe such cooperative work should be incentivized and encouraged. The costs of such activities 

should be included as a credit when calculating cost recovery for catch share programs. Retention of catch and the calculation of such outside of ACLs should also 

be allowed. UCB has been on the forefront of cooperative management with the federal fishery managers. Examples of our efforts include the development of a salmon 

excluder for the mid-water pollock trawl fleet, funding and deploying trawl catcher 

vessels to assist in stock assessment survey work, and the collaboration of fishery 

data for federal and state research scientists. This is one area of focus that needs 

further development and can lead to cost savings for the federal government. 

Conclusion 

UCB believes the MSA is a strong and largely well-crafted and implemented piece 

of legislation with a proud history of 40 years of fishery governance. With changes 

to the law to address the issues outlined in this testimony, we believe it will ensure 

robust and sustainable U.S. fisheries that help feed the nation and promote economic stability for decades to come. As the Congress once again proceeds with its 

work to reauthorize the MSA, we look forward to the opportunity to provide meaningful ideas and suggestions for you to consider. Stakeholder participation is one of 

the founding principles of the original Magnuson Act and has proven to be useful 

over the past 4 decades of fishery management. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Dooley. 
24 

Next I will recognize Mr. John Pappalardo, Chief Executive Officer of the Cape Code Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association. 

Mr. Pappalardo, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN PAPPALARDO, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, CAPE COD COMMERCIAL HOOK FISHERMEN’S 

ASSOCIATION 

Mr. PAPPALARDO. Thank you, Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey, members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity today. My name is John Pappalardo, and I am CEO of the 

Cape Code Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association, an organization started over 20 years ago by local small-boat independent fishermen. Our members catch around 12 million pounds of seafood, 

annually, worth $17 million. Between 2002 and 2011, I also served 

on the New England Fishery Management Council, with the last 

5 years as its Chairman. 

While many look to New England and see the failure of our codfish fishery, I think it is important to remember to look at our successes, as well. I think about scallops, monkfish, and dogfish when 

I think about our successes. It is important to note that these successes were accomplished through the Magnuson-Stevens Act that 

we have today. 

We think the law is working, but we think it needs improvement 

in implementation. We must move forward to rebuild and maintain 

our fish stocks by providing managers and the fishing industry 

with data and resources necessary to run our fisheries with annual 

catch limits. I have ideas on how to do that, and I would be happy 

to answer questions afterwards about that. 

While the law set a tall order with annual catch limits, we think 

it is the right one. We think it can work. And we think it is the 

only way forward. We must make a commitment to providing our 

communities with innovative ways to create a fishing future, and 

make existing programs currently available to other industries in 

the United States also available to the fishing industry. 

We need to start managing our marine ecosystem as the dynamic 

and interwoven environment that it is. While annual catch limits 

are the cornerstone of Magnuson-Stevens, they also demand annual 

stock assessments. And annual stock assessments are resource and 

data-hungry—we think the industry needs to be engaged and involved in creating those annual stock assessments. We currently 

don’t have annual stock assessments to set annual catch limits. We 

think that is a problem. 

Real-time data and accountability are also important, if we are 

going to manage our fisheries sustainably. Comprehensive observer 

coverage and information about the fish brought on board are a necessity for managers. But, unfortunately, our fishing industry can’t 

afford to pay for these observers at this time. But we need that information if we are going to take delivery on the promise of Magnuson-Stevens. 

So, we think better, faster, and cheaper information is something 

that managers need, and we think the current system isn’t delivering that, at least in New England. So we believe we should start 

to look for public and private partnerships to fill the gaps that currently exist. 
25 

Our communities in New England need support. The challenges 

we are facing are very real. It isn’t enough to be a good hunter of 

fish. Fishermen today need to be sophisticated businessmen to 

navigate all the regulations and requirements. My organization 

started a community permit bank in 2005 to provide diversity of 

access to fishing opportunities for fishermen on Cape Cod. We keep 

seafood landed in our communities, and we provide good, stable, 

crew jobs and opportunities for fishermen to access resources that 

they otherwise wouldn’t have access to. 

I work with fishermen every day. They spend their lives on the 

water. Not a week goes by without one of these guys coming into 

my office and telling me how important it is to manage the ocean, 

while considering how all species interact. From herring to cod and 

from skate to seal. They talk about how the increased abundance 

of one stock can directly impact another, and about how important 

the improved protection of critical habitat is for some of our most 

depleted and important resources, such as codfish. 

While they never use the words ‘‘ecosystem-based management,’’ 

that is what they are talking about. That is the approach that their 

lifetime of experience on the water tells them is essential. And I 

think it is time we moved in that direction when we manage our 

fisheries. 

In conclusion, we must move forward to rebuild our fish stocks 

and keep them there. We need to expand accountability, improve 

our annual stock assessments, and come up with innovative and 

cost-effective programs for gathering real-time information. We 

must make a commitment to providing our communities with the 

tools to invest in the future of their fishing economies. And we need 

to manage the entire ecosystem. 

Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pappalardo follows:] 

Statement of John Pappalardo, Chief Executive Officer, 

Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association 

Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey and Members of the Committee, 

my name is John Pappalardo. I am the CEO of the Cape Cod Commercial Hook 

Fishermen’s Association (CCCHFA), an organization started over 20 years ago by 

independent small-boat fishermen on Cape Cod. We work with over 100 commercial 

fishing businesses catching 12 million pounds of seafood worth $17 million each 

year, including cod and haddock, lobster, conch, scallops, monkfish, dogfish, skates, 

sea clams, striped bass and bluefin tuna. These businesses support hundreds of fishing families and form the backbone of our area’s coastal economy. Between 2002 and 

2011, I served on the New England Fishery Management Council, including five 

years as Chairman. 

The 2006 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act was a wise step forward 

in fortifying our nation’s fisheries laws by mandating better understanding of our 

marine resources, rebuilding depleted fish stocks, and holding fishermen accountable for their catch. 

I support that law because I see evidence of rebuilding fish populations and restoring profitable small fishing businesses. I see noteworthy success stories on Cape 

Cod and around the nation. While many look to New England and see the failures 

of the codfish industry, I choose to look to successes such as the scallop, dogfish and 

monkfish fisheries. 

We can improve Magnuson-Stevens. In my comments, I will make a series of recommendations on how we can further improve implementation of the law to help 

ensure continued growth for small fishing businesses in my community and around 

the nation. 
26 

An End to Overfishing 

The cornerstone of our management under Magnuson is the commitment to setting annual catch limits; this truly is the only way forward. However, annual catch 

limits demand annual stock assessments. We cannot end overfishing without better, 

more reliable, real-time information and timely stock assessments. 

The value of industry-supported annual assessments is obvious when comparing 

the responses of New England’s scallop and groundfish fisheries to significant reductions in available harvest this year. 

The Atlantic sea scallop fishery, with annual assessments based on three independent surveys including two that are industry-based, faced their 30% quota reduction by acknowledging their confidence and support in the science. While painful, 

industry accepted quota cuts as necessary for the continued sustainability of their 

fishery. 

The groundfish fishery consists of 17 different stocks with quotas generally set 

every three years based almost entirely on a single government trawl-survey with 

no industry participation and little industry confidence. Many of these assessments 

show persistent and troubling signs of inaccurate catch information among other 

problems. The groundfish fishery largely responded to the announcement of significant reductions in a number of key stocks by following a time-honored regional tradition of questioning the science and challenging the cuts. 

It’s important to remember that all wild populations will experience occasional 

downturns, even when well managed. However, without timely and accurate information and industry buy-in to the process, our Science Centers spend more time 

and money defending their assessments than improving them. This has to change 

if we are going to create an environment for small fishing businesses to thrive. 

But annual assessments alone will not give us the tools we need to take the next 

step. We also need to improve the quality and timeliness of the data, particularly 

the catch information that feeds into our stock assessments. Unless we have better 

catch information, our fishing businesses will continue to be hamstrung by unpredictable, fluctuating quotas that are often misaligned with the reality of the resource in the water. 

Therefore, we must rethink how we collect fisheries dependent catch information. 

We need to do it better, faster and cheaper and that means changing how we approach the problem and how we utilize the private sector to solve it. 

Almost a decade ago, Cape Cod fishermen volunteered to pilot electronic monitoring systems to provide a safer, more efficient and cost-effective alternative to 

human observers. Yet, despite all the time and resources we put into proving the 

viability of cameras in New England fisheries, we do not appear any closer to implementation. Meanwhile fishermen from almost every region are facing the reality of 

having to pay an ever-rising portion of the monitoring cost. 

Our small businesses cannot afford not to have comprehensive coverage and realtime accountability, but they also cannot afford to pay for a bloated and costly observer program to deliver catch information. We need to move forward with innovative solutions that rely on the efficiencies and strengths of the private sector to solve 

these problems. This is why last year our organization supported former Congressman Barney Frank’s bill, H.R. 4208, which proposed reforming the S–K grant program. S–K funds can and should be used to provide much needed resources to the 

regions for these kinds of important improvements in monitoring and stock assessments. 

Building Stronger Businesses and Fishing Communities 

We must do even more to protect and strengthen our fishing communities under 

a system of annual catch limits and accountability. I was on the front lines in New 

England when we tried to rebuild fish stocks without annual accountability. That 

effort thoroughly failed to protect fish stocks or to serve the small fishing businesses 

built on them. Watering down the conservation mandates of this law will not help 

a single small business grow for the future. 

If we want to have strong businesses in a fishery managed by annual limits then 

I’m convinced, that we will need to utilize catch shares. It’s the only way forward 

that I can see to stabilize our fisheries, build profitable small fishing businesses and 

harvest all of the quota recommended by our scientists. Now, I have also realized 

that catch shares, while an important part of better management, can have unintended consequences on our fishing communities, causing consolidation and community dislocation. These are challenges that we must prepare to address in all of our 

nation’s fisheries. 

So the question is, ‘‘How do we make this transition while building stronger ports, 

stronger businesses?’’ 
27 

We need to build resilience through securing diverse fisheries access at the business and port level. For centuries small boat fishermen in New England weathered 

downturns in a given fishery by maintaining access to other harvesting opportunities. When groundfish were less abundant, many fishermen would re-rig to target 

scallops or lobster; this allowed small fishing businesses to adapt, adjust and grow. 

However, too often allocation decisions and rising costs of fishing permits/quota are 

forcing our small boat fishermen to specialize in order to remain in a fishery. 

We need to counter this trend and support the continued diversity of access that’s 

essential for strong businesses and ports. To do this, we need innovative financing 

programs to support initiatives like community permit banks and fisheries trusts 

which allow communities to buy permits, maintain permanent fisheries access, and 

provide affordable opportunities for local fishermen. 

My organization saw the need to build this type of program over five years ago 

as we saw the threat of permits being sold out of our communities and our fisheries 

diminished. Through the Cape Cod Fisheries Trust, we’ve helped dozens of local 

scallop, groundfish and sea clam fishermen gain access to additional fishing opportunities, ensured that seafood was landed in our local ports and that those fishing 

businesses provided stable, good-paying crew jobs for Cape Codders. 

Through this program we’ve also provided business training and development, reinvested in fishermen-driven research, and have worked to identify, support and encourage the next generation of captains in our industry. It is not enough to simply 

be a good hunter of fish. Today’s commercial fisheries demand that captains also 

be sophisticated businessmen. We must invest now in developing the next generation, ready to succeed in this new industry. 

This community-based model can work in ports throughout the country, but it 

must be supported. We must invest in these economic engines through cross-agency 

collaborations and microfinancing programs. 

Market Support and Seafood Fraud 

Our fisheries need more than robust fish stocks and fisheries access to succeed; 

they need stable markets and transparent distribution pathways to ensure a fair 

price. Recent media investigations have confirmed what those of us connected to 

wild harvest fisheries have long known, rampant seafood mislabeling is undermining our small fishing businesses as well as the health and safety of American 

consumers who are too often unknowingly dining on foreign substitutes after ordering a domestic seafood entre ́e. 

We must begin to stamp out seafood fraud and bring more transparency to the 

supply chain by passing Congressman Markey’s Seafood Fraud legislation. 

But we must also take steps to develop and strengthen domestic markets for underutilized stocks, like dogfish and skates which are abundant but are currently exported as high-volume/low-value products to European markets. While we rebuild 

other stocks, our small businesses must be able to adapt to harvest these stocks 

profitably and sustainably. 

As a country, we have invested and worked to stabilize markets for our nation’s 

agricultural products; and we must take a similar approach with our domestic fisheries. Our robust fish stocks represent a critical source of affordable and sustainable 

protein that we should be using to feed our soldiers, schoolkids and those relying 

on federal food programs. This is the ultimate win-win and we must pursue this 

kind of solution. 

Ecosystem-based Fisheries Management 

The final topic I would like to discuss is what people refer to as Ecosystem-based 

Management. I work with fishermen who have spent their lives on the water. Not 

a week goes by without one of these fishermen telling me how important it is to 

manage the ocean while considering how the species interact, how the increased 

abundance of one stock can directly impact another, how important the improved 

protection of critical habitat is to some of our most depleted and important stocks, 

like codfish. They never use the words, Ecosystem-based Management, but that’s 

what they’re talking about, that’s the approach that their lifetime of experience on 

the water tells them is essential. 

They recognize that we will never be able to rebuild New England’s flagship cod 

populations without a robust forage base of herring and mackerel for those fish to 

feed on. We need to be more conservative with the commercial harvest of these forage stocks, since the consequences of even small declines in these populations ripple 

across our ecosystems and fisheries. 

Not long ago, seeing a grey seal was a rare occurrence. Now, we motor past miles 

of breeding grey seals on the beach on our way out to the fishing grounds and routinely pull up seal-eaten cod and haddock on our hooks and in our nets. We recog-
28 

nize the need to have healthy marine mammal populations but we cannot pretend 

to manage an ocean ecosystem while refusing to manage top-order predators like 

seals. 

This isn’t an easy conversation, but we need to have it if we’re going to strengthen 

our small fishing businesses and better manage our oceans. 

Conclusion 

We can and must do more to build strong, resilient, and profitable fisheries and 

fishing ports. To do it, we have to resist the temptation to go back to our old ways 

of mortgaging the future of our fisheries by allowing short-term overharvesting. 

That’s liquidating our fisheries, not investing in them. 

Instead, we must move forward to rebuild our fish stocks, through expanded accountability, improved annual stock assessments, innovative and cost-effective programs for gathering real-time catch information. We must make a commitment to 

providing our communities with the tools to invest in the future of their fishing 

economies and managing the entire ecosystem. 

There are certainly challenges ahead, but I remain confident that we can build 

stronger fisheries and profitable small fishing businesses. 

Thank you, I’d be happy to answer any questions you have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Pappalardo. Next I 

will recognize Captain Keith Logan, Charterboat Captain out of 

Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. 

Captain Logan, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KEITH LOGAN, CHARTERBOAT CAPTAIN, 

MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA 

Mr. LOGAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my 

name is Captain Keith Logan from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. 

I have over 35 years of fishing experience in the South Atlantic as 

a charterboat captain, as a commercial fisherman. I appreciate the 

opportunity to testify before you today in the reauthorization of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 

2006. 

I am seeking your immediate help in reauthorization of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act of 2006 to add flexibility, access, and a 

sound science approach to sustainability. 

Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish 

and the government will say he is overfishing, shut him down. This 

is what the 2006 reauthorization of the MSA is doing to us, the 

fishermen, here in the United States. The annual catch limits, accountability measures that the environmental groups helped put 

into the MSA on the eleventh hour of 2006 are causing an irreparable economical damaging impact to our coastal communities. 

The 2006 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is clearly 

evidence of the hijacking of our fisheries management by the environmental groups. Enclosed is a screen shot from EDF’s website, 

where it shows where they were boasting about their oceans team 

being instrumental in crafting and passing the changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Once this was made public, and pointed out the 

possible undue influence by EDF, they wiped their site clean of the 

verbiage. I have a screen shot included in your package of it. 

The effects of the annual catch limits and the accountability 

measures in the MSA placed on the fishermen in the South Atlantic by NOAA, National Marine Fisheries, and the South Atlantic 

Fisheries Management Council are having detrimental irreparable 

economical consequences on the fishermen of the Grand Strand, 

Horry County, South Carolina and the whole South Atlantic. This 
29 

does not only affect the fishermen of South Carolina, it is having 

an economic impact on the gas stations, marinas, tackle stores, golf 

courses, restaurants, grocery stores, motels, hotels, resorts, and 

rental properties. Because recreational fishermen, charter/head 

boat captains, and commercial fishermen are not fishing because of 

the MSA. Industries that provide a service were no longer doing 

business with those guys, because we can’t afford to. We are not 

fishing. 

All this being done is with bad data collected through the Marine 

Recreational Fishing Statistics Survey, called MRFSS. NCR Chairman, Dr. Patrick Sullivan, referred to MRFSS data as ‘‘fatally 

flawed.’’ 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act must be changed to add flexibility 

and access for the fishermen. We need legislation to provide flexibility and rebuilding of our fisheries. If certain conditions are met 

using a sound science approach for fishery management instead of 

the current very low standards, and best available science. Additionally, it must address annual catch limits and accountability 

measures and the rigidity of the SSC. 

The goal should be to keep fresh fish on American tables and 

caught by American fishermen using common sense management 

and accurate science and data. As I have stated, the MagnusonStevens Act has been manipulated to further interest special interest groups at the sacrifice of the local economy and fishermen. 

I am seeking your immediate help in the reauthorization of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act of 2006 to add flexibility, access, and sustainability in order to stop the attack on our fishing industry. We, 

the recreational fishermen, charter/head boat captains, and commercial fishermen are the endangered species, we are. We are 

being put out of work every day. 

Mr. Chairman, thanks again for hearing me and letting me finish my say. For us, we are going out of business because of a broken law, bad science. Please don’t wait for a full reauthorization to 

get us back in business and on track. We need help right now, 

today. Thank you. Captain Keith Logan. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Logan follows:] 

Statement of Captain Keith Logan, Charter Boat Captain, 

Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 

Thank you for allowing me to speak. I am Captain Keith Logan, a charter boat 

captain from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. 

Give a man a fish he will eat for a day, teach him how to fish and the government 

will say he’s overfishing and shut him down! This is what the 2006 reauthorization 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is doing to the 

fishermen. The Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures the environmental groups had put into the MSA, at the 11th hour in 2006, are causing irreparable economic damage to our coastal communities. The 2006 Reauthorization of 

Magnuson is clearly evidence of the hijacking of our fisheries management by environmental groups. Enclosed is a screen shot from an EDF website where it shows 

where they were boasting about their ‘‘Oceans Team being instrumental in 

CRAFTING and PASSING the changes to the Magnuson . . .’’ Once this website 

was made public and pointed out that this was possibly undue influence, they (the 

EDF) wiped their site clean of such verbiage. 

I am seeking your immediate help in the Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act of 2006 to add Flexibility, Access, and a Sound Science Approach to 

Sustainability. 

The effect of the Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and the Accountability Measures 

(AMs) in the MSA placed on the fishermen of the South Atlantic by NOAA, NMFS, 
30 

and the SAFMC, are having detrimental and irreparable economic consequences on 

the Fisherman of the Grand Strand, Horry County, South Carolina and the whole 

South Atlantic. This does not only affect the fishermen of South Carolina, It is having an economic impact on the gas stations, marinas, tackle stores, golf courses, restaurants, grocery stores, motels, hotels, resorts, and rental properties. Because recreational fishermen, charter/head boat captains, and commercial fishermen are not 

fishing because of the MSA, they are not buying supplies and services that other 

industries provide, nor do they have the money in order to live. The tourists are 

not coming to the area to play golf and go fishing, because they cannot keep fish 

to eat. 

The closure of Black Sea Bass has result in the complete shutdown of the Charter/ 

Head Boat fleet for five (5) months out of the year. The loss of employment for those 

people of the fleet has been catastrophic. This is totally unacceptable. We want to 

work, but the Federal Government is putting us out of work! According to the North 

Myrtle Beach and Myrtle Beach Chamber of Commerce, the number one request 

from tourist vacationing in the Grand Strand is for Charter/Head Boat fishing information. Given this fact, the economic loss has included tourism dollars, tax revenues, and additional people to the ranks of the unemployed in South Carolina. 

The effect on my charter business has been very hard over the last four years. 

On October 17, 2012, the Black Sea Bass closed due to meeting the ACL. For the 

remainder of 2011, 2012 I lost twenty-one (21) charters in October, twenty-four (24) 

charters in November, and eighteen (18) charters in December. This resulted in a 

loss of $56,700.00, in gross revenues and 63 charters. As the Black Sea Bass season 

remained closed until June 1, 2012, my business continued to suffer catastrophic 

losses. I lost sixteen (16) charters in January, seven (7) charters in February, fifteen 

(15) charters in March, nineteen (19) charters in April, and seventeen (17) charters 

in May. This resulted in a loss of $66,600.00, gross revenue and a total of seventyfour (74) charters. For the eight (8) months I was prohibited from catching and retaining Black Sea Bass, I lost $123,300.00, in gross revenues. While I was unable 

to work, I was not buying fuel, bait, or tackle. 

To date, for 2013, I have lost twenty-nine (29) charters and gross revenues of 

$26,100.00. Additionally, I have not purchased fuel, bait, or tackle. Based on the 

above numbers, I am projecting a total loss of gross revenue of $150,00.00, during 

this year’s closures from October 2012, through June 1, 2013. This does not include 

the loss to the local economy six tourists would provide during their stay while fishing. My customers traditionally travel to the Grand Strand, play golf, and do a half 

day fishing charter. This may not sound like a lot of money, but it is to me. As I 

have stated, this economic impact does not include the fact I did not buy fuel, bait, 

ice, tackle, or spend any money on eating. Also, this figure doesn’t include monies 

lost to gas stations, golf courses, restaurants, grocery stores, motels, hotels, resorts, 

and rental properties because my clients did not come to the Grand Strand area to 

go fishing. 

How am I going to pay my mortgage, boat payment, truck payment, phone, electric, grocery, insurance, and boat slip if the keeps on going on? I don’t know. Remember, this number is only for me; it does not include the other 152 charter/head 

boat captains of the Grand Strand and 512 charter/Headboats in South Carolina. 

If only half of 512 charter/head boat captains are in the same boat that I’m in, then 

it’s a minimum of $38,400,000.00 dollars lost to South Carolina’s economy. Now add 

all the charter/head boat captains in southeastern United States, and all the customers no longer traveling to the coastal areas to participate in fishing, and commercial fishermen blocked from plying their trade; the economic impact is hundreds 

of millions of dollars! Now, consider the money the recreational fishermen would 

spend. This monetary loss will affect marinas, fuel dealers, marine supply stores, 

boat service centers, and tackle stores. Add another hundred million plus dollars of 

economic loss. 

What needs to be done? The Magnuson-Stevens Act needs to be reworked to add 

flexibility, access, a sound science approach to sustainability; not be designed as it 

is now, resulting in overly aggressive closures of perfectly healthy fisheries without 

good data to back it up. 

The Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and Accountability Measures (AMs) are being 

based and established with old data and ‘‘Best Available Science’’, per NOAA and 

NMFS. This has to stop! NOAA must start utilizing data obtained through a ‘‘Sound 

Science Approach’’. This must include a study of biology, social and economic impact 

analyses, habitat evaluations, and ecosystem management issues. Fisheries must be 

open year round in order to avoid severe economic impacts. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act must be changed to add Flexibility, Access and Sustainability. 
31 

We need legislation to provide for flexibility in rebuilding fisheries if certain conditions are met and using a ‘‘Sound Science Approach’’ for fisheries management instead of the current very low standard of ‘‘best available science.’’ Additionally, it 

must address ACL’s (‘‘Annual Catch Limits’’); AM’s (‘‘Accountability Measures’’); and 

the rigidity in the SSC (‘‘Scientific and Statistical Committee’’). The goal should be 

to keep fresh fish on American tables and caught by American fisherman using common sense management based on accurate scientific data. The recreational marine 

fishery is worth over $1.5 billion a year in South Carolina, and commercial marine 

fishing and local seafood is also highly important to our state’s growing tourism industry and the rest of our economy. 

Flexibility in rebuilding fisheries that are experiencing legal ‘‘overfishing’’ must be 

added as follows. Amend Section 304(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(4)) 

(1) in paragraph (4)(A)— 

(A) in clause (i) by striking ‘possible’ and inserting ‘practicable’; and 

(B) by amending clause (ii) to read as follows: 

‘(ii) not exceed 10 years, except in cases where— 

‘(I) the biology of the stock of fish, other environmental conditions, or management 

measures under an international agreement in which the United States participates 

dictate otherwise; 

‘(II) the Secretary determines that such 10-year period should be extended because the cause of the fishery decline is outside the jurisdiction of the Council or 

the rebuilding program cannot be effective only by limiting fishing activities; 

‘(III) the Secretary determines that such 10-year period should be extended to provide for the sustained participation of fishing communities or to minimize the economic impacts on such communities, provided that there is evidence that the stock 

of fish is on a positive rebuilding trend; 

‘(IV) the Secretary determines that such 10-year period should be extended for one 

or more stocks of fish of a multi-species fishery, provided that there is evidence that 

those stocks are on a positive rebuilding trend; 

‘(V) the Secretary determines that such 10-year period should be extended because 

of a substantial change to the biomass rebuilding target for the stock of fish concerned after the rebuilding plan has taken effect; or 

‘(VI) the Secretary determines that such 10-year period should be extended because the biomass rebuilding target exceeds the highest abundance of the stock of 

fish in the 25-year period preceding and there is evidence that the stock is on a positive rebuilding trend;’ or 

(2) in paragraph (7), in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting after 

the first sentence the following: ‘In evaluating progress to end overfishing and to 

rebuild overfished stocks of fish, the Secretary shall review factors, other than commercial fishing and recreational fishing, that may contribute to a stock of fish’s 

overfished status, such as commercial, residential, and industrial development of, or 

agricultural activity in, coastal areas and their impact on the marine environment, 

predator/prey relationships of target and related species, and other environmental 

and ecological changes to the marine conditions;’ and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘(8) If the Secretary determines that extended rebuilding time is warranted under 

sub clause (III), (IV), (V), or (VI) of paragraph (4)(A)(ii), the maximum time allowed 

for rebuilding the stock of fish concerned may not exceed the sum of the following 

time periods: 

‘(A) The initial 10-year rebuilding period. 

‘(B) The expected time to rebuild the stock absent any fishing mortality and under 

prevailing environmental conditions. 

‘(C) The mean generation time of the stock. 

‘(9) In this subsection the term ‘on a positive rebuilding trend’ means that the biomass of the stock of fish has shown a substantial increase in abundance since the 

implementation of the rebuilding plan.’ 

Sound Science Approach. 

1. The ‘‘Precautionary Approach’’, also known as the ‘‘Precautionary Principle’’, 

needs to be eliminated from Magnuson-Stevens and a ‘‘Sound Science Approach’’ 

needs to be inserted! 

The ‘‘Precautionary Approach’’ was incorporated into the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

as ‘‘Risk Adverse Management’’, where no empirical scientific evidence of any problem is necessary to precipitate action. 

Presently, action can be initiated based on a hypothesis developed through subjective opinion and not based on objective scientific data. 
32 

2. The term, ‘‘Best Available Science’’, should be removed from the Magnuson-Stevens Act and replaced with ‘‘Sound Scientific Process or Science’’ in order to improve 

crucial decision making! 

Negative Results: 

‘‘Best Available Science’’ has been defined and applied to any resource, or environmental issues, to facilitate fully informed decisions; however, for this to occur, it is 

essential scientists, policymakers, and the public be aware of the prejudices affecting the development and limitations of science and its implementation. When actions by federal agencies are challenged in federal court, the courts always defer to 

the agency’s decision on ‘‘best available science.’’ The agency gets a free pass to use 

worst case scenario models despite evidence showing these models are not consistent 

with reality and in fact impossible biologically. 

Positive Results: 

The results of a ‘‘Sound Scientific Process’’ need not be infallible to be the best 

available. Scientific information and the conclusions it supports will always be subject to multiple interpretations; but, greater transparency in the process will go far 

in addressing skepticism and averting controversy. High-quality science adheres to 

a well-established scientific process. The soundness of any science is enhanced if the 

associated values, assumptions, and uncertainties are clearly explained. 

3. The MRFSS ‘‘Marine Recreational Fishing Statistical Survey’’ Data is ‘‘very 

poor’’ according to NMFS. This is the data used to set the ACL and AM that are 

in the Magnuson that are closing our fisheries down. 

In the January/February 2011 Big Game Fishing Journal, an article written by 

Jim Hutchinson, Jr., covered in great depth the MRFSS program and the legal requirements, as mandated by the Congress, the NMFS has failed to implement since 

2009. 

Quoting information from this article, ‘‘Marine Recreational Fishing Statistical 

Survey (MRFSS), National Academy of Sciences and their National Research Council (NRC) completed a study in 2006 and concluded both telephone survey and the 

onsite access components of the current monitoring systems have serious flaws in 

design or implementation.’’ NCR chairman, Dr. Patrick Sullivan referred to 

(MRFSS) data collection as ‘‘fatally flawed’’. MRFSS was supposed to be replaced 

by Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP). By law, MRIP was supposed 

to be implemented no later than January 2009. Magnuson contains a very clear set 

of guidelines for NMFS to address the data deficiencies. Federal law also clearly required that MRFSS be replaced by MRIP as of 2009. NMFS has failed to uphold 

their requirements under law, as the current Administration is fast-tracking catch 

share programs and fisheries closures to address other requirements related to Magnuson which hurt our industry. And again, the MRFSS has been allowed to dictate 

management decisions since Magnuson-Stevens gives it legal protection from challenge—NMFS deems it ‘‘best available science! 

4. A scientific approach based on accurate data collection with a 10% rate of error 

must be implemented. The MRFSS data currently used is flawed 21% to 33%. A test 

with 67% of the answers correct in any college is a failing grade. 

Scientific and Statistical Committee. 

1. Studies must be conducted addressing the biological, social, economic, and environmental impacts. 

2. Members of the committee must be composed of leading scientists in biology, 

economics, statistics, and social science, without any ties to extremist, special interest environmental groups. Additionally, members must include Commercial and 

Recreational fisherman and Charter/Head boat captains who most closely understand these resources from their frequent and lifelong activities within the fisheries. 

3. The Committee must meet at least four (4) times a year to address a broad 

range of topics, including stock assessments, management action evaluations, social 

and economic impact analyses, habitat evaluations, and ecosystem management 

issues. SSC members must also play a key role in developing stock assessments for 

Council managed resources through participation in SEDAR, the Southeast Data, 

Assessment, and Review program. 

ACL ‘‘Annual Catch Limits’’. 

1. ACL’s must be set utilizing data obtained through a Sound Science Approach. 

They must include a study of biology, social and economic impact analyses, habitat 

evaluations, and ecosystem management issues. Fisheries must be open year round 

in order to avoid severe economic impacts. 

2. Recreational ACL’s must be set to allow an average fishing year remain open 

year round. 
33 

3. If reductions in the bag limits are needed to keep a fishery open year round, 

it needs to be addressed prior to the ACL being set. A method needs to be developed 

in order to reduce bag limits when 50% of the ACL meet and, again, at 75% of the 

ACL. 

AM ‘‘Accountability Measure’’. 

1. AM’s shall not include Catch Shares. Catch Shares are not provided within the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

2. If reductions in the bag limits are needed to keep a fishery open year round, 

it needs to be addressed prior to the ACL being set. A method needs to be developed 

in order to reduce bag limits when 50% of the ACL meet and, again, at 75% of the 

ACL. 

3. AM’s must be set with a Sound Science Approach. They must include a study 

of biology, social and economic impact analyses, habitat evaluations, and ecosystem 

management issues. Fisheries must be open year round in order to avoid severe economic impacts. 

4. AM’s make business planning and budgeting impossible. We are notified of 

what appears to be a perfectly healthy fishery being closed down, and we have no 

due process or no input on the matter. NMFS simply makes the decision to enact 

an AM in the middle of our fishing season, and there is nothing we can do about 

it. 

Implementation of ACLs and AMs 

1) When Congress mandated hard time limits to end overfishing, they assumed 

that NOAA Fisheries would have already complied with the mandate that they improve the data collection system FIRST, thus having the necessary information required to make informed decisions regarding setting viable ACLs and AMs. Unfortunately, NOAA Fisheries has opted to defy Congressional ‘‘Will’’ by refusing to improve the data collection system by the January 1, 2009, deadline and instead spend 

hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars promoting the implementation of Catch 

Shares without having the necessary, required data to do so. THIS IS, IN MY 

EYES, AN OPEN ACT OF CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS AND THOSE RESPONSIBLE NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. 

2) Additionally, while testifying at a Senate Commerce Committee subcommittee 

hearing a few years ago, Jane Lubchenco, in answer to a question from Rep. Barney 

Frank, conceded there was no scientific basis for the 10 years given to rebuild overfished stocks, but demurred when then asked if she would support legislation to 

write flexibility into Magnuson. Clearly, science has taken a back seat to ideology 

with this administration—THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED NOW. Open, transparent science process needs to be at the forefront of this management regimen, and 

providing flexibility in the overfishing deadlines is paramount in importance, here, 

now. 

3) It may be more cost effective and create a non-biased, scientific based fisheries 

management plan by defunding NMFS immediately and move our fisheries management to the state level, only in the Gulf and the Atlantic. NMFS themselves proved 

the point that it needs to be regulated state by state with their recent emergency 

rule implemented at the most recent Gulf Council meeting as well as the recent 

total closures in the Atlantic. The states can perform their own stock assessments, 

as well as implement their own ACLs and AMs to ensure that overfishing does not 

occur. In addition, the states should also be able to determine the allocation between 

recreational and commercial fishing in their own region. The states can be overseen 

by the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission as well as the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council. 

Catch Shares are not about conservation. They are about MONEY and CONTROL. No one person, or entity, owns the fish in the oceans. 

A. A ‘‘Catch Share’’ is an exclusive right, and guarantee, granting whoever owns 

the catch share, the right to harvest a certain percentage of the total allowable 

catch of a particular species of marine life. 

B. Catch Shares will put the small, one boat fishermen out of work. It will allow 

the large corporations owning the fish houses and multiple boat operators to continue fishing while the rest of us are sitting at the dock starving. If the smaller fishermen wish to continue plying their trade, they will have to ‘‘lease’’ a portion of the 

larger operators share. Catch Shares accomplish nothing except to allow an elite few 

to profit off the backs of many, by providing the elite the ‘‘right to own’’ a natural 

resource provided for all by God. 

C. Catch Shares are NOT GOOD for recreational fishing, commercial fishing, or 

charter fishing. They will substantially increase the costs of fishing, to the point 

many will not being able to fish anymore. This natural resource belongs to all peo-
34 

ple, not just a few of the most wealthy. In the end, these ‘‘Individual Fishing 

Quotas’’ (IFQ’s) catch share programs, are going to be detrimental to fishermen, ecosystems and consumers. 

D. Catch Shares, or Individual Fishing Quotas, provide a method for a select few 

to own, control, and prevent the average person from utilizing a natural resource 

owned by no one. So what does this mean for you and me? We will have a world 

of tighter regulations, shorter fishing seasons, higher seafood prices, and fewer boats 

on the water. What does this mean for our economy? The loss of billions of dollars and jobs! 

Implementation of Commercial Catch Shares 

1) If the quota is to be allocated to fishermen, they should lease this quota directly 

from the government—the very idea of being able to trade, sell, or lease their privileges to each other, simply evolves into nothing more than a revenue stream for individuals/corporations to profit from our Public Trust Resource without even having 

to go fishing. 

2) The way the system is set up now, the nation receives no benefit whatsoever 

from giving these individuals/corporations the right to profit from our Public Trust 

Resource—there are no lease fees required to be paid to the nation as are required 

in other industries such as oil, grazing, or timber. Not a good deal for our nation 

or our fisheries. 

3) To add insult to injury, not only does the nation not benefit from the harvest 

of our Public Trust Resource, but is in fact saddled with subsidizing the program 

to the tune of millions of dollars per year due to the 3% cap placed on the Cost Recovery Fee (CRF). If the fishermen actually fishing the quota were to lease that 

quota directly from the government, that would be the most equitable and fair way 

to allocate the quota, and no need for the CRF. 

4) The current drive to expand the implementation of Catch Shares into recreational fisheries needs to be prohibited in the new reauthorization of Magnuson. 

This includes Fish Tags, Days At Sea, or Inter-Sector Trading. 

E. The definitions of ending Overfishing must be addressed. 

Closing 

As I have stated, The Magnuson-Stevens act has been manipulated to further the 

interests of special interests groups at the sacrifice of local economies and dedicated, 

hard-working men and women. I am seeking your immediate help in the Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act of 2006 to add Flexibility, Access, and a 

Sound Science Approach to Sustainability, in order to stop this attack on the 

fishing industry. We, the recreational fishermen, charter/head boat captains and 

commercial fishermen are the Endangered Species 

Help save the Fishermen and our Heritages here in South Carolina 

Thank you for allowing me to speak. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Captain Logan. 

Next I will recognize Mr. Bob Gill, who is the Co-owner of 

Shrimp Landing, Florida. Mr. Gill, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT P. GILL, CO-OWNER, 

SHRIMP LANDING, FLORIDA 

Mr. GILL. Thank you, Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member 

Markey, members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today. I offer these comments on behalf of myself based on years of involvement in fisheries issues in the Gulf 

of Mexico at both the State and Federal levels. Since 1986 I have 

owned and operated a fish house in Crystal River, Florida, and I 

have dealt with fresh Gulf seafood from both inshore and offshore 

fishermen. I was privileged to be appointed to the Gulf of Mexico 

Fishery Management Council in 2006, and served for 6 years, the 

last year serving as Chairman of that body. It is with that background that I speak today. 

The changes made to the MSA in 2006 have had a profound effect on fisheries, councils, and stakeholders. The Act is fundamentally sound, but some aspects of implementation need continued 
35 

work. What is needed is a focus on the tools to make the MSA more 

effective. Today I will focus on what I consider three top priorities: 

improving the science and data, addressing the ACL and AMs, and 

improving stakeholder credibility. 

The requirement for Federally managed fish stocks of AMs and 

ACLs has increased the need for scientifically sound, accurate, and 

timely data, so that fisheries managers can properly manage to 

those limits. However, the current state of our scientific knowledge 

is neither sufficiently advanced nor adequately funded to achieve 

the desired results. Rather than roll back or discard fishery management tools that work, we must ensure fishery managers have 

the necessary information to better manage the fish stocks in their 

purview. To do so, we need a significantly increased investment in 

science. The MSA cannot address this need, but Congress can. 

Full stock assessments are not realistic for many fish stocks in 

U.S. waters. To achieve the goals of the MSA, we must develop 

less-costly ways to address data-poor stocks. One of the downstream results of the lack of data and science is larger uncertainty 

in stock status. Larger uncertainty translates directly to larger 

buffers to compensate, at least in part, for the increased probability 

that overfishing might occur. The net result is fewer fish available 

for all fishermen. Weakening the MSA will not improve the reality 

of this result. Improved data and more frequent stock assessments 

will. This means money. 

I recognize the current climate is not favorable for additional 

funding, but I also realize that progress will be painfully slow to 

non-existent without it. Previous legislation has proposed a scaling 

back of the ACL/AM requirement that would effectively undo the 

very tool that has had a positive, if painful, result on our fisheries. 

The culprit here is not the ACL/AM ceilings required, but the 

mechanism by which to set them. The science and data need to be 

fixed, not the law. 

We still need to strike a better balance between the biological 

needs and the social needs. Again, investing in improvements to 

science can help. Making appropriate changes to the MSA can also 

continue the improvement of the fish stocks, while mitigating the 

pain inflicted on the stakeholders. One change in MSA that ought 

to be considered that would ease the burden on communities and 

fishermen is to look at the science-based timelines required for rebuilding stocks deemed overfished, especially when overfishing is 

not the primary cause. The National Academy of Science is currently looking at the science behind rebuilding times, and their report could offer additional guidance. 

From the vantage point of my experience, I have serious concerns 

about the viability of the current fishery management process. 

These concerns emanate from an increasing disenchantment of 

many stakeholders with credibility in the system. In the Gulf, 

States are increasingly looking for ways to maximize fishing for 

their constituents without much regard for offshore fishermen and 

other States. 

For example, Texas and Louisiana have both chosen to go inconsistent with Federal red snapper regulations, and Florida is likely 

to follow suit. Our goal should be to work together to maximize 
36 

1 NOAA, NMFS, Status of the Stocks: Report on the Status of U.S. Fisheries for 2011, at 1 

(May 2012). 2 Id. 

fishing opportunities for as many people as possible within the 

bounds of a prudent scientific basis. 

In conclusion, the reauthorization of the MSA in 2006 contributed significantly to commendable progress in reducing overfishing 

and rebuilding our Nations’ fisheries. The work to achieve sustainable fisheries in this country is not finished, but wholesale changes 

to MSA are not needed. I believe that modest improvements can 

and should be made to MSA to help fulfill its mandate while allowing the Nation’s citizens to enjoy access to healthy fisheries. The 

2006 reauthorization has moved us in the direction of striking this 

balance. Now we must improve on these advancements, rather 

than abandon ship. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gill follows:] 

Statement of Robert P. Gill, Co-Owner, Shrimp Landing, Florida 

I. Introduction 

Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey, members of the Committee, thank 

you for this opportunity to appear before you with regards to possible changes to 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) as 

amended in 2006. I offer these comments on behalf of myself based on my years 

of involvement in in fishery issues in the Gulf of Mexico at both the state and Federal levels. In 1986, I purchased a fish house in Crystal River, Florida, and have 

dealt since then with fresh Gulf seafood from both inshore and offshore fishermen. 

I soon recognized the need to better understand the changing regulatory environments and participated with increasing frequency in those processes as a private citizen. This resulted in the privilege of my appointment to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council in 2006 and served for 6 years, the final year as Chairman 

of that body. It is with that background that I speak today. 

II. The 2006 Reauthorization 

The 2006 reauthorization of the MSA required Fishery Management Councils 

(Councils) to implement science based annual catch limits (ACL) and accountability 

measures (AM) for most fish stocks in a fishery management plan. While this was 

a new requirement, implementation of science based ACLs and AMs had proven to 

be successful in ending overfishing and rebuilding fish stocks in multiple regions in 

the U.S. The changes required by the 2006 reauthorization strengthened the fishery 

management process. While all is not perfect, establishing the concept of hard ceilings through science based catch limits to ensure that the discipline required to end 

overfishing is maintained has had a positive effect on many of our fisheries. However, at the same time, we must recognize the burden these restrictions have placed 

on stakeholders. 

The MSA now has our nation on track to ensure that overfishing is indeed ended 

and overfished species are rebuilt, benefitting our oceans and those dependent upon 

them. A record number of stocks were declared rebuilt in 2011, and all federal fisheries had catch limits in place in time for the 2012 fishing season. As prescribed 

by the 2006 reauthorization, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) now 

has ACLs and AMs in place for all 537 federally managed fish stocks and complexes.1 Further, all 36 stocks experiencing overfishing are being actively managed 

under ACLs or equivalent measures to end overfishing, and all but eight of the 

stocks determined to be of an ‘‘overfished’’ status are under rebuilding plans.2 These 

recovering fisheries establish a biological baseline from which we can measure any 

future changes. The requirements added to the MSA in 2006 reaffirm our realization that nature is amazingly resilient as long as we give her a reasonable opportunity to respond and recover from adverse impacts. 

Legislation has been proposed that would roll back key conservation provisions of 

the Act; provisions that have worked. I do not share that view. The basic concept 

as detailed in MSA 2006 is correct, but modest changes can be made to improve 

an imperfect system. My comments are provided with this in mind and will hopefully provide a reasonable basis for those improvements. 
37 

3 16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(15) (‘‘Any fishery management plan . . . shall establish a mechanism for 

specifying annual catch limits in the plan (including a multiyear plan), implementing regulators, 

or annual specifications, at a level such that overfishing does not occur in the fishery, including 

measures to ensure accountability.’’) 4 50 C.F.R. §§ 600.310(f)(2)(iv), 600.310(g)(1). 

5 NOAA, NMFS, Status of the Stocks: Report on the Status of U.S. Fisheries for 2011 (May 

2012). See also, ‘‘Good News on the Status of the Stocks, A Message from Sam Rauch, Head 

of NOAA Fisheries’’ (May 2012), available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aboutus/leadership/ 

may_leadership_message.html. 

While the implementation of ACLs and AMS from the 2006 reauthorization are 

the foundation of my comments, there are numerous other issues that also are worthy of mention. 

III. The ACL and AM Requirement 

The annual catch limit (ACL) and accountability measure (AM) requirement 3

added to the MSA in 2006 has had a profound effect on fisheries, Councils and 

stakeholders. The MSA’s new catch setting system has made great progress toward 

achieving the goals of the MSA and is now viewed as a model for other nations. The 

new ACL/AM requirement is reaping the tangible benefits our nation has worked 

so hard to achieve and has allowed us to move toward striking the delicate balance 

between benefit for the nation and meeting fishing community needs. 

At its core, the ACL/AM requirement is quite simple. It has two parts: (1) the permissible annual catch limit for each stock, and (2) accountability measures, which 

ensure that the annual catch limit is not exceeded. Or, if the ACL is exceeded, that 

the problem is mitigated or corrected.4

Councils have spent many hours in reshaping their fishery management plans to 

reflect the mandates of these changes and, indeed, are continuing to do so today. 

The Councils were able to meet the specified timelines but were not able to fully 

incorporate the methodology that was required. For example, the Gulf of Mexico 

Council’s ABC Control Rule remains a work in progress. Changes to the ABC Control Rule have been and continue to be proposed by the scientific and statistical 

committee (SSC), but have yet to be approved by the Gulf Council. A control rule 

is an approach to setting the ABC for a stock or stock complex that addresses scientific uncertainty. Much discussion and consideration is expected to take place before the ABC Control Rule is close to its final form. There are additional steps that 

need to be taken to improve implementation and these steps will not be complete 

for some time to come. 

However, this hard work has all been worthwhile because science-based catch limits have proven effective and achievable. The agency’s most recent Status of the 

Stocks report found a decrease in both overfished stocks and stocks experiencing 

overfishing across the nation. 2011 was record-breaking year with a total of six fish 

stocks declared rebuilt—the most stocks ever declared rebuilt in a single year.5 The 

ACL/AM requirement is working. 

IV. Data Poor Stocks 

One area that needs additional consideration is how to better manage data poor 

stocks. That is not to cast aspersions on the need to continue to improve implementation, but more to reflect the huge effort all Councils have made, and will continue 

to make, to implement the full intent of the MSA and make the new requirements 

of 2006 a fully working reality. The Act is fundamentally sound, but some aspects 

of implementation have not gone smoothly. Part of the reason for that is the expectations exceed our capability of achieving them. 

In the Southeast region, for example, our ability to provide timely stock assessments is severely limited in data and people, resulting in a fraction of the needed 

assessments. And assessments that are conducted tend to be concentrated on the 

species of most interest. The remainder, and the bulk of the species under management—so called data poor stocks, which are generally characterized by a sparse life 

history knowledge and only landings data, neither of which support a rigorous scientific approach to their management—are unlikely to ever see a stock assessment. 

Reasonably choosing legitimate ACLs for these species, especially those that are not 

targeted, is largely a conservative approach akin to the ‘‘first of all, do no harm’’ 

precept in the medical world. When you consider that most managed stocks fall into 

this category, you begin to appreciate the difficulties of managing on a single species 

basis much less that of an ecosystems management approach. 

Legislation has been proposed that would remove the requirement for annual 

catch limits for stocks that have not had a stock assessment in the past five years 
38 

6 H.R. 6350, The Transparent and Science Based Fishery Management Act of 2013, 112th 

Congress 7 Id. 

8 Id. 

regardless of the status of the stock.6 This legislative proposal does nothing to actually improve the science or management of these stocks and could create more problems in the future if the stock becomes overfished or undergoes overfishing. In reality, by ignoring these stocks we push the science to the background and create 

a scientific vacuum for that species. The data poor species previously mentioned 

would effectively become unmanaged. Little science and no limits do not make for 

good management. Similar legislation proposes that the Secretary of Commerce may 

suspend ACLs for a fishery that has been rebuilt.7 The legislation would allow managers to stop using the very tool that allowed the fishery to rebuild in the first 

place. This is akin to lowering a speed limit on a highway to decrease traffic fatalities and then when the number decreases, removing the speed limit. This is clearly 

a step backward and is not helpful in moving forward. Proper management of fisheries requires as robust a science basis as can be attained. It is not possible to control systems well that are not well understood. 

a. Improving Science 

It should be no surprise that we find ourselves struggling at times with various 

species. The challenges remain and will remain for many years, but we should continue building and strengthening the existing structure rather than make major 

changes mid-stream. That is not to say that we shouldn’t be open to new approaches 

and innovative techniques. But we need to proceed cautiously lest we undo more 

than we gain. 

The requirement for federally managed fish stocks to have ACLs and AMs has 

increased the need for scientifically sound, accurate and timely data so that fisheries managers can ensure ACLs are not exceeded or implement AMs if overages 

occur. However, the current state of our scientific knowledge is neither sufficiently 

advanced nor adequately funded to achieve the desired results. Conducting individual stock assessments for all 537 managed stocks is not economically feasible. 

Similarly, full stock assessments are not realistic for many fish stocks in U.S. waters. To achieve the goals of the MSA, we must develop less costly ways to address 

data poor stocks. Stocks without sufficient data to conduct a traditional scientific 

stock assessment can and must be assessed using alternative, semi-quantitative 

methods to provide information to fishery managers in order to meet MSA’s goals 

and mandates. 

Rather than roll back or discard fishery management tools that work, we must 

ensure fishery managers have the necessary information to better manage U.S. fish 

stocks. We need a significantly increased investment in science. Previously proposed 

legislation called for increased transparency in the prioritization of stock assessments and for NOAA to release an annual report identifying which stock assessments would be conducted in a given year and the needed budget 8. This is a small 

first step in improving the science for fishery management. Much more importantly, 

we must recognize the urgent need to improve the data streams and the science that 

form the foundation of fishery management. This means money. I recognize the current climate is not favorable for additional funding, but I also realize that progress 

will be painfully slow without it. 

As with all things with limited availability, the high cost of proper implementation, including science and stock assessments, often leaves out lesser priority tasks 

and needs. It is important to keep in mind the need for change versus the foregone 

efforts to improve the existing system and its associated requirements. While many 

fisheries have seen dramatic improvements, the disruption in the social side of the 

equation has also been significant in many areas, unfortunately in a negative way. 

We have arrived where we are today through many tough decisions and sacrifice. 

But the investment is yielding significant and long lasting benefits. We still need 

to strike a better balance between the biological needs and the human dimension; 

the social needs. Investing in improvements to science can help. 

One of the downstream results of the lack of data and science is larger uncertainty in stock status. Larger uncertainty translates directly to larger buffers to 

compensate, at least in part, for the increased probability that overfishing might 

occur. The net result is fewer fish available for all fishermen. The human side is 

adversely impacted by the lack of proper science. Weakening the MSA will not improve the reality of this result. 
39 

b. Adapting Our Fisheries Management System for Environmental Changes 

Changing environmental impacts are already affecting the oceans and fisheries. 

Increasing acidity in the ocean is becoming an issue for shellfish and habitat degradation is a constant concern for fisheries and fishermen. Closer to home, the BP 

Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010 called attention to the need for more and better 

baseline data for our ecosystem as a whole. These impacts on the broader ocean food 

web are not yet fully understood. Not unlike how coastal managers are tackling the 

far reaching issue of sea level rise by focusing on individual towns and counties, we 

must focus on environmental impacts on fisheries to ensure long-term fishery 

health. Our fisheries must be resilient in the face of a changing environment and 

managers must be provided with the tools and information needed to assess the impacts of climate change and other environmental issues. 

One change in MSA that should be considered to ease the burden to communities 

and fishermen is a modest extension of timelines required for rebuilding stocks 

deemed overfished especially when overfishing is not the primary cause. However, 

any change to rebuilding requirements must be approached cautiously. The intent 

of such a change would be to achieve the goal of rebuilding the stock while not imposing unnecessary burdens on the multiple stakeholders of that fishery. Some overfished designations may have little to do with fishing. For example, the updated 

stock assessment of 2009 for gag grouper in the Gulf of Mexico found that the stock 

was overfished and overfishing was occurring. Yet, the cause of the low biomass 

wasn’t necessarily fishing. The likely cause was determined to be the episodic mortality event from the numerous red tides in 2005 which added an estimated 18% 

mortality to the existing natural and fishing mortalities. This example also highlights the time lag and data need dilemma: the sudden decrease in stock size languished for four years before being analyzed and dealt with. This example is a stark 

reminder of the difficulties in reconciling what fishermen see on the water with the 

science that guides the management. The law must allow better adaptation for environmental changes. 

V. Council Makeup and Transparency in Councils and SSCs 

In order for our fishery management system to function properly and as intended 

by the MSA, transparency of the Councils and SSCs must be improved. The overall 

objective for all Councils should be to maximize transparency to the extent possible. 

The easy part is allowing web access to meetings and records of proceedings, and 

ensuring the public has access to the decision making fora. The more difficult aspect 

is to fully get the word out and not slow the process unduly as a result of notification requirements. This requires constantly trying new techniques and make improvements as appropriate. 

From my viewpoint, the Gulf Council spends considerable time in this regard and 

does an excellent job. Yet, there remains much to be done in this never ending task. 

Improving transparency does not require amending the MSA. Rather, I believe that 

establishment of a policy to maximize transparency would be sufficient, and detailing specifics will do little to improve the achievement of this goal. 

I urge caution in any attempts to revise the makeup of the Councils. The overriding consideration is that balance must be achieved or, if balance exists, maintained. There are times when an imbalance occurs in Council makeup, but these 

should be corrected at the earliest possible opportunity. I find it also true that both 

the recreational and commercial sectors believe the Council is unbalanced, when, in 

fact, such is not the case. Allowing one group to have a greater number of seats 

on a Council is tantamount to establishing a biased fishery management regime in 

that Council. Stacking the deck is ultimately a predicate to failure. To fully and fairly discuss difficult fishery management issues requires input equally from all sides. 

This balance should provide the best decision achievable. I would also note that the 

larger the Council, the more the overhead becomes and, more importantly, the more 

difficult it is to reach a consensus on a decision. The former is important because 

in the era of shrinking budgets we need to reduce overhead, not increase it in order 

to most efficiently use the budget available. The latter suggests exacerbation of an 

already difficult decision making process. As a rule of thumb, the minimum number 

needed to attain reasonable representation from the various stakeholders should be 

the maximum size of the Council. 

VI. Returning Penalty Money to the Regions 

I believe that the best use of any funding from fines and penalties is to improve 

the affected fishery from which they were derived. The needs of the enforcement, 

science and Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) far exceed the available monies 

and represent some of the areas for which these funds should be utilized. The use 

of funds that result from fishing fines and penalties has not been as big an issue 
40 

in the Gulf of Mexico as it has in other regions. Regardless, the MSA should authorize the proceeds from any penalties and fines to go to the region or fishery where 

the fine or penalty originates, rather than to NOAA at large or to the Treasury. I 

would go further and suggest that the regions be allowed to design programs with 

associated fees and allow those fees, again to the extent possible, be directed back 

to the region, and more specifically to the fishery as discussed above for penalties 

and fines. While there clearly needs to be checks and balances in such a concept, 

the fisheries should be able to benefit and made stronger by not sending the monies 

derived to the General Treasury. 

VII. Catch Share Programs and Non-Traditional Management Approaches 

As you know, catch share programs have become highly contentious, overshadowing an honest discussion of their advantages and disadvantages. I believe that 

such programs are neither inherently good nor bad. The circumstances surrounding 

the fisheries in question and the proposed structure of such a program will define 

its validity, or lack of it, for the fishery under consideration. There is no management scheme that will always benefit both the fishery and all the participants. The 

question really is which way of managing is the best under the circumstances for 

the biology and the social needs. 

I believe we need to be open to non-traditional management approaches that offer 

different advantages than traditional measures do. Doing business as we have in 

the past is not always best for the future. A case in point is Gulf of Mexico red snapper. We have a rapidly growing population as a result of severe management measures imposed to restrain catch. Now the stock is improving, expanding into areas 

where red snapper have not been prevalent for many years, and providing anglers 

with fish weighing twice as much on average than those 5 years ago. Yet, despite 

this, the recreational season grows progressively shorter. And traditional measures 

of bag limits, size limits and seasons don’t appear to be of much help, nor does increasing the allocation of fish available to the recreational sector. It is clear that 

a new approach is required to alleviate this conundrum. I am not advocating a catch 

share program for this sector, but merely emphasizing the need to be open minded 

to different approaches than we are used to for a problem such as this. 

As such, I do not favor shelving catch share concepts unilaterally. Our experience 

with catch share programs in the Gulf of Mexico, however, has convinced me that 

there are some constraints that should be considered. Options I prefer include a provision to favorably allow new entrants, and a restriction on the amount of shares 

that can be leased. While I favor some modest constraints on catch share programs, 

I do not support highly restrictive requirements that effectively gut the option of 

catch share programs being designed and implemented. I believe that the Councils 

need that flexibility to design management measures that are best for their region 

and fisheries. 

VIII. Stakeholder Credibility 

From the vantage point of my experience I have serious concerns on the viability 

of the current fishery management process. These concerns emanate from an increasing disenchantment of and credibility in the system by the many stakeholders. 

This problem is certainly not unique to one region, but the consequences of the lack 

of credibility are far reaching. The fundamental basis for fisheries management 

rests on voluntary compliance. While there will always be some people who do not 

comply with regulations, and there will always be tension between state and federal 

jurisdictions, the current environment suggests that folks at many levels seek to disregard Federal regulations in Federal waters. The thinking is much more self-centered rather than taking a broader view of what’s best for all. In the Gulf this is 

being manifested on many fronts. States are increasingly looking for ways to maximize fishing for their constituents to the disregard of offshore fishermen and other 

states. Texas and Louisiana have both chosen to go inconsistent with federal red 

snapper regulations and Florida is likely to follow suit. There is little to no working 

together to resolve problems and disagreements. Discussions regarding regional 

management in the Gulf of Mexico are ongoing and reflect this issue and could result in a fragmented management approach to the same fish population. This does 

not augur well. Our goal should be to work together to maximize fishing opportunities for as many people as possible, within the bounds of a prudent scientific basis. 

The trend, I fear, is in the opposite direction. While the MSA might not be able to 

resolve this difficulty, I urge you to keep in mind that a harmonious whole is better 

than a fractious assemblage of parts. 

IX. Conclusion 

The Reauthorization of the MSA in 2006 contributed significantly to commendable 

progress in reducing overfishing and rebuilding our nation’s fisheries. Fishery Man-
41 

agement Councils around the country, acting in partnership with NMFS, have used 

the new requirements to establish science-based catch limits in the vast majority 

of U.S. fisheries. The work to achieve sustainable fisheries in this country is not finished, but wholesale changes to MSA are not needed. I believe that modest improvements can and should be made to MSA to help fulfill its mandate and intent, while 

not sacrificing the nation’s citizens and their access to a natural resource that 

should be fairly shared amongst all. We may not agree as to what constitutes fairly 

shared, but we should agree that proper fisheries management should allow for 

healthy fisheries and a populace able to enjoy those fruits without being hobbled 

by an unbalanced approach. The 2006 Reauthorization has moved us in the direction of striking this balance. Now, we must improve on these advancements rather 

than abandon ship. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gill. 

And certainly—last, but not least, Mr. Joe Plesha from Trident 

Foods out of Seattle. Mr. Plesha, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH T. PLESHA, CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER, 

TRIDENT SEAFOODS CORPORATION 

Mr. PLESHA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. Like everyone else on this panel, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I am testifying on behalf of Trident Seafoods Corporation. Trident was founded in 1973 by Chuck 

Bundrant. Chuck invested all of the earnings of the company back 

into the industry to where, today, Trident is one of the largest seafood companies in the United States. 

My written testimony focuses on a number of issues, but I would 

like to make my oral presentation deal with just one, and that is 

the need of rationalization programs to include both owners of 

processing plants and vessels when the fishery is rationalized. 

Most everyone acknowledges the benefits of rationalization, from 

improved conservation and incentivizing conservation, to increasing 

net national benefits to the Nation. But industrial fisheries like 

those in Alaska, an open-access fishery might have 6 to 10 times 

the harvesting and processing capacity that is necessary when the 

fishery becomes rationalized. 

Therefore, when an open-access fishery is rationalized, instead of 

lasting 1 month it may effectively go on for 6 to 10 months. So the 

hundreds of millions of dollars worth of harvesting vessels and 

processing plants that had operated in the 1-month fishery, making 

a market-rate of return on their investments, will compete for the 

resource throughout the 10-month period of time where they now 

can operate. 

In doing so, they will bid up the price, so that they can cover only 

their daily operating cost, or what people call their variable cost of 

operation. And they do this because it is better to earn one penny 

during this period of time than it is to do the alternative, which 

is to earn nothing. 

So, quota holders, the people who own the quota, get the value 

of the fish that is represented by the quota, but they also get to 

use the capital investments made by vessel owners and plant owners for free. It is an expropriation, just as effective as if the property had been condemned through eminent domain. Therefore, for 

that reason, both vessel owners and plant owners should be included in the rationalization program so their operations can continue after the program is rationalized. 
42 

One method that has proven to be very effective in rationalizing 

fisheries in a way that includes both vessel and plant owners is 

through harvester processor cooperatives. And these cooperatives 

have the additional benefit of reducing the consolidation that can 

occur in a straight individual fishing quota fishery, thereby preserving jobs both in the processing sector and the harvesting sector. A great example of this type of program is the American Fisheries Act, which was passed by Congress in 1998, and has turned 

out to be incredibly effective in rationalizing the largest commercial 

fishery in the United States, the Bering Sea pollock fishery. 

In 2003, Congress passed legislation which instructed the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council to rationalize a very, very 

small fishery in the central Gulf of Alaska, the Rockfish Fishery. 

And Congress passed the legislation asking that the Council preserve both harvesting and processing history, but didn’t dictate 

how that would occur. The Council then developed a program with 

harvester-processor cooperatives, very similar to the American 

Fisheries Act, and it was proven to be very successful. 

Unfortunately, that provision only lasted 5 years, so it needed to 

be renewed. In the process of renewing that rockfish program, 

NOAA came out with a legal opinion in 2009 saying that the Magnuson-Stevens Act did not authorize harvester-processor cooperatives. Despite the fact that the initial rockfish program was developed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, this opinion came from a 

very old 1978 NOAA general counsel opinion saying that you 

couldn’t give preference to domestic processors over foreign processors. 

Congress very quickly changed the law to statutorily indicate 

that you could. And, in doing so, tried to clarify this issue of whether processors were part of the fishery. And I quote the Chairman 

of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee saying, ‘‘It is the 

understanding of the House that fishing in Section 3 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act includes processing.’’ 

Well, despite my opinion about NOAA’s opinion, NOAA continues 

to have this position. And the reason it is a problem is that the 

North Pacific Council is considering rationalizing all of the trawl 

fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska. The industry is working on trying 

to reach an agreement about how best to do that. And they were 

talking about these same harvester-processor cooperatives. Council 

members also want to see the option of harvester-processor cooperatives. Unfortunately, NOAA continues to take the position 

that they aren’t authorized under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

So, as you move forward with reauthorization, I encourage you 

to consider this issue, and include within the reauthorization the 

authority to include these type of harvester-processor cooperatives 

within the legislation. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Plesha follows:] 

Statement of Joseph T. Plesha, Chief Legal Officer, 

Trident Seafoods Corporation 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Magnuson-Stevens Act has been remarkably successful in achieving the goals established by Congress when it was first enacted in 1976 and as it has been amended throughout the years. I would like to 
43 

specifically acknowledge the work of one of the Committee members in this regard. 

Congressman Don Young was not only instrumental in the writing of the initial legislation back in the mid-1970s, he has been a constant champion for Alaska’s, and 

our Nation’s, seafood industry since passage of the legislation. Throughout his career Don Young has been a leader in Congress for our fisheries and I would like 

to express my sincere appreciation and gratitude. 

I am testifying on behalf of Trident Seafoods Corporation. Trident was founded 

in 1973 by Chuck Bundrant, one of the true pioneers in ‘‘Americanizing’’ the fishery 

resources off Alaska. The company started in 1973 with a single boat that harvested 

crab in the Bering Sea. Chuck is one of the most focused, intelligent and driven individuals whom you will ever meet. He literally worked seven days a week, took unbelievable physical and financial risk, and invested all that was earned back into 

Trident and the seafood industry. As one of countless examples, in the very early 

1980s, when foreign factory trawler fleets still harvested virtually all of the groundfish off Alaska, Trident was the first shorebased processing company to buy and 

process large volumes of pollock and cod from U.S. fishermen at a plant located on 

the remote Aleutian Island of Akutan. It was difficult to find markets for these 

groundfish products because foreign countries that consumed pollock and cod already had ample supplies from their allocation of fish in U.S. waters. Akutan struggled financially. Then the Akutan plant burned down in 1983. To the surprise of 

many others in the industry, Chuck immediately began to rebuild at Akutan. Trident now employees over 1,000 people at its Akutan plant and the plant is the largest seafood processing facility in North America, if not the world. 

Trident currently has processing plants in ten different coastal communities in 

Alaska, as well as primary and secondary processing plants in Washington State, 

Oregon and Minnesota. We operate five floating processors, three catcher processors, 

fourteen trawl catcher vessels, four crab catcher vessels and various tender and 

freight vessels. Trident is one of the largest seafood companies in the United States. 

It is still a family-owned business, however, and Chuck remains its chief executive 

officer. His son, Joe Bundrant, will take over as president of Trident in 2014. 

Trident’s story is a great example of how the fisheries off our coasts, which previously had been used exclusively by foreign fishing fleets, are now fully utilized by 

the United States fishing industry under the policies of Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Catch-Share Programs and the Issue of Inclusion of Processors 

My comments regarding fishery rationalization programs are focused on the industrial fisheries in the United States. Rationalization is known by many names: 

Individual Fishing Quotas, Individual Transferable Quotas, Catch Shares, Limited 

Access Privilege Programs, and others. But the basic idea is to allocate the privilege 

to utilize a certain portion of a fishery resource so that, as a result, the fishery becomes more economically efficient, or ‘‘rational’’ than the open access race-for-fish. 

The North Pacific and Pacific councils have spent a great deal of time on the issues 

surrounding rationalization, but the fisheries they manage tend to be relatively 

large and with capital intensive harvesting and processing sectors. 

1. Benefits of rationalization. 

Open access fisheries under-perform rationalized fisheries in every relevant criterion by which performance can be measured. These include: conservation of the 

resource, efficient bycatch avoidance, safety at sea, gross value of products produced 

from the resource, and the cost of harvesting and processing the resource. Open ac-
44 

1 Coase, Ronald, The Problem of Social Cost, Journal of Law and Economics, 3 (Oct. 1960) 1– 

44. 2The United States claims sovereign rights over all fish within the United States Exclusive 

Economic Zone. 16 U.S.C. § 1853a. 

cess fisheries systematically destroy the ability of society to collect net benefits from 

the fisheries. 

This dissipation of benefits in open access fisheries occurs because uncontrolled 

entry into the fishery results in overcapitalization. A simple example of overcapitalization is as follows: Imagine a fishery that is fished at the maximum sustainable 

yield, and produces one million dollars worth of fish per year with the services of 

five boats, at a total cost per boat of one hundred thousand dollars per year per 

boat. This results in a private and societal profit of five hundred thousand dollars 

per year. In this case each boat is earning one hundred thousand dollars of revenue 

above its total cost which includes a return on invested capital. These excess profits 

(rent) induce entry into the fishery despite the fact that the new capital investments 

do not add anything to the total catch. Entry continues until all the rent is dissipated. This occurs when the fishery contains ten boats for a total cost that exactly 

equals the value of the catch. If the price of fish doubled this would attract ten additional boats. The open access fishery squanders whatever societal benefits a fishery 

is otherwise biologically and technically capable of providing. If the cost of managing 

the fishery is not totally borne by the industry, then any fishery managed under 

open access becomes a net cost to society. 

2. Does it matter who receives allocations under Catch Share programs? 

The benefits attributed to rationalized fisheries occur regardless of whom receives 

allocations of the privilege to utilize the fish.1 From the standpoint of efficient utilization of the resource, it is unimportant who receives allocations of quota. No matter whether initial allocations are granted exclusively to the owners of harvesting 

vessels, the owners of processing plants, fishermen (i.e., ‘‘crew’’), processor workers, 

or taxi cab drivers in Anchorage, Alaska, the rationalized fisheries will be utilized 

by the most efficient industry participants. 

As an example, the pollock Community Development Quota (CDQ) program allocates ten percent of the Bering Sea pollock TAC to villages in Western Alaska. 

When the CDQ program was initially implemented in 1991, the CDQ communities 

had no involvement in the pollock industry whatsoever. The pollock resource was 

already being efficiently utilized by the existing industry. The pollock quota allocated to CDQ communities was simply leased by those communities to companies 

involved in the pollock fishery. It was very similar to an auction, as the CDQ communities generally leased their pollock quotas to the highest bidder. Because the 

fishery was rationalized—albeit into the hands of entities that were complete outsiders to the fishery—the harvesting and processing of CDQ pollock was as efficient 

as if the a pollock company itself owned the quota. 

3. Why not auction the privilege to utilize fishery resources? 

At first blush, there appear to be good reasons to auction the privilege to use fishery resources. Our Nation’s fishery resources belong to the general public.2 It would 

be very simple to allocate all the benefits of rationalized fisheries to the general 

public through a simple auction of quota. The federal treasury can certainly use the 

revenue. If auctioned by the federal government, the fisheries will be utilized just 

as efficiently as if the privileges were instead allocated directly to industry participants. 

Looked at another way, if a large un-exploited stock of cod were suddenly discovered off a remote U.S.-owned island in the Pacific ocean, for example, and fishery 

managers wanted to rationalize it prior to the resource being exploited, the federal 

government would likely auction the privileges to this undeveloped resource rather 

than allocate the privileges to utilize the fishery to processing plant owners or fishing vessel owners based in Alaska, Washington State or Oregon. 

The typical progression of fisheries, however, is that we tend to wait until a fishery is overcapitalized through the uncontrolled entry process inherent in an open 

access fishery before attempting to rationalize the fishery. The fact that we tend to 

wait until a fishery is overcapitalized complicates the initial allocation process enormously. 

4. Why fishing vessel and processing plant owners must be included in 

rationalized fisheries. 

In a fully capitalized, open-access fishery, where the harvest is controlled by a single quota (TAC) that the participants race to exploit, the investments in fishing vessels and processing plants that are specific to the fishery being rationalized (and 
45 

3Plesha, Joseph T., and Riley, Christopher C., The Allocation of Individual Transferable 

Quotas to Investors in the Seafood Industry of the North Pacific, (Jan. 1992). See also, Matulich, 

S.C., Mittelhammer, and Reberte, Toward a More Complete Model of Individual Transferrable 

Fishing Quotas: Implications of Incorporating the Processing Sector, Journal of Environmental 

Economics and Management, Vol. 31(1) 112–28 (1996). 4 In a reverse auction, the sellers compete to obtain business from the buyer and prices will 

typically decrease as the sellers undercut each other. 5 Variable costs are those expenses that increase with production. For processors, variable 

costs would include things like direct processing labor, packaging, and increased utility charges. 

For vessel owners, variable costs would include things like fuel. 6 A usufructuary right is the right of enjoyment, enabling a holder of the right to derive profit 

from property that is owned by another person. 

that are also relatively durable and non-malleable) will be lost as a result of rationalization. This lost investment value reappears in the value of the quota to utilize 

the resource. Wealth is unavoidably transferred from the fixed capital of processing 

plants and fishing vessels to the holders of quota.3 In other words, after an open 

access fishery is rationalized, rationalization fishing vessels and processing plants 

have little value, potentially even negative value, especially in Alaska where these 

assets may have on other productive uses. 

When such fisheries are rationalized, owners of fishing vessels and processing 

plants can suffer enormous financial losses. The amount of the loss depends upon 

three factors: (1) The extent the fishery is overcapitalized; (2) the durability (or how 

long it lasts with routine maintenance) of the physical capital in harvesting and 

processing; and (3) the degree that the capital is non-malleable (or has no alternative uses of near or equal financial benefit to the owner). 

5. How do these losses occur? 

The mechanism at work that causes investors in fishing and processing capacity 

to lose the value of their capital investments is that, by definition, the overcapitalized fishery has much more capital, and hence daily harvesting and processing capacity, than is necessary to prosecute the fishery once it is rationalized. A quota 

holder would not need to own a boat or a processing plant in order to participate 

in a fishery. When a quota holder decides to participate in the fishery, he or she 

could simply hold a reverse auction 4 among fishing vessel owners. The vessel owners would bid down to the point where the winning boat just covered its variable 

costs. The quota holders would then proceed to secure processing services with the 

same result. The winning bid for processing services would cover only the variable 

costs 5 of production. 

As long as the price agreed upon by vessel and plant owners allows for any return 

above variable costs, processing and vessel owning companies have an incentive to 

make a more competitive offer until they cover only their variable costs of operation 

and make no return on their capital investments. This is a difficult concept for 

many to appreciate. Why would any rational businessman invest tens or hundreds 

of millions of dollars into an industry and later allow others to use that investment 

for free? When an overcapitalized, open access fishery is rationalized there is far 

more harvesting and processing capital than is necessary because instead of the 

fishery lasting, for example, one month in an open access race, under rationalization 

it can be efficiently utilized in six months; meaning there is six times more existing 

harvesting and processing capacity than necessary. Not all of this physical capital 

can remain busy during the new six-month fishery, but its owners will all have an 

incentive to keep the physical capital operating throughout this period. If this millions of dollars of excess physical capital earns one penny above the variable costs 

of its operation, its owner is better off than under the alternative of earning nothing. Thus, starved for production through their facilities, vessel and plant owners 

bid for product until the price reaches a level at which they no longer can cover 

their variable cost. 

The holders of quota thereby will effectively own not only the fish in the fishery, 

but also usufructuary 6 rights to all the non-malleable physical capital used to harvest and process those fish. This situation, where the quota holders enjoy free-ofcharge use of physical capital, continues until the capital stock wears out to the 

point where only the appropriate amount remains. 

Immediately upon beginning operations under a rationalized fishery, therefore, 

owners of fishery-related capital will see the return on their investment fall to zero. 

This cannot be avoided and is, in fact, absolutely necessary in order to de-capitalize 

an overcapitalized industry. The owners of this physical capital cannot expect to realize any return on their investment until the excess capital stock leaves the industry to the point where it is at the optimal level for the rationalized fishery. 
46 

7Micklethwait, John and Wooldrige, Adrian., The Company, A Short History of a Revolutionary Idea (2003). 

In industrial fisheries like the groundfish fisheries off Alaska, the financial losses 

described above are suffered by owners of fishing vessels and processing plants. Virtually every vessel and plant owner is a corporation; an entity invented by lawyers 

with the purpose of accumulating and investing capital for the financial benefit of 

its shareholders.7 These corporations are not ‘‘fishermen.’’ The corporate owners of 

fishing vessels and processing plants do not themselves fish or process. They are not 

crew aboard fishing vessels or workers in processing plants. (Although it is possible 

some of the shareholders might be.) 

The allocation of quota to vessel and plant owners in industrial, fully capitalized 

open access fisheries is essential to compensate those owners for the losses they suffer to the value of their vessels and plants as a result of rationalization. Some vessel 

owners may lament the fact that processing plant owners seek to be part of rationalized fisheries, but the rationale for including processing plant owners in the allocation of quota is also the only rationale for including vessel owners in the allocation 

of quota. If a corporation that owns a fishing vessel does not suffer losses in the 

value of its boat as a result of rationalization, there is no rational basis upon which 

it can be allocated quota. 

6. One of the reasons there is industry opposition to Catch Share 

management. 

Despite the potential benefits of rationalization, it remains controversial. Recently 

Congress has considered placing a moratorium on the development of any new rationalization programs. There are many who fear they will be negatively impacted 

by fishery rationalization. Certainly owners of processing plants in Alaska and along 

the Pacific coast collectively have well over a billion dollars at risk if the open access 

fisheries in which they have invested—and upon which they depend—are rationalized and processing plants are not included in the program. 

In the North Pacific, however, the process of developing rationalized fisheries 

tends to be inclusive of the stakeholders who are most impacted by rationalization. 

Given the potential benefits of rationalization, it is appropriate for the ‘‘tool’’ of 

Catch Shares to be in the ‘‘tool box’’ of options for the regional councils and Secretary to consider. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

is a strong proponent of allowing Catch Share management to be one of the tools 

available to manage fisheries. 

One of the potentially effective ways to rationalize a fishery that includes both 

vessel and plant owners is through fishery cooperatives. Under this cooperative approach both vessel and processing plant historical participation in the fisheries is 

preserved. Despite the success of fishery cooperatives that include both vessels and 

plants, NOAA has taken the legal position that such management systems are not 

‘‘authorized’’ under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. These cooperatives are a tool not 

available in the councils’ toolbox. 

7. History of harvester-processor cooperatives. 

With passage of the American Fisheries Act (AFA) in October of 1998, Congress 

rationalized the Bering Sea pollock fishery, the largest commercial fishery in the 

United States. The inshore fishing vessels and processing plants were rationalized 

based on the concept of protecting both vessel and processing plant market shares. 

The AFA allowed cooperatives to be formed and pollock quota was allocated to each 

cooperative based on the catch history of the vessels that are members of the cooperative. But the AFA protected a pollock processor’s market share by requiring that 

each vessel in a cooperative deliver at least 90% of its harvest of pollock to its historical market. A fishing vessel that was allocated quota could not deliver anywhere 

else without their historical processor’s approval. Thereby, each processing plant’s 

market share in the fishery was protected, as was each vessel’s. A vessel could move 

to a different processor without its historical processor’s agreement only by fishing 

in the open access pollock fishery for a year and delivering a majority of its harvest 

to the different processor. In addition, the AFA included ‘‘limited entry for pollock 

processors.’’ No new processors are allowed to enter the Bering Sea inshore pollock 

fishery. 

The AFA’s inshore cooperative system was controversial and immediately after its 

enactment some pollock vessel owners petitioned the North Pacific Council to amend 

the AFA by removing the requirement that a vessel deliver its pollock to a particular processor. To quote one of the proposal’s sponsors: 

Under the language of the American Fisheries Act, pollock vessels which 

enter into co-ops and deliver into shorebased processors are prevented from 
47 

forming a co-op if the processor doesn’t bless it first. They’re inhibited in 

their ability if a co-op is formed to get the best fair price. They are prevented from entering into a co-op with a different processor in the following 

year. And, last, they are prevented from freely moving between competing 

buyers. We are requesting that the Council consider and analyze regulations which would support reasonable vessel/plant negotiations. Our proposed change would allow vessels in a co-op to deliver their catch history 

to the market of their choice. For example, if one plant would pay nine cents 

a pound because they are producing fillets and another would pay eight 

cents because they are producing surimi, we feel that we should be able to 

deliver to the plant with the highest price, even though we may not have 

been in the co-op delivering to them with that processor in the previous 

year. 

Margaret Hall, Testimony before the NPFMC, (Feb. 13, 1999). 

The North Pacific Fishery Management Council did not adopt the proposal, instead choosing to keep the AFA’s inshore cooperative intact while it watched how 

the system worked for the industry. 

The AFA’s inshore cooperative structure was implemented by regulation in 2000 

and has proven to be remarkably successful. Whether measured in price per pound 

or percentage of finished product sales price paid for a vessel’s harvest, pollock vessel owners receive considerably more for their catch now than they did prior to passage of the AFA. 

Below is a historical review of the average ex-vessel prices Trident paid for pollock 

delivered to Akutan from 1993 to 2012. (See Figure 2, below.) 

Not only have ex-vessel pollock prices increased since passage of the AFA, but the 

value of pollock vessels has increased. But since passage of the AFA vessels are now 

bought and sold not on the value of the hull, but based primarily on the harvesting 

quota associated with the vessel. In 2001, for example, inshore pollock harvesting 

vessels sold at price from $1,225 to $1,250 per metric ton of quota assigned to the 

vessel. Now AFA pollock vessels sell for a price of about $1,950 per metric ton of 

quota assigned to the vessel. The value of shorebased vessels in the pollock fishery 

is currently far greater than prior to passage of the AFA. 

The success of the AFA did not go un-noticed. By the early 2000’s Pacific Ocean 

Perch, as well as Northern and Pelagic shelf rockfish were fully utilized by the commercial trawl industry in the Central Gulf of Alaska. The entire rockfish total allowable catch for these species was harvested in two weeks in a true race-for-fish. 

There was a statutory moratorium in place at that time which prevented the Secretary from approving any new Individual Fishing Quota programs. By 2002, representatives of the trawl vessel owners and processing plants that utilized Gulf of 

Alaska rockfish were urging Congress to legislatively authorize rationalization of 

rockfish. 
48 

8The Rockfish Pilot Program legislation is short enough to recite in a footnote: ‘‘The Secretary 

of Commerce, in consultation with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, shall establish a pilot program that recognizes the historic participation of fishing vessels (1996 to 

2002, best 5 of 7 years) and historic participation of fish processors (1996 to 2000, best 

4 of 5 years) for pacific ocean perch, northern rockfish, and pelagic shelf rockfish harvested in 

Central Gulf of Alaska. Such a pilot program shall (1) provide for a set-aside of up to 5 percent 

for the total allowable catch of such fisheries for catcher vessels not eligible to participate in 

the pilot program, which shall be delivered to shore-based fish processors not eligible to participate in the pilot program; (2) establish catch limits for non-rockfish species and non-target rockfish species currently harvested with pacific ocean perch, northern rockfish, and pelagic shelf 

rockfish, which shall be based on historical harvesting of such bycatch species.’’ 9Final Review Draft, RIR, EA and IRFA for the proposed Amendment 68 to the Gulf of Alaska Fishery Management Plan, June 2005. p. 69. 10 CGOA Rockfish Program Motion, NPFMC February 9, 2009. 11 18 U.S.C. § 1853a(c)(5). 

In 2003 Congress passed the Rockfish Pilot Program directing the Secretary of 

Commerce, in consultation with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, to 

rationalize the rockfish fisheries in the Central Gulf of Alaska. Congress required 

the Secretary to develop a program that protected the harvesting and processing histories of the existing participants. The legislation, however, did not direct the Council or the Secretary how to protect each sector.8

In June of 2005 the Council took final action to implement the Rockfish Pilot Program. The program developed by the Council was similar to the AFA’s inshore cooperative structure. A vessel was eligible to join a cooperative only in association with 

the processing facility that the harvester delivered the most pounds of rockfish to 

during the years 1996 through 2000. The associated processor was expected to negotiate an agreement with vessel owners that contractually limited the vessels from 

delivering to any other processor.9 Thus a vessel was allocated its historical market 

share and the processing plant was assured of its historical market share. 

The Rockfish Pilot Program, however, expired after 2011and the Council was required to take action to renew the program. Stakeholders in the program initially 

supported rolling-over the existing program as evidenced by the following testimony 

from the same individual who initially opposed the AFA cooperative structure: 

Thank you. Good afternoon members of the Council. I am Margaret Hall, 

here today representing the vessels Progress and Vanguard. 

The Rockfish Pilot Program has been a wonderful benefit to the community 

of Kodiak and the Kodiak processors. Currently 100% of the CV rockfish 

and secondary species are landed in Kodiak to associated processors. These 

processors hence, are protected through coop agreements and the rockfish 

regulations correlated to landings and processing history. The Council action of choice preferred by many of us independent catcher vessels would be 

to roll-over the existing program, with minor changes selected after analysis. 

Margaret Hall, Testimony before the NPFMC, (June 8, 2008). 

At its February 2009 meeting the Council chose to initiate an analysis of rollingover the rockfish program beyond the statutory sunset date.10 At the Council’s October 2009 meeting, however, the alternative of extending the existing Rockfish Pilot 

Program was removed from the options for analysis as a result of a legal opinion 

from NOAA General Counsel for the Alaska Region. NOAA’s legal opinion (‘‘2009 

Opinion’’) concluded that the Magnuson-Stevens Act did not authorize extension of 

the Rockfish Pilot Program. 

NOAA’s 2009 Opinion is wrong. The Rockfish Pilot Program legislation itself did 

not provide statutory authority beyond that which already existed in the MagnusonStevens Act and the Rockfish Pilot Program’s cooperative structure was developed 

by the Council and approved by the Secretary. As a matter of policy, it is nonsensical for NOAA to limit its authority to develop rationalization programs, like harvester-processor cooperatives, that have proven to be successful for a broad group 

of stakeholders. NOAA’s 2009 Opinion seems to ignore the 2006 amendments to the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act that require consideration of ‘‘employment in the harvesting 

and processing sectors,’’ and ‘‘investments in, and dependence upon, the fishery.’’ 11

Certainly the 2009 Opinion unnecessarily removes a potentially useful tool from the 

toolbox. 

NOAA’s odd legal position on this issue originates from a 1978 NOAA General 

Counsel memo that concluded the Magnuson-Stevens Act did not authorize the Secretary to disapprove foreign processing vessels applications to operate in U.S. waters just because domestic shorebased processors had the capacity and intent to utilize the same U.S. fishery resources. Congress quickly passed the so-called ‘‘processor preference’’ amendment giving statutory preference to U.S. processors over for-
49 

12P.L. 95–354 (1978). 13Statement of Congressman John Murphy, 124 Cong. Rec. H8266, Aug. 10, 1978. 

eign operations.12 In doing so, Congress believed it clarified the fact that domestic 

processors were part of the fisheries. As the Chairman of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, Congressman John Murphy, explained during consideration of the amendment by the House of Representatives: 

In the course of our discussions of the bill, some question was raised about 

whether the definition of ‘‘fishing’’ under section 3 of the [Magnuson-Stevens Act] includes ‘‘processing.’’ This question is important because the 

[Magnuson-Stevens Act] uses the term ‘‘fishing’’ so that the statute applies 

to the processing industry in the same situations only if ‘‘fishing’’ includes 

processing . . . In the end, we decided to leave the [Magnuson-Stevens 

Act’s] definitions unchanged on this point while, at the same time, making 

clear the Act was intended to benefit the entire fishing industry . . . [I]t 

is the understanding of the House that ‘‘fishing’’ in section 3 of the [Magnuson-Stevens Act] does include ‘‘processing’’ and that, for that reason, the proposed clarification is unnecessary.’’ 13

Because of NOAA’s 2009 Opinion, however, a rationalization program was adopted by the Council that did not include processors and instead granted all the benefits of rationalization to the harvesters. The ex-vessel prices paid in the newly 

rationalized rockfish fisheries, compared to prices prior to and during the Rockfish 

Pilot Program, show the impacts of a rationalization program that does not balance 

the interests of both sectors of the industry. Prices paid to fishermen in 2012 nearly 

doubled from the previous three years. (See Figure 3, below.) 

8. Need for Magnuson-Stevens Act amendment. 

The Central Gulf of Alaska rockfish fisheries are very small compared with the 

other groundfish fisheries in the region. The North Pacific Council will begin exploring whether and how to rationalize all of the trawl groundfish fisheries in the Gulf 

of Alaska as early as June of this year. Vessel owners and processing plant representatives have been negotiating potential rationalization programs that contain 

harvester-processor cooperatives. There are also members of the Council who would 

prefer to have the option of considering some form of harvester-processor cooperatives as a way to include both sectors in the rationalized fisheries. It is not an option available to the Council at this time, however, due to the NOAA legal opinion. 

Shorebased processors in the Gulf of Alaska have tens of millions of dollars at risk 

and fear that they will not be included in the rationalized groundfish fisheries unless there is the legal authority to develop rationalization programs with harvesterprocessor linkages. Despite the overall benefits of rationalized fisheries, processors 

are understandably anxious about proceeding with any effort to rationalize the fisheries if there is a chance they may be excluded as they were in the most recent rockfish program. 

There are other Magnuson-Stevens Act issues I would also like to raise. 

State of Alaska Jurisdiction Over Salmon Management in the EEZ 

The North Pacific Fishery Management Council is considering updating its salmon Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The Council’s salmon FMP was last updated 

in 1990. The FMP does not contain some provisions now required under more recently adopted provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and national standards 
50 

guidelines; including Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and accountability measures 

(AM). 

Under an agreement with the federal government, the State of Alaska manages 

the salmon fishery in state waters. The salmon FMP also covers salmon harvest in 

the EEZ, outside of state waters. There are four salmon fisheries in the EEZ. They 

are: (1) the commercial troll fishery in Southeast Alaska; and net fisheries in (2) 

Prince William Sound; (3) Cook Inlet; and, (4) the South Peninsula area near False 

Pass. All of these EEZ salmon fisheries are managed by the State of Alaska under 

the existing salmon FMP. 

Given its long history of sustainable fishery management, the Alaska salmon fishery is arguably the best managed fishery in the world. The State of Alaska manages 

the salmon fishery based on escapement goals, so it is not clear how ACLs and AM 

can be adopted for the Alaska’s salmon management. 

Because it would be extremely complicated to revise the salmon FMP to meet the 

new Magnuson-Stevens Act and national standards requirements, and because the 

federal government has no real role in salmon management in the EEZ, the Council 

might prefer to simply repeal the salmon FMP for the net fisheries west of Southeast Alaska, and allow the State of Alaska to continue management. The problem 

with repealing the salmon FMP, however, is that the State of Alaska has no authority to regulate vessels in the EEZ that are not registered with the State. If the salmon FMP were repealed, it would be possible for unregulated salmon fishing in the 

EEZ. 

One option to resolve this problem would be to slightly modify section 306(a)(3)(C) 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to allow the State of Alaska to retain management of 

the salmon fishery in the EEZ if the Council chose to repeal the FMP. 

The following simple modification of 306(a)(3)(C) would achieve the goal of allowing the State of Alaska to continue management of the salmon fisheries in the EEZ 

if the Council chose to repeal the salmon FMP. 

306 State Jurisdiction 

(a) In General— 

. . . . 

(3) A State may regulate a fishing vessel outside the boundaries of the 

State in the following circumstances: 

(C) The fishing vessel is not registered under the law of the State of Alaska 

and is operating in a fishery in the exclusive economic zone off Alaska for 

which there is no fishery management plan in place, and the Secretary and 

the North Pacific Council find that there is a legitimate interest of the 

State of Alaska in the conservation and management of such fishery. The 

authority provided under this subparagraph shall terminate while a fishery 

management plan under this Act is approved and implemented for such 

fishery. 

Overfishing Definition and Rebuilding Requirements 

One issue that has been faced in the Pacific coast groundfish fishery is the application of fishery rebuilding requirements and how they relate to coastal communities. Unlike many other fisheries, all of the species that have been designated as 

‘‘overfished’’ within the Pacific groundfish complex have biological characteristics 

that require more than ten years to rebuild the stocks. Under section 304(e)(4)(A)(i) 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the council—in this case, the Pacific Fishery Management Council—must specify a rebuilding period that is as short a time as possible 

while taking into account a number of factors including the needs of fishing communities; in other words, balance biology and social/economic needs. Unfortunately, the 

courts have ignored this balance. In the case of NRDC v Evans, the 9th Circuit 

Court of Appeals ruled in 2005 that Congress’ use of the word ‘‘possible’’ meant that 

the Council must use the absolute minimal time to rebuild. From a practical standpoint, this means that a council has to start with zero fishing. To give a real life 

example, at one point the Pacific Council had a choice between a harvest level that 

would rebuild canary rockfish in January of a particular year, or a slightly higher 

harvest level that would rebuild the stock in December of that same year. According 

to NOAA’s lawyers, under the court decision, the Pacific Council had to use the 

lower harvest level. 

A similar, almost humorous, problem exists in Alaska. The North Pacific Council 

has no overfished groundfish stocks, but one species of crab, the Pacific Island Blue 

King crab, is considered overfished and in need of a rebuilding plan, even though 

no directed fisheries have occurred for nearly two decades and the species is only 

occasionally taken as bycatch in other fisheries. The North Pacific Council is facing 

the prospect of curtailing certain groundfish fisheries because that is the only source 
51 

14 16 U.S.C. § 1854(i). 

of mortality it can affect even though the analysis shows that the expected bycatch 

savings will not impact rebuilding success. 

In summary, Congress should consider amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

that allow some flexibility in its rebuilding requirements when a stock is considered 

‘‘overfished’’ under the Act. 

Reconciling the Magnuson-Stevens Act with the National Environmental 

Policy Act 

The 2006 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act directed the Secretary to update agency procedures so that the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) align and that such procedures ‘‘shall conform to the 

time lines for review and approval of fishery management plans and plan amendments under this section.’’ 14 These procedures were to be developed in consultation 

with the regional councils and the Council on Environmental Quality. On February 

19, 2013, NOAA presented its policy directive regarding NEPA compliance to the 

councils. 

NOAA’s policy directive does not seem to coordinate NEPA and Magnuson-Stevens Act policies, nor improve efficiencies. Instead it seems to subsume the Magnuson-Stevens Act process and the councils’ prerogatives, within NEPA. 

The regional councils cannot be exempt from following NEPA requirements. But 

the key provisions of NEPA should be incorporated within the framework of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Act remain the guiding law for 

fisheries management. 

Thank you very much for your consideration of these comments. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Plesha. And I want to thank all 

of you on the Committee for your testimony. And I particularly 

want to thank you for the timing of your testimony. That is very, 

very much appreciated, because we do have a lot of Members that 

want to ask questions. 

I will recognize myself now for 5 minutes for my portion of the 

questioning. 

I didn’t hear any of you in testimony say that the Magnuson-Stevens Act should go away. You all said that it ought to be reauthorized, but there needs to be whatever—whatever involved with that. 

And the one whatever, I guess, would be, while it is working, the 

implementation, how the Act works is where the criticism may 

come. 

Now, that being the case, if that is a fair assumption on my 

part—well, let me just ask that. Is that a fair assumption on my 

part, that if there is criticism of the Act, it is the implementation 

thereof, various areas? We will go right down. Yes? 

Mr. JONES. Yes. 

Dr. SHIPP. I think that is a large part of it. Not all of it, obviously. 

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that, yes. 

Mr. DOOLEY. Yes, I agree with that statement. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. 

Mr. PAPPALARDO. I agree. 

Mr. LOGAN. Yes, sir, I agree, too. 

Mr. GILL. I agree that it is the majority of it. 

Mr. PLESHA. I agree completely. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. That being said, then it seems to me, at 

least from my perspective, because all of the regional councils are 

different, they have a different constituency, they have a different 

fishery, they have different stock, so it would just seem to me—and 

I know the definition of what I am going to say may be interpreted 
52 

in a different way, but it seems to me, when you talk about flexibility, from my perspective, that flexibility should allow each council to have, obviously, more flexibility within their area. 

Now, the challenge that we are going to face is how that means 

one council decision may conflict with another council. That is the 

balancing act that we have. 

OK. You have heard my assessment. Can I ask each of you if you 

would agree that ought to be the approach and the way the Committee should look at reauthorizing MSA? Let’s go right down the 

list again. 

Mr. JONES. I do, Mr. Chairman, and I believe that there were 

words that—in the main flexibility—that is, putting the determination of the ACL back into the council, rather than the SSC. That 

you could, in that change, allow any council who wanted to stay 

like they are, whether it be a—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. I understand. I mean I understand the 

conflicts. We have heard about SSC and how that interacts with 

the catch limits, and all that. I am just simply saying, from a matter of potential policy, the flexibility that is being desired is flexibility to address those issues more on the regional level than the 

national. That is what I am asking. 

Mr. JONES. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. 

Dr. SHIPP. Yes, I concur with what Bob said. The lack of flexibility comes from the constraints put on the councils in the last reauthorization, especially regarding the SSC. But yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK, all right. 

Mr. DOOLEY. I would agree with that, too, that the regional level 

would be the better place for this to happen, not mandated nationally. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. 

Mr. PAPPALARDO. I believe that the regionalization is the way to 

handle the issue. However, I think the flexibility that we seek in 

New England is to have a scientific cycle in sync with a management cycle. And because that is not the case today, we do not have 

the flexibility to react in—actively or proactively manage our fisheries. 

The CHAIRMAN. Captain Logan? 

Captain LOGAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I agree that the flexibilities 

would be handed down to the councils to be able to have flexibility 

in their fisheries, because they know how their fisheries are being 

fished and also handled at the time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. 

Captain LOGAN. Also, the rigidity of the SSC needs to really be 

looked into, because this is having a big impact on the flexibility 

that is handed down from National Marine Fisheries and NOAA to 

each of the fishery councils. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gill? 

Mr. GILL. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I agree and recognize that is a 

huge challenge. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. Plesha? 

Mr. PLESHA. Mr. Chairman, I think the regional council system 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is the genius behind the Act, and the 

councils should be as flexible as possible. 
53 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. With that in mind—and I thank you 

very much. I mean what I tried to lay out here is the challenge 

that we are going to face in trying to do this with a national act. 

It is not the easiest thing that we have. 

But when NOAA has gotten back—just one example—dealing 

with the catch limits is only one idea. I know it faces all the other 

areas you are talking about. And the mere fact that their rewrite 

of how to do the national guidelines is now taking a little bit longer 

is evidence that there needs to be a way to resolve that. 

OK, listen. I very much appreciate that. That is a good starting 

place, I think, for us, as we go forward. I recognize the Ranking 

Member, Mr. Markey. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pappalardo, in your 

testimony you mention the difference in the frequency and quality 

of stock assessments that underpin management of two New England fisheries: Atlantic Scallops and Northeast Groundfish. Do you 

think we need a comprehensive, end-to-end review of the stock assessment process? 

Mr. PAPPALARDO. I do. If what is meant by that is what I mentioned earlier, the syncing of science and making it available to 

managers, I think one of the fatal flaws that we have between the 

two fisheries is in groundfish the fishing industry has absolutely no 

involvement in the collection of data or assessment data for managers to consider. By contrast, in the scallop fishery, the scallop industry conducts the assessment, their own assessment, the government conducts theirs. They get together on an annual basis, and 

there is agreement that it is working. 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, I do believe it has to be comprehensive. And 

let me ask this. What needs to happen for the successful cooperative science and management program in the scallop fishery industry to be replicated for groundfish? 

Mr. PAPPALARDO. Well, for starters, I think we need to create a 

space outside of the council arena that will allow the industry and 

other agencies and perhaps academic institutions to get together 

and solve this problem. Right now we are getting assessments 

every 3 to 5 years. We are essentially trying to manage our checking accounts with 3-year-old data. And I think the scallop industry 

and what they have done stands as an example of what we would 

like to have in other fisheries. 

Mr. MARKEY. And so, in your opinion, what role can technology 

play in improving fishery management and maximizing healthy 

stocks? Would improvements in electronic catch reporting and monitoring benefit fishermen and fish stocks? 

Mr. PAPPALARDO. Thank you, sir. Yes, absolutely. There are technologies currently in use in other parts of the world, as well as in 

other parts of the country, that would rapidly take information 

from the fishing grounds and get it to the managers. Within a day, 

within 2 days. Currently, the reports from the human observers 

that we are required to take on our boats take 6 to 9 months to 

get to the management table. I think that is unacceptable. 

Bank of America or any other institution can manage millions of 

accounts on a moment-by-moment basis. But when it comes to 

about 600 fishing boats in the groundfish industry it takes 6 to 9 
54 

months to figure out what the heck just happened. That is no way 

to manage. 

Mr. MARKEY. You are saying in a modern world, with technology 

available. 

Mr. PAPPALARDO. That is right. 

Mr. MARKEY. So, I know that many of the fishermen in Massachusetts, especially those who target groundfish, are hurting right 

now. I have been working with others in the New England delegation, including Mr. Keating, to secure economic disaster assistance 

funding for that fishery. And I will continue to do so. 

In the immediate term, though, what actions can the Federal 

Government take to provide fishermen with a bridge to the other 

side of recent quota reductions? 

Mr. PAPPALARDO. Thank you, sir. In my written testimony I mentioned—I believe I mentioned a bill that was filed by now-retiredCongressman Frank that talked about re-purposing some of the SK 

funds that the Nation collects, and making them available to the 

regions to handle their issues on a region-by-region basis. I think 

that would be an interesting place to look. 

In addition, I know that there are other programs available to 

other industries, whether in agriculture or livestock, where businessmen have access to Federally backed capital. I think that is 

something that some fishermen may find attractive, as they can 

make a transition into another fishery. 

Mr. MARKEY. And finally, if we could, what impact are the warming oceans due to climate change having, for example, on the cod 

and lobster industries in New England and across the country? 

Mr. PAPPALARDO. Certainly playing into our ability to rebuild 

some of these resources. I am not a scientist in training, but I can 

tell you that when you have a depressed stock like codfish on Georgia’s bank, and you have a requirement to rebuild it, having an imbalanced ecosystem with lots of different stocks and different levels, as well as climate change, if you will, makes that task much 

more difficult. 

Mr. MARKEY. So what does a warming ocean mean for that cod? 

Do they need colder water in order to survive than warmer water? 

Mr. PAPPALARDO. I would say that we have always known we 

have the southern end of the range of that resource. That is what 

the scientific literature tells us. However, we are not sure if this 

is a cyclical issue, in terms of water temperature, or not. I know 

the waters this year have been relatively cold, and there is some 

hope amongst some of the fishermen that it will translate into a 

good year. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great. Let’s hope so. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. I will now recognize Dr. 

Fleming, the Subcommittee Chairman dealing with oceans, for 5 

minutes. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, gentlemen, thank 

you for coming before us to testify. In NOAA’s testimony on page 

five it says—and I quote—‘‘Without high-quality fishery science, we 

cannot be confident that the Nation is attaining optimum yield 

from its fisheries. 

Now, I have heard it mentioned several times that we really 

need to rely on science, we need to be more precise. But the truth 
55 

is stock assessments are being done less and less frequently and 

less and less accurately. And, as a result of that, the estimates are 

always leaning in the conservative direction toward less and less 

fishing. And what we hear from NOAA when they come and testify, 

they talk about their budget, they say that we are not funding 

them enough. But then, if you actually look at their budget, their 

budgets have increased dramatically over the years. 

But here is what we are finding. NOAA has been redirecting its budget into climate science, with a budget increase of $112 million, 

which is an 8 percent increase, in the environmental satellite program last year. And, at the same time, fisheries were cut $15 million, 1.6 percent. 

So, it seems to me that we are starving this aspect, the science 

part of this, the precise part, creating overly conservative estimates. And, really, in many cases, probably under-fishing. And I 

think some of the testimony here is that we are actually not even 

coming close to the allowable amounts in some cases. 

So I would like to hear from the panel. I would like to open this 

up. Do you think that NOAA is using the funding in an efficient 

manner, and certainly with respect to catch-shares and fishing in 

general? Yes, that will be fine, we can start at that end. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, I don’t think that 

they are using it the way it should be used. I think that the NOAA 

people in our part of the world would be glad to have enough funds 

to do the stock assessment work if they had the money. I don’t 

think they have a say-so of how much money comes their way. I 

think that decisions to reprogram money that could be used is really what is hurting us bad. And if we could get, in the South Atlantic, maybe $500,000 or $1 million—we are not asking for hundreds 

of millions—to do basic work on our stock of red snapper, black sea 

bass, and other things, it would pay significant dividends. 

Dr. FLEMING. Well, and I will point out to you that one satellite, 

one climate satellite, costs as much as $750 million. Yes, sir. 

Dr. SHIPP. Yes, sir. Stock assessment science is very expensive, 

and especially it is in a transition phase right now. Previously, 

stock assessments were based on fishery-dependent data, the 

catches from the fishermen, which inherently is biased and flawed. 

And we are moving toward stock assessments based on fishery 

independent science. That is expensive. And just in the last few 

years, I think the Science Center has started to move in that direction, but it is very slow. 

When you consider the complexities of a model of a hurricane 

track or a winter storm track, and 3 days out you lose almost all 

your reliability—and we are looking at stock assessments with a 

30-year or a 20-year projection—who can have confidence in that? 

So I think that is one of our fundamental problems. 

Dr. FLEMING. Again, the question is, is NOAA efficiently using 

its money or improperly funding or under-funding the stock assessments and the science that go with that, and putting the money 

elsewhere in perhaps an inefficient manner? Real quickly, because 

I am running out of time. 

Mr. DOOLEY. I would—a short answer is going to be hard to give 

you. I would say that—and I will use a particular example, West 

Coast Groundfish rationalization, the catch-share program. Be-
56 

cause of that tool, we have now been able to form cooperatives and 

been able to take some of the management away from NMFS, so 

they should be able to—like catch accounting in our particular 

whiting cooperative, for instance, resumes 98 percent of that burden. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK, I am running out of time. Let’s hear just yes 

or no among the other panel. Is NOAA doing a good job of efficiently funding the catch-shares program, the science, the surveys 

that go with that? 

Mr. PAPPALARDO. I don’t know about NOAA’s budget, but I can 

tell you we are not getting the information we need to manage our 

fisheries. 

Captain LOGAN. No, sir, we are not getting the information we 

needed to manage our fisheries through NOAA. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. 

Mr. GILL. The fishery’s money is under-funded. Whether it 

should be different priorities, I couldn’t tell you. But there is not 

enough money to do it correctly at the fisheries level. 

Mr. PLESHA. I concur the highest priority should be scientific survey work. 

Dr. FLEMING. So it seems the consensus of the panel is that, definitely, the science of surveys is well under-funded, and that data 

is not reliable. And, most likely, where we appear to be overfishing, 

we are probably, in a sense, under-fishing, compared to what we 

are being told and what is being appreciated. 

I thank you gentlemen, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 

Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Guam, Ms. Bordallo. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank 

the witnesses this morning. 

Well, the heart of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is to protect our 

fisheries. In 1976, it prohibited foreign fishing vessels from fishing 

in our waters. I represent Guam. This has not been the case in 

Guam. We find them within our 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone. 

I am committed, however, to finding the right balance with economic impact to our local fishermen. I am disappointed, however, 

that none of our panelists here directly represent the Pacific area, 

and yet we have representatives from Hawaii, the CNMI, myself, 

and Mr. Faleomavaega from American Samoa. So I am disappointed in that. 

Your testimonies this morning have not addressed the very big 

problem of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. Our fishermen are being cheated across this country. Catch that rightfully 

belongs to law-abiding citizens is taken by vessels from foreign 

countries that illegally enter our waters and fish. These bad actors 

unnecessarily compete with legally captured seafood from American fishermen. Illegal and unreported catch also biases the catch 

estimate used in stock assessments. 

IUU vessels are less likely to adhere to management measures. 

In Guam, this may be preventing the traditional use of protected 

species such as the Green Sea Turtle. Throughout the Pacific, limited harvest of Green Sea Turtles is allowed, but is prohibited in 

Guam, CNMI, and Hawaii, and perhaps even Samoa. Targeted or 
57 

incidental catch of Green Sea Turtles by IUU vessels may be limiting the recovery of the Green Turtle population. 

This is not a problem for just Guam. According to the 2011 commercial fisheries data, of the top 100 U.S. ports affected by job loss 

due to IUU fishing, 24 are in the Gulf of Mexico and 18 are in 

Alaska. 

Around one in five fish caught in the world were done so illegally. So I am interested in your thoughts, Mr. Plesha. Given the 

problems that Alaska has with not only IUU fishing but also importing of illegally caught products, many of which are mislabeled, 

do you believe that legislation like my bill, which is H.R. 69—are 

you familiar with that bill? 

Mr. PLESHA. Ms.—— 

Ms. BORDALLO. No? Well, let me just say it amends the High 

Seas Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement Act, the High Seas Fishing 

Compliance Act, the Northern Pacific Halibut Act, and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. By 

amending these Acts we revised the violations, the penalties, the 

permit requirements, the port privileges, the IUU sanction, and 

other enforcements. 

So, I would like to get your feelings on this. Do we need more 

tools to protect our seafood industries and fisheries? 

Mr. PLESHA. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, members of 

the Committee, I very much do believe that we need to strengthen 

our IUU enforcement—— 

Ms. BORDALLO. Could you speak up a little? 

Mr. PLESHA. Yes. I very much do believe that we do need to 

strengthen our IUU enforcement. I spoke 2 years ago on behalf of 

Senator Murkowski’s and Senator Begich’s legislation to accomplish that, and I haven’t seen the specific provision you are talking 

to, but I very much support the effort. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much. And again, I have other 

questions for the next panel, but Mr. Chairman, I do think we 

should place our interest more into the Pacific area. It is the largest body of water in the world. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back her time. The Chair 

recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Runyan. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my first question 

is going to be for Captain Logan. Obviously, up in my district, in 

New Jersey, I have quite a few charterboat captains. And I have 

heard many complaints about Magnuson-Stevens from disgust over 

lack of access to rebuild stocks and poor science resulting in reductions in the catch. And the big one is really fear of the future of 

catch-share programs being imposed on them. 

The lack of access to rebuild stocks has really seemed to hit the 

biggest nerve, especially in New Jersey, where recreational fishermen have begged for greater access to black sea bass for years. I 

witnessed this myself, many times. 

What is, in your opinion, the biggest regulatory hurdle, as a 

charterboat captain, to sustain your business? 

Captain LOGAN. Our biggest regulatory hurdle now is not having 

the flexibility in the bill for the fishery councils to manage the fisheries that they need to manage at their local level. 
58 

And the funding from NOAA that has been taken from NOAA 

used in places to provide us with the data that we need to collect 

for studies of our fisheries, like it was stated earlier, we are dealing 

with 3- to 5-year-old data for our fisheries. And that data just isn’t 

up-to-date. It wasn’t available soon enough after it was collected. 

And that is what’s hurting the fishermen. 

As far as you mentioned catch-shares earlier, it seems that the 

East Coast fishermen are 100 percent against catch-shares. Catchshares is not a management tool. It is a last resort to our fisheries. 

Catch-shares gives individual rights to fish. Our ocean belongs to 

everyone, not just individuals that have the right to fish it. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you. And the other one is for Bob Jones. You 

said in your statement when you were talking about the balance 

between economic and social, how do we make the change—obviously, it is in the law, but how do we make the change to strengthen it and make it, I don’t know, in the forefront, and make it part 

of the process? Do you have any ideas on that? 

Mr. JONES. I do. I think that you need to lean on NOAA. That 

is who is going to make the definition. That is who is going to write 

the regulations. They know that they are supposed to consider social and economic aspects, because that is in the law, but we are 

just in a state in this particular time where we seem to be only 

looking at the fish itself, and not the things that should be included, as far as the optimum yield. 

And so, I think the law already requires them to look at that. 

I think what we perceive, whether we are right or wrong, is they 

are just not doing it to the extent that we think we are getting 

enough information. 

Mr. RUNYAN. It is probably the same answer, but you also said 

in your testimony when a fishery is closed, there is no fishery-dependent data being produced that can be used in future stock assessments. Is it still kind of the same thing as leaning on them, 

or trying to put some more pressure on them? 

Mr. JONES. Well, yes, sir. You need to lean on them hard. They 

are a tough group for us to deal with. There are a lot of good people, and we respect them. They have great employees. But under 

their policies, some of the policies, it just doesn’t give us opportunity to see what they are doing, how you are doing it, what are 

you doing now, how can we best work together. You can’t manage 

a fishery just looking at the harvest level, because if you put caps 

on the harvest level, then you are manipulating what product is 

coming in. So you need to look at everything. 

But the main problem with the system is we just don’t have, we 

think, access to how the system works, as far as getting the stock 

assessment. 

Mr. RUNYAN. In other words, transparency? 

Mr. JONES. That would solve most of our angst in the Southeast. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you very much. With that, I yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. The Chair recognizes the 

gentlelady from Hawaii, Ms. Hanabusa. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 

being here. It is kind of rare when you all agree on one thing, 

which is that you are not getting information, sufficient informa-
59 

tion, to manage the fisheries. And we all know that the amount of 

seafood that the United States is basically importing from elsewhere is about 90 percent of what is being consumed. So that is 

a very striking number, as well. 

So, given the fact that the other thing we can all agree on is the 

fact that the oceans are not just us—in other words, it is not just 

within the jurisdiction of NOAA and the United States, you have 

other parties and players that are dealing. As the gentlewoman 

from Guam says, we have concerns about our territorial and jurisdictional waters, as well. 

So, given all of this, the question I have for each of you—and you 

can just go down and answer it—is if you are not getting the information you need to manage the fisheries, and if it looks like we are 

importing seafood into the country, versus being able to sustain 

ourselves, and we agree that the MSA is a good law, and the fisheries—I think one of you said that the fisheries, the regional fisheries is the genius behind the Act, tell me how is it that we are 

ever going to get to the point when we have players that we have 

no control over, and we are importing, and you are not getting sufficient information, tell me what you think would be the reasonable 

way a Committee like us should begin to look at this issue. It looks 

like we are just going around and around in a circle. 

So, given that, you can start on the left and work your way 

down. And remember, we have about 3 minutes left, so keep it as 

concise as you can. 

Mr. JONES. I am not sure I can answer that. I don’t know how 

to get where it is that we need to be. And when you bring imports 

into this situation, there is always going to be that amount of imports, because we just can’t produce enough fish to make up for 

that. 

Dr. SHIPP. Yes, my main problem is that we are just totally obsessed with the concern about overfishing and not nearly as concerned about achieving optimal yield, as we should be. And part of 

that is sometimes translated in the buffers that are put in. But I 

think that is where we need to go. Let’s focus on achieving optimal 

yield. 

Mr. DOOLEY. I agree with Dr. Shipp on that, also, that we need 

to focus on optimum yield. But I think we need to, more than that, 

focus on increasing research and increasing research to define the 

stocks and to do good research. And maybe get the agencies less 

into accounting for fish and for managing the fishery that way, and 

maybe partnership with industry to do that so that it frees the 

Agency up to do research, and I would also add to that enter in 

a collaboration with the stakeholders in doing research. 

Mr. PAPPALARDO. Well, I think certainly species that cross international boundaries are difficult to manage, and we have to do our 

best through these international agreements. I have a little bit of 

experience with that. But for those stocks that are under our control, under our purview, I think we need to focus on rebuilding 

them and maintaining them at rebuild levels. 

The fact that we are importing so much seafood, I find that disturbing. I know for a fact that in some instances, as we have taken 

upon ourselves rebuilding of resources, we have lost market share. 

And gaining back that market share in a globally traded com-
60 

modity is very difficult. So I think that there may be ways for this 

body or other bodies within Congress to look at, as our stocks come 

back, price support or government contracts to buy some of the seafood that we have rebuilt, until the private industry, private market, can re-establish market share. 

Captain LOGAN. We are at 92 percent import of fish to the 

United States with 8 percent being caught by the commercial fisherman here in the United States. And this is largely in play with 

Magnuson-Stevens, with the restrictions that have been put on the 

fishermen, not being able to catch fish. Obviously, if we were allowed to catch more fish and still keep the sustainability, we would 

be able to produce more fish for the United States. 

Yes, we cannot provide everybody with fish here in the United 

States, but we can definitely do a whole lot more for our part of 

it. And the biggest problem is we are not—NOAA is not letting us 

meet our maximum level of fisheries that we can. 

Mr. GILL. My suggestion is that the Committee focus on the 

things it can control, and let the other ones react and be a result. 

So the focus should be maximizing the domestic fisheries, and 

whatever happens relative to imports will happen. We can’t do any 

more than the maximum that the fisheries can sustain. 

Mr. PLESHA. And thank you. I would first of all like to correct 

the record on just one item. We also have a plant in Hawaii. 

And second, with regard to your question, I think it is important 

to recognize the U.S. industry exports a lot of seafood products, as 

well. And with regard to imports, what we can do is make sure 

that there are only legally harvested fish imported into the United 

States, and support strengthening of the IUU regulations. Thank 

you. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. YOUNG [presiding]. Thank you. 

Dr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to go 

straight to Dr. Shipp. I want to ask you a question. Do you think 

that NMFS should consider data from fishermen, from academic institutions, from third parties, in order to improve fishery access 

through the acquisition of better data? 

Dr. SHIPP. Yes and no to several. 

Dr. WITTMAN. OK. 

Dr. SHIPP. From individual fishermen, yes, but with the caveat 

that those data are going to be inherently biased. From research 

institutions, that is where you are going to get your best fishery 

independent data. 

Dr. WITTMAN. Tell me. Why do you believe the data from fishermen would be biased? 

Dr. SHIPP. Well, for example, let’s take the red snapper commercial fishermen. They are focusing on a 2- to 4-pound fish, because 

that is where their biggest profit margin is. When those data go 

into the model, the model may interpret that as, well, the fish are 

too small. We don’t have enough big fish. When, in fact, that is a 

result of the targeting of those smaller fish. 

Dr. WITTMAN. Well, let me ask you this, then. What can NMFS 

do, then, to better improve access in the Gulf to the red snapper 

fishery? 
61 

Dr. SHIPP. If you are talking about the commercial guys, I think 

they are in pretty good shape. They have an IFQ program that—— 

Dr. WITTMAN. Well, access is across the board. So not just the 

commercial side, but—— 

Dr. SHIPP. But for—— 

Dr. WITTMAN [continuing]. The recreational side. 

Dr. SHIPP. For the recreational fishermen I go back to my initial 

testimony. We need to turn it over to the States for at least the 

first 20 fathoms, because the regions of the Gulf are so very different from one area to another, to manage the whole Gulf as a single unit is extremely difficult and not nearly what we need to 

produce optimal yield. 

Off of Alabama, we could have a year-round season, two fish bag 

limit, and it wouldn’t make a dent in our population. 

Dr. WITTMAN. Got you. Thank you, Dr. Shipp. Mr. Plesha, I want 

to go to you. I know in Alaska there has been a catch-share program that has been developed there. And in your testimony you 

talk at length about catch-shares being a tool in that tool box for 

fishery management decisions, and that these should be options for 

the regional council and for the Secretary. 

Can you tell me, do you think it would be harmful if catch-shares 

were completely taken off of the table as a fisheries management 

tool? 

Mr. PLESHA. I think it would be. I think there are fisheries, especially the fisheries that are industrial, like those off of Alaska, 

where catch-share programs have proven to be very successful, not 

just for incentivizing conservation, but for maximizing the benefits 

to the Nation. And when I mean that, I mean not just the producers, but the consumers, as well. 

So, I think it is a tool that is useful to continue to have within 

the Act. 

Dr. WITTMAN. How about Alaska’s rationalization program? You 

talk about that. Can that success in the rationalization program in 

Alaska be replicated in other areas around the United States? 

Mr. PLESHA. I feel very uncomfortable speaking for other regions 

in the United States. I just know that it has been successful in 

Alaska. 

Dr. WITTMAN. All right. Let me ask you. In your view, the use 

of fishery cooperatives are an important component of the catchshare programs. As you know, this shared vision planning where 

people talk about the issues, talk about how do you manage in a 

cooperative way these fisheries, especially including the harvesters 

of the resource up front, and making those management decisions. 

What could NOAA do to better encourage fishery cooperatives, or 

those types of concepts, as they make fisheries management decisions? 

Mr. PLESHA. Well, in the case of the fishery cooperatives in Alaska, they really have been based around harvester-processor linkage 

and both harvesters and processors being part of the cooperatives. 

Unfortunately, NOAA has considered that to be not authorized 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

So, one of the things they could do is either change their legal 

opinion, or the Act can be amended so that is clarified, that those 

type of cooperatives, which have proven to be very successful, are 
62 

allowed to be developed by the councils under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Dr. WITTMAN. Very good. Mr. Dooley, I want to go to you. I know 

that, through the process, there has been a lot of discussion about 

having NMFS consider data collected by fishermen, that observational data, that real time out there on the water. My son is a commercial fisherman and he tells me all the time, ‘‘Dad, let me tell 

you what I am seeing,’’ and it is not showing up in the decisions 

that are being made by National Marine Fisheries Service. 

What can be done to encourage the National Marine Fisheries 

Service to be more active in considering data collected by fishermen 

in their management decision scheme? 

Mr. DOOLEY. I think several things could be done. One in particular that is being used in the North Pacific right now is most 

of the fishing vessels that I operate or operate around have very 

high-tech sounders and sonars. And these are of the same quality 

as they use in the research vessels. And there is an effort to collect 

that data from vessels while they are fishing. And it is black box 

data, cannot be manipulated. It comes directly from the receiver. 

It is very comparable to what is being collected. And it is used to 

augment and to prove what they are seeing in the research charters that they are doing, that NMFS is doing. So, I think that is 

a very good way to do it. 

We have also—actually, this last year in the whiting fishery, we 

had a biannual survey. We needed a mid-year survey, because we 

had what we believed was a survey that dropped the quota of whiting almost in half, and we didn’t believe it was warranted, from 

what we were seeing on the grounds. So industry funded a boat 

and crew and completely funded it, and followed with an anchovy 

survey and teamed with NMFS to do an alternate survey. And that 

survey proved to be very fruitful, and it looks like the quota—they 

are deciding that now—will be back up and what we had said was 

true. 

So, I think those type of interactions are very, very useful. Industry funded it, industry supported it, and the agency collaborated 

with it, and it worked out very well. 

Dr. WITTMAN. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Sablan. You, you are up. 

Mr. SABLAN. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

good morning, everyone. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that a statement from 

Matt Ruby, the President of the South Atlantic Fishermen’s Association, be included in the hearing record. 

Mr. YOUNG. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement from Matt Ruby submitted for the 

record by Mr. Sablan follows:] 

Statement Submitted for the Record by Matt Ruby, President, 

South Atlantic Fishermen’s Association 

The South Atlantic Fishermen’s Association (SAFA) appreciates the opportunity 

to comment on efforts to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act (MSA), which is set to expire in September. The MSA is fundamental to ensuring that federal fisheries are sustainable, and SAFA generally 

supports the reauthorization of the MSA. For that reason, SAFA would like to take 
63 

this opportunity to raise two critical issues for the Committee to consider: management tools authorized by the MSA and improvements to data and science. 

Improving Data and Science by Working with Fishermen 

Much of the criticism of fisheries management relates to the quantity and quality 

of data and science used by managers. Science and data questions have led to mistrust of the regulators by fishermen, concerns about the reliability of established 

catch limits, and in many cases, these questions have led to bad management decisions. 

The MSA provides an opportunity for Congress to address some of these data and 

science issues, by leveraging the resources of fishermen. The Federal government 

has finite resources available to handle collection of data for fisheries management. 

Those resources are further constrained by continued pressure on the Federal budget. Thus, changes must be made in order to make improvements in these areas by 

leveraging the resources of fishermen to help achieve the goals of the MSA. 

Thus, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should be increasing its collaboration with fishermen to collect data. Fishermen are on-thewater. The data and information that they collect can and should be more effectively 

utilized by the government to improve the science supporting fisheries management. 

By encouraging the use of vessel monitoring systems and/or on-board observers, the 

agency could also further improve the quality and reliability of the information collected. Moreover, by engaging with fishermen, NOAA can build trust and get access 

to important data that can help better inform the agency in the development of 

management plans. 

SAFA is a willing partner with Congress and the agency to both develop and implement methods to improve data collection and improve the scientific methods used 

to assess historical stocks that are data poor in the region. 

Ensuring a Broad Suite of Management Tools 

The MSA authorizes a number of different management tools, and also provides 

for local decision-making in fishery management through regional fishery management councils. Among the management tools considered and authorized by Congress 

when the MSA was reauthorized in 2006/2007 were limited access privilege programs, commonly referred to as catch shares. 

Catch shares have been in existence in U.S. fisheries for decades, and have proven 

to be an effective tool for managing many federal fisheries. Unfortunately, some in 

Congress have attempted to eliminate their use as a management tool. SAFA is opposed to such efforts and urges the Committee to maintain catch shares as a management tool in any reauthorization of the MSA. 

SAFA strongly believes that fishermen should have the ability to consider all fishery management options and choose those that are best for their businesses and the 

future health of the fisheries in which they work. The MSA provides valuable tools 

to achieve those objectives, including permitting councils to consider catch share 

programs. There is no justifiable reason for Congress to withhold a management 

tool—particularly one like catch shares that has proven very effective in some 

cases—when stakeholders in a region want to explore the use of that tool. 

Our members strongly support efforts to improve fishery management and have 

been active stakeholder participants with the regional councils, NOAA, and Congress to do just that. But previous legislative proposals introduced in the prior Congress by Reps. Runyan (H.R. 1646, H.R. 2772, and H.R. 6350) and Pallone 

(H.R. 594 and H.R. 3061) undermine the process and the very efforts being undertaken by the councils to preserve jobs, improve the livelihoods of fishermen, and 

sustain our fishery resources. We hope that as the Committee considers the reauthorization of the MSA, it will not pursue similar approaches as those proposed in 

those bills, especially as it pertains to catch shares, rebuilding timelines, or flexibility. 

Finally, we continue to believe that through the MSA Congress established a good 

approach to managing the resource—namely, the regional fishery management 

councils which are predominantly comprised of stakeholders in the fisheries. The 

council process, while it may not be perfect, is an effective means of ensuring fishermen input in decision-making on critical issues of management and conservation. 

It must be preserved. 

Conclusion 

SAFA stands ready to work with the Committee on making improvements to the 

MSA in order to bolster the data and science that is badly needed for our federal 

fisheries. It strongly opposes efforts to restrict the use of catch shares, or to make 

the implementation of catch share programs more difficult. It supports preservation 

of the regional fishery management council system. 
64 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, everyone. 

In the Northern Mariana Islands, fishing has been a central part 

of our culture, and a critical source of food for over 3,000 years. Because our lives are so closely tied to the ocean, sustainable management of fisheries in the Western Pacific is necessary for our very 

survival. 

Some of the witnesses today have said that the Magnuson-Stevens Act has made our fisheries management overly cautious. A 

friend of mine is opening a restaurant in a couple of weeks from 

now, and he told me that on top of the door to his restaurant he 

is going to say, ‘‘Hunters’’—because his last name happened to be 

Hunter—so he says, ‘‘Hunters, fishermen, politicians, and liars, 

welcome.’’ And I said, ‘‘Why fishermen?’’ And he says, ‘‘Well, because they usually talk about the big one that got away.’’ 

But my fishermen, those that actually catch fish, tell me a different story. They say that the fish they catch today are smaller 

than they used to be, and that they catch fewer of them. In our 

case, the culprit is illegal fishing, as Ms. Bordallo had spoken earlier about, by foreign fleets. But overfishing of any kind harms 

coastal communities, and particularly those of us in the Pacific Islands and in the island communities. 

So, let me start by asking Mr. Gill. You mentioned, sir, in your 

testimony that the requirement to end overfishing and establish 

science-based catch limits has been beneficial to many fisheries. 

Could you please give us a couple of examples? 

Mr. GILL. Thank you, sir. I will be happy to. Our red snapper in 

the Gulf of Mexico is an example where, prior to the implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ACLs, AMs, the fishery was 

constantly overfished, and overfishing was constantly occurring, resulting in almost a 50 percent reduction in the available fish for 

fishermen to catch. And today, 5 years later, it is roughly doubled 

in size, in terms of what fish can be caught, and the fish themselves have roughly doubled in size, as well. And it is an example 

of hard ceilings creating a lot of pain, but they also permit the regrowth of the fishery. 

Mr. SABLAN. And so you are telling me—and if you are—you are 

explaining how continued overfishing and a failure to rebuild fish 

stocks would impact your business and others like it. 

Mr. GILL. Could you repeat that please, sir? 

Mr. SABLAN. So you are actually saying—and if you are, can you 

explain how continued overfishing and a failure to rebuild fish 

stocks would impact your business and others like it? 

Mr. GILL. In the seafood business, the fish house is dependent 

on, generally speaking, many species but, more importantly, a high 

volume. Because the profit margin in the fish house is extremely 

slim. And the only way to accrue sufficient funds to keep operation 

requires a volume of fish. 

If you have overfishing and the quotas go down, they can’t catch 

as many fish. And so that imperils the fish house viability. 

Mr. SABLAN. Yes. And because I am really trying to also reconcile 

in my own mind how we prevent overfishing as an intention of the 

Act, and yet also achieve optimum yield. And so I am going to try 

to continue to reconcile that, because I think we can achieve opti-
65 

mal yield, once we stop overfishing. That is just my thought for 

now. 

But let me go to Mr. Pappalardo. Sir, many people have blamed 

fishery management tools like catch-shares and sectors for pushing 

off small business—small-boat fishermen. So what strategies has 

your organization adopted to keep people in business? And can 

those strategies be helpful to fishermen elsewhere? 

Mr. PAPPALARDO. Thank you, sir. We have invested money, we 

have borrowed money, we have bought fishing permits and fishing 

quota, and we hold it in trust for our fishermen in our community 

to access at drastically reduced rates. So we have essentially 

formed a buying cooperative where we have bought access to the 

fishery and make it available to fishermen. I think that there is a 

model there that could be shared with other regions in the country. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Southerland? 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Jones, I 

wanted to ask you. You made reference in your testimony about the 

ban on red snapper fishing in the Southeast region, and you said 

that was passed on a 7 to 6 vote with very incomplete data. Can 

you just kind of elaborate on that a little bit? 

I wasn’t aware of the vote, and as far as the slim margin of the 

vote. But kind of just give us some understanding of, first of all, 

when that was, when the closure was instituted, how much warning people had that it was coming, and then I am going to ask you 

a follow-up question or two. 

Mr. JONES. OK, thank you, sir. It happened over 2 years ago, and 

the South Atlantic Ocean from the Virginia line all the way to Key 

West has been closed to red snapper fishing by everyone. No recreational, no commercial. During the time it was going on, and testimony was given, by even members of the Council, we understood 

them to say that the information, the scientific information, is imprecise and incomplete. 

And we, the industry, wanted more information on what the 

science really said. We begged for stock assessments, we begged for 

information. But the way I remember it, they were on a time 

schedule, they had to accomplish certain things by a certain date, 

and so the motion was made to ban all fishing, the vote was 7 to 

6 in open session. And therefore, it became banned from that point. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. So it is 2 years old. There is probably no way 

to be able to measure the economic impact, or the devastation as 

a result of making that decision with little data, at least data that 

was less than conclusive. 

You know, I look at our national standards for fisheries, Section 

301, and I look down here at the 10 standards that councils are to 

use. Then we do something as drastic as total closure of a fishery. 

And one of the 10 says that, to the extent practicable, minimize the 

adverse economic impacts on communities. Do you feel that was 

followed on a 7 to 6 vote with little to no good data or information 

to make the decision? 

Mr. JONES. Absolutely not. I don’t believe—— 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. So, therefore, you believe that the Council 

that is supposed to be looking out for the regional interests violated 

one of the 10 required objectives that they are chartered to follow. 
66 

Mr. JONES. I would put it another way. I would say that the 

Council may not have adhered to the requirement they have in the 

same manner that we would have preferred. But they did not, in 

our opinion, ever consider anything but the biological standpoint of 

that particular fishery. And the economic impact to every person 

who is in the charterboat business, recreational business, hotels, 

motels, restaurants, you could get a calculation. But it would be 

higher than most people think. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Sure. 

Mr. JONES. I think it was a political vote, and that happens in 

situations. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. So, has there been a stock assessment done 

since the 100 percent closure of the red snapper in the South Atlantic? 

Mr. JONES. I don’t think there has. I am sure that the next witness will tell you where they are. But we don’t see anywhere near 

what needs to be done. The industry itself had to come up with 

about $20,000 to establish a tagging program to where we would 

pay a charter boat to allow two marine biologists from the State 

lab to come out and tag fish. That is the only tagging that I know 

about. And they know that we are not satisfied, no one is satisfied 

with what they are doing on the science. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Thank you very much. Dr. Shipp, a quick 

question, and I see my time is quickly leaving me. 

You made reference to the explosives that are being used to remove rigs, especially over in your neck of the woods, south of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and that they are literally killing— 

I saw the news article, the new story done by a Mobile news channel that showed thousands upon thousands of red snapper floating 

dead in the water. 

And I am amazed that when you look at all those fish—and obviously all those fish that are dead are not counted in the assessments, because I have asked NMFS numerous times, most recently 

during the field hearing in Panama City last year, ‘‘Do they count 

fish that are on artificial rigs,’’ and the answer was no, they do 

not—you, sir, represent a State and live in a State that makes up 

40 percent of all of the red snapper landings in the Gulf of Mexico. 

So an enormous haul, basically, for a State that has gotten to that 

point because of artificial rigs. 

I have run out of time. I will come back to that. But so—— 

Dr. SHIPP. I hope you do. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I am so sorry. I am so sorry. I think it is a 

topic that is worthy of greater exploration. And when we say that 

we cannot increase taxes on hardworking families that are making 

their living fishing, and yet we have the ability to go out and remove reefs with explosives that kill tens of thousands of fish, and 

we refuse to count those fish, it undermines the credibility of the 

institutions that have the responsibility to manage the fish. And so 

there is no trust, as long as that kind of stuff continues. That was 

my point. I yield back. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. Mr. Lowenthal. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member, and all the witnesses. You know, I am a new Member and I 

am here primarily to listen, to learn. I represent a coastal district 
67 

in Southern California. We have a thriving recreational fishing industry, probably as large, if not larger, than even commercial fishing. 

Recreational fishermen are working with NOAA and the State of 

California to reduce bycatch in new and innovative ways. For example, currently our local recreational fisherpeople have been 

working with the State, NOAA, and an NGO to develop devices to 

reduce trauma and the death of fish that live under very high pressures after being brought to the surface. They developed descending devices that bring rockfish back down to the depths, where they 

are able to regain their functions and swim away. 

And what I am concerned about—now this is switching a little 

bit—is how we continue collaborative partnerships between recreational fisherpeople, NOAA, the State, and NGO’s. So I am interested in how MSA can continue to bring all the stakeholders to the 

table. That is really what—including the recreational fishing people, to address some of these issues about bycatch, overfishing, how 

we can end that, how we can continue science-based management, 

which all of you have said is definitely needed, how we can create 

sustainable fisheries that support our communities and really do 

yield optimal yield, and so how we would create this balance. 

So my question, really, is for Mr. Dooley from Central California. 

And it really has to do with how the council process works, in 

terms of stakeholder input. Do you feel there is an adequate, first, 

understanding by the public of how the council works, or how our 

councils work? And does that need improvement? 

Mr. DOOLEY. Well, speaking from that perspective, from the Pacific Council, particularly—— 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Yes. 

Mr. DOOLEY. I think the Pacific Council does an excellent job of 

reaching out. I think it is well represented at the Council meetings 

by the public, by the industry. It is a very good process. 

Speaking of the catch-share process and its development, it was 

developed from the bottom up. Many stakeholders involved worked 

hand-in-hand with the Council and the agencies to put together an 

excellent program. 

I think, speaking to what you said earlier about recreational and 

the entire fishery, how do we get it sustainable, well, I think it 

really gets to one word: accountability. We have total accountability 

in the rationalized fishery. In the trawl, in the catch-share program, it is 100 percent—in most cases, 200 percent—observed. The 

cost of that is very high, that is a big issue; we need to talk about 

that. But talking about sustainability, you will never know what is 

being taken out of that ocean until we know—and have an accountable system for everyone, from recreational all the way through 

every commercial fisherman, to understand what is being removed 

and understand how to deal with that. 

So, I think accountability is very important. Catch-shares help 

bring that to fruition. We are paying for it in our catch-share program. We are having subsidies at this time that are going to disappear from the government that are helping them. There are 

many issues with that. I would love to go into that with you in 

depth if you ever have the time. But I would—you know, there are 

a lot of issues there. But I think accountability is really important. 
68 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Do you think that this kind of—you mentioned 

how, in the Council—and the Pacific Council has really included 

the input of the public now greatly, and you really like that—do 

you think that has helped to reduce litigation? 

Mr. DOOLEY. There has been litigation against this program, a 

couple of cases. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Yes. 

Mr. DOOLEY. However, I was active in this whole process from 

the very beginning. It took 7 years, 8 years, to get this—with many 

committee-level meetings and hours upon hours of council time and 

agency time to put together a program that took into consideration 

communities, took into consideration control limits to maintain the 

flavor of small communities, so that they don’t disappear, to not let 

excessive consolidation happen. This program did that. 

I think the undoing of it, the undoing of all that good work, may 

be the cost. Because observer cost is very high. There are many 

other costs, a cost recovery for the program, there are several costs 

that move into this, the buy-back loan that is sitting out there at 

a 7 percent interest rate, and taking 5 percent off the top of the 

fishery. Those things are things that we need to deal with, to go 

forward. 

However, the benefits to sustainability, the elimination of discards, the elimination of bycatch, a reduction of bycatch, are things 

that are just shining examples of a well-run, properly executed 

catch-share program, and a well-run fishery. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. And I do wish to continue this discussion with you. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Don. Mr. Dooley, I am well aware what 

an extraordinary burden has been placed on the West Coast fleet 

with the physical observers. And I find it very interesting, your 

comments here on page five. I have been urging a move toward 

some sort of electronic monitoring. But you raise an issue here, and 

I want to investigate what you have seen going on here. You are 

talking about—it sounds to me like we are dealing with the FAA. 

I mean they are famous for over-designing, re-designing, over-designing, I mean they have been trying to implement a new air traffic control system now since I have been in Congress, and that is 

27 years, and they still haven’t figured out what it is. 

So, I am curious about your observations on where NOAA is 

headed with electronic monitoring. And you are talking about, you 

know, they are headed toward a Cadillac, we could work with a 

Chevy. Does the technology for the Chevy already exist? Is it offthe-shelf? Could we get that out there quickly? And what are they 

headed toward here? 

Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you. Absolutely, the technology is there for 

a Chevy. We have that. There is also technology being developed 

for the Cadillac. 

However, the one word that has been said here today most is 

flexibility. Flexibility is key. Not one tool fits all. You don’t design 

one system and say, ‘‘Oh, that is great, everybody gets to use it.’’ 

There are fisheries that are full retention fisheries. If you are fishing dover, you can keep everything that you catch and bring it in. 

These guys are coming in now with less than 2 percent that they 
69 

put over the side. They could bring that to town. All they need on 

that boat, rather than a $450-a-day observer, all they need is a 

camera that documents whether you have had a discard or not. 

And that is very, very low-tech, very simple, very little data to 

review. It has been in use before in the hake fleet, that camera system was used on the inshore hake fleet and very successfully. But 

now we all have observers that are costing a lot of money. And 

they are going to cost more. 

You know, Alaska just instituted an observer program that is upwards of $1,000 a day for observer costs per person. They are instituting a 1.5 percent or 1.25 percent, I believe, fee to all participants 

to fund this on their ex-vessel value. However, this only achieves 

a 15 percent observer rate and observer coverage. If you went up 

to 100 percent observer coverage on that model, nobody could afford to fish. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. So what, specifically, are they looking to add 

in the data monitoring that would make it more like a Cadillac? 

And are those necessary parameters or are they just over-designing 

here? 

Mr. DOOLEY. I think there are desires to have speciation, to understand what every fish is that is going over the side, and somehow absolutely quantify how much is being discarded. And those 

type of camera systems, although they may be possible in the future, they are expensive right now. And I think that we need relief 

right now. 

We need relief from these costs right now. Because particularly 

in the case of West Coast rationalization, we have many small 

ports up and down particularly—I mean California and Oregon 

have small ports with small fishing vessels. Four hundred and fifty 

dollars a day for an observer is unbelievably expensive, and it is 

a big portion of their income. If they were allowed to use less hightech methods, and cheaper methods, they could survive. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. And then just your observation on maximum 

sustainable yield, optimal yield, and the rollover issue. This has 

been a problem for some folks. I mean you get locked out by bad 

weather, you got a quota but you can’t fish it, and you can’t roll 

it over. What kind of response have you got from NOAA on that? 

Mr. DOOLEY. It is a problem with the ACL language, I believe. 

It makes it—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So it is just the language. It is not necessarily a 

biological issue, where they say, that would create a stock problem 

if you fished a little more one year and less another. 

Mr. DOOLEY. I have heard no proof to that. I have heard some 

people could have that concern. But like I mentioned in my testimony, fish don’t have calendars. Some years they run over from 

one year to the next. Just the way the fish present themselves. 

This is a biomassive fish of many species. Some years they will be 

over the calendar year, or some years they don’t show up at all. 

So, if you under-harvest one year, I believe you should be able 

to average this over the long term, to obtain optimum yield. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. I want to thank the panel. This has been 

interesting to me. I am sorry I was a little late. 
70 

But, Captain Logan, I understand the State of South Carolina 

once owned a fish survey vessel. Do they still own it? And, if so, 

could it be used to supplement Federal fishery surveys for important species such as black sea bass and red snapper? 

Captain LOGAN. Yes, sir. They own the research vessel called 

Palmetto. It is funded through the Marpac program. And I have 

talked to Colonel Taylor, who is head of D&R, and they do not have 

any problem at all in helping with the Federal funding to make 

sure that we get the right data that we need. 

My personal opinion is we need to defund NOAA. We need to 

take the money away from them. They are taking that money and 

using it somewhere else, instead of using it on our fisheries. Give 

it to the States. Like Mr. Shipp said, he said 20 fathoms. I look 

at 50 fathoms. Let each State govern their fisheries out to 50 fathoms. Give that money to them, let them do the research. Most 

States are already proving that research through creel clerks now 

that are doing these surveys. We can get a whole lot better data 

that way, it is a whole lot more controllable, and we know where 

the money is going, and it is not being misused. 

But, yes, sir. That vessel is there, and they are willing to use it. 

They just need the direction of where to go. And the biggest problem they’ve had with that vessel is when they do get a order from 

NOAA, they send them out to a area where there is no live bottom. 

It is all mud bottom. There is no live bottom in that area. Many 

occasions we have been out charter fishing or commercial fishing, 

that boat has been there, and we call them up, say, ‘‘Hey, what you 

guys doing?’’ 

‘‘Oh, we are doing research, blah, blah, blah.’’ 

‘‘Well, hey, you need to come over here, this is where the rocks 

are. Over there is just muddy bottom for miles and miles and 

miles.’’ 

‘‘Well, we can’t leave this grid. We are stuck in this grid here. 

This is the area we have to fish in.’’ 

So they are not sending them to the right places. They are sending them places where it is mud. Fish live on rocks. They live on 

structure. They need the good information to get them there. That 

is why they need to talk to the fishermen. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, but what I am interested in—I was listening 

to—I believe it is, let me see, what is it, Dr.—what is the last 

name? 

Dr. SHIPP. Shipp. 

Mr. YOUNG. Shipp. You know, I am mature and I can’t see as far 

as I used to see. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. YOUNG. I tell you there are much better-looking women now 

than there was when I was 18. I can tell you that right now. You 

all look good. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. YOUNG. But I am interested in the council. It bothers me 

about NOAA and NMFS, that a lot of this studying is being done, 

I would say, by people that don’t really understand fisheries. And 

it is like doing studies on a mud bottom, for instance. That is silly. 

Why couldn’t we use the information that you can collect from 

those black boxes, as long as it is sacred, and make sure that they 
71 

have to use it also? I am thinking about something in the bill that 

would make them have to use this information, instead of relying 

on, well, we don’t have the money, or we can’t do the study, and 

making, actually, recommendations that don’t make sense. Because 

there is other documentation that gives them better information. 

So, if we can make them do that, I think that would work. 

And I happen to like the idea of the States being involved in this. 

As long as there was some cooperation amongst the council, so it 

isn’t—one State isn’t killing all their fish, and sort of like Russia 

is doing now in Alaska, killing all their fish, and then come over 

and getting the other State’s fish. So that is something we want 

to work on. 

I do think that there is some improvement we can make to the 

Act itself. I want to suggest to all of you to write something up that 

makes sense. 

I am not happy with NOAA nor NMFS right now—they all know 

this—because I think they spend an awful lot of money, like the 

gentleman brought up the fact about blowing up oil rigs with dynamite and killing fish. That does not make sense. Frankly, you 

would be better off leaving the rig there, or taking some divers and 

cutting it off. It was put in there one time by individuals. 

So there are a lot of things I think that can be done to make sure 

this Act works—now, rationalization works. You can’t overfish a 

fishery if it is properly rationalized. And that is something that 

people should recognize. 

And I am proud of what Mr. Plesha has said. The fact is, we 

have a pretty good fishery in Alaska. Can there be improvements? 

I think if we get more cooperation from NOAA and NMFS, better 

recognition about what is endangered and what is not endangered. 

The idea that we are killing sea lions by overfishing the area, finding out it was the orca whale that was killing them. But orca 

whales are protected. I mean I can go on and on and on about this. 

But the sustainable yield, one thing that does concern me—and 

I am lecturing now, but you have to put up with me, because I 

have the gavel. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. YOUNG. What bothers me the most, I have heard two statements about we import 92 percent of our fish that we consume. 

That may be true. But the value of our fish is, in fact, it is not 

farm-raised. And in Alaska, that is one thing that drives me absolutely nuts. They are willing—and NOAA has promoted this, and 

we have stopped it so far—they want to put fish farms off our 

shores. And I argue that will destroy the wild Alaskan salmon, 

which is the most valuable species we have, with all due respect 

to the red snapper and the grouper, and the rest of those bottom 

fish, the salmon is the most valuable fish, and they are willing to 

destroy it by raising more. And their argument is, ‘‘Well, we are 

importing so much fish.’’ 

I don’t think we can always supply all the fish wild. I will tell 

you that. If they want to raise them in a lake, man-made or something, I am all for that, if they want to do it. But don’t mess with 

offshore, wild fish by contaminating it with something that, to me, 

does not make sense. I mean that is my little lecture for today. 
72 

And, Mr. Holt, did you have anything to say, or do you want to 

just be quiet? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. YOUNG. You are recognized. 

Dr. HOLT. That was a leading question, Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. HOLT. Well, there is a lot to still discuss. And so, I would like 

to take my time, if I may, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me begin with Mr. Pappalardo. Your organization was an 

early adopter of catch-shares. I would like to know why you chose 

it, and what the benefits have been. Maybe you have addressed 

this, but I think it is important enough, it is probably worth going 

over again. 

When I think of the alternative to catch-shares, I think of the old 

movies of the Oklahoma Land Rush. People charging out at midnight. But the difference is in the land rush they didn’t destroy the 

land. Here, I am afraid, the alternative is harming fisheries. And 

so I would appreciate your thoughts on that, please. 

Mr. PAPPALARDO. Sure. Thank you, sir. The genesis for our organization requesting a catch-share through the New England Fishery Management Council was at the time we were managing fisheries through what we call input controls, or how many days you 

can fish, how many pounds you can bring in on a day, things of 

that nature. And the resource we were most dependent on at the 

time, Georges Bank cod, was in bad shape and going down. 

And so, we knew the reaction from the Council was going to be 

to reduce us to such a small amount of days and such a small 

amount of pounds that it wasn’t viable to turn the key on the boat 

and go fishing. So we went to the Council and asked them, ‘‘Translate our historical catch of this species into a poundage, and we will 

live and work within this zone on Georges Bank. We don’t go into 

other areas. But give us the pounds. Allow us to convert the days 

and the trip limits into pounds.’’ So it was a preservation issue that 

forced us to ask for a catch-share. 

Additionally, we didn’t like the common practice, because we had 

trip limits, of once you hit that limit you have to throw over the 

very thing you hope to catch the next day. So, it was to eliminate 

discards as well, sir. 

Dr. HOLT. And the experience, how would you describe that? 

Mr. PAPPALARDO. It gave our community and the fishermen within it much more flexibility to decide when they wanted to fish, how 

they wanted to fish, where they wanted to fish. And it allowed 

them to not have to throw over the resource. 

Dr. HOLT. Thank you. Mr. Gill, my constituents are concerned 

about reports of seafood fraud, improper substitution, illegal substitution. It is not good from a consumer point of view. I would like 

to understand what it is from a fishing industry point of view, or 

individual fisherman’s point of view. 

Mr. GILL. Thank you, sir. Well, it is a bad practice by whomever 

practices it. And it smears, if you will, the entire industry from top 

to bottom. 

Dr. HOLT. Well, in light of the legislation that we are talking 

about here, is there anything to be done about it? 
73 

Mr. GILL. Not that anything comes to mind. The difficulty is that 

one piece of fish is very difficult to tell, after it is cooked, from another. And so it is the unscrupulous—— 

Dr. HOLT. Mr. Dooley, Mr. Jones, would either of you point us 

toward any policy steps to address this? OK, yes, please. 

Mr. PLESHA. One of the things that can be done is through FDA 

enforcement actions. FDA has really not taken any sort of lead in 

enforcing seafood fraud, whether it is short weights, whether it is 

mislabeling of species. That is really an issue within the jurisdiction of that agency. Their enforcement ability is, unfortunately, not 

able to spend the resources necessary to make sure that doesn’t 

occur. But there are already laws in placed to prevent it, if it were 

enforced properly. 

Dr. HOLT. But because the fishery regulations require identifying 

the catch, there is a certain amount of enforcement here, particularly in catch-shares and other, of how many we are taking in, does 

that not translate into some control over how it is sold, how it is 

marketed? Or not at all? 

Mr. PLESHA. Forgive me for saying this, but the Agency takes the 

position that the Magnuson-Stevens Act doesn’t allow for regulation of onshore processing activities. 

Dr. HOLT. Right. 

Mr. PLESHA. So that is not something that, within that Act, is 

able to be managed. 

Dr. HOLT. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. YOUNG. Bless your heart, you even finished before your time 

was up. That is good. 

Mr. LaMalfa, you have questions? Welcome, by the way. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you. Earlier in the testimony, when I was 

here, Mr. Gill, I think you alluded to the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

creating a system to involve stakeholders. Do you feel like it is 

weighted well enough to the stakeholders that actually have the investment? Or could more be done to have greater input from the 

people who are really out there with the investment, and trying to 

make a living from it, as opposed to stakeholders that usually just 

come in with demands? 

How do you feel about that ratio, or that weighting of—because 

what I am frustrated by in other avenues is that people can come 

to the table and make demands, but they don’t have the investment, they don’t have the years of service, they don’t have the risk 

out there. They can just simply make demands and then industry 

has to jump through the hoops. How do you feel about that stakeholder ratio? And anybody else on the panel that would like to 

speak to that, as well. 

Mr. GILL. Thank you, sir. I think one of the things that we do 

need in proper fisheries management is as much involvement with 

the stakeholders as we can get. The difficulty comes—before I get 

to the ratios—in that the process is so complex that it is very difficult for the average person to understand. So it takes a huge 

amount of time and effort to understand where—what part they 

might play. 

Having said that, the difficulty for either the commercial or the 

recreational fishermen is in order to participate you have to sac-
74 

rifice whatever else you are doing to participate. So the folks, the 

NGO’s that have—that is their job, don’t have that burden. 

What we typically see at council meetings tend to be the same 

folks from recreational or commercial participating in the process, 

because they are deeply invested in contributing to that process. 

And I praise them for that. However, there is a huge body of folks 

that are not in that mode. And part of it is the barrier to participating is huge. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Meaning that you are busy doing your job, more 

or less, yes? 

Mr. GILL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Yes, I had that same frustration. I am a farmer 

in my real life, too. So as a younger man, having to go down to Sacramento all the time and go to meetings, like, well, why can’t we 

just do our job? But I get that. So you have to get more people involved to be heard on that, on the invested side, on the stakeholder 

side, they live or die by what is going to happen with the possible 

regulation, or others that really don’t have anything in the game. 

So thank you. 

Anyone else on that? Yes, sir. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, sir. I think that having a way for the 

stakeholders to believe that their attendance is going to matter is 

where effort needs to be focused. Because so many of the fishermen, they have to take off, they have to spend their money, they 

may have to drive from Florida to North Carolina, they are going 

to get 3 minutes, and I know that you can’t filibuster, but they just 

get to the point to where they go, they make that commitment, 

they try to be heard, but you can’t say much in 3 minutes. And 

they sometimes feel that the decisions are already made. Whether 

that is true or not, I don’t know. But that is what they get. And 

so it is hard to get them to say, ‘‘Come on, let’s go back again, let’s 

do it over again, it will matter.’’ 

So, if there was a way—and I don’t have the answer—how you 

can get the stakeholders to believe that what they have to say matters would be a big step forward. 

Mr. LAMALFA. That is correct, I run into that, too. Farmers and 

ranchers, they see there is yet another government agency doing a 

dog-and-pony show somewhere that they feel like, ‘‘Am I doing any 

good here? Is this wasting my time? Because I still have to make 

a living.’’ 

And so we do need to infuse more confidence that they are going 

to be heard, and actually take it into account. They have the meetings where they draw the nice pictures and such on butcher paper 

up there and say, ‘‘Oh, yes, we are going to take this back and use 

that as part of our decision,’’ but people feel like the decision has 

been made, and it is not going to go their way on the industry side. 

So, I would encourage you and your colleagues to show up anyway. You have to fight the fight, and you have to make yourselves 

be heard and on the other side they have to feel the heat. And so 

hang in there. 

Mr. YOUNG. I thank the gentleman. And I hope you don’t have 

the feeling that we short-shrift you in these hearings. This has 

gone on quite a while. Most of you need to go to the restroom, I 

can tell by looking at you. 
75 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. YOUNG. But I am not going to let you go yet. I was interested 

in the observer program. And, Joe, this is just for halibut, right, 

the $1,000? 

Mr. PLESHA. Mr. Chairman, it is a way that the North Pacific 

Council can get observers on smaller boats in the Gulf of Alaska 

that currently don’t have any observers at all, is to charge everyone 

within the industry and then place them on vessels where they 

think it is appropriate. A relatively low percentage, but it is vessels 

that traditionally have not had observers. 

Mr. YOUNG. Now, where does the $1,000 a day come in? 

Mr. PLESHA. That is the first I have heard of that price. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, someone mentioned that. Yes, sir? 

Mr. DOOLEY. Our Executive Director, Brent Paine, sat on the observer committee when they put this together and is intimately acquainted with what the costs and such are. He told that to me, that 

it is north of $900 a day right now, approaching $1,000, for the 

government to provide an observer. 

Now, I know it is kind of technical stuff, but when the government does the observer program, their—I am sure I will get it 

wrong, but they are subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act, or 

something, which makes them pay an hourly wage for observers, 

as opposed to the observer programs that we, like in the pollock 

fishery or the whiting fishery, use a pay-as-you-go the industry 

pays for. Those are done on a daily rate. 

We pay, in Alaska, somewhere around $330 to $350 a day, we 

pay it ourselves. When the government does it, it is three times as 

much. I think it is—so there needs to be some work in this front 

to reduce these costs. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, I am interested for another reason. I argue 

that observer is probably the worst thing that can happen to the 

sustainable yield rationalization, because the observer is human, 

he can be corrupted. He can be put into the trawl net and solve 

some problems. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. YOUNG. He could be a drunk. And I am arguing—I go back 

to the idea of equipment that can—the camera that can be tampered with, like a State scale, or the black box which you are talking about gives us better data. And that is what we are going to 

base our rationalization on, is good data. And that is something we 

would like to look at, because I just think the observer program 

wasn’t in the original Act to begin with, it was put in there because 

we wanted some better data for NOAA to make decisions on the 

quota. 

And I am saying let’s go beyond the mule skinner now and get 

into the computer age—and I am way beyond that—but in the computer age we can do better studies so we know exactly what the 

sustainable yield is, and rationalization is justified, not by someone 

sitting smoking a cigarette or playing his video game. Because 

there is no standard, as far as I know, about an observer. 

And $1,000 a day, that pays better than we do right here in Congress. I want you to know I have been thinking about that. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Anyway, Mr. Garcia? 
76 

Mr. GARCIA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. Welcome aboard. You just about missed it. You 

would have been out of luck. 

Mr. GARCIA. No, no. I am all right, Mr. Chairman. I met with 

some of the witnesses already privately, so I am good. Thank you 

very much. 

Mr. YOUNG. All right. We now will call up the next panel. I want 

to thank the panel for a good job. And I am serious about submitting—I am no longer the Chairman of the full Committee, but submitting to the Chairman your legitimate request, what you think 

can be done to make the program work better, I think that is very 

valuable. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND [presiding]. In our last panel we have just one 

person, Mr. Rauch, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory 

Programs, National Marine Fisheries Services, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, at the Department of Commerce. 

You are again reminded that your complete written testimony 

will appear in the hearing record, and you have 5 minutes to summarize it. Mr. Rauch, thank you for joining us today, and you may 

begin. 

STATEMENT OF SAM D. RAUCH III, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR REGULATORY PROGRAMS, NATIONAL 

MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND 

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

COMMERCE 

Mr. RAUCH. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you 

today. My name, as you said, is Sam Rauch. I am the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs at the National Marine Fisheries Service. 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, which sets forth standards for conservation management and sustainable use of our Nation’s fishing resources. 

Marine fisheries such as salmon in the Pacific Northwest, cod in 

New England, and red snapper in the Gulf, are vital to the identity 

and economies of coastal communities in the United States. Our 

most recent economic estimate for 2011 showed just how economically important they are. In 2011, U.S. commercial fishermen landed 9.9 billion pounds of seafood, valued at $5.3 billion, increases of 

1.6 billion pounds and $829 million over 2010 figures. This represents the highest landings volume since 1997, and the highest 

value in nominal terms ever recorded. 

In 2011, the seafood industry generated $129 billion in sales impacts, $37 billion in economic impacts, and supported 1.2 million 

jobs. Recreational fishing generated $70 billion in sales impacts, 

$20 billion in economic impacts, and supported 455,000 jobs in 

2011. This is a 40 percent increase in jobs over 2010. In total, U.S. 

commercial and recreational salt-water fisheries added 200,000 jobs 

to the broader economy between 2010 and 2011. This success is a 

product of hard work and ingenuity by the industry, by the fishery 

management councils, and the overall sound Federal fishing management system that is effectively rebuilding fisheries. 
77 

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

chartered a ground-breaking course for sustainable fisheries. When 

reauthorized in 2007, the Act gave eight Regional Fishery Management Councils and NMFS a very clear charge and some new tools 

to support improved science and management. It mandated the use 

of science-based annual catch limits and accountability measures to 

prevent and end overfishing, provided for market-based fishery 

management through limited access privilege programs, focused on 

collaborative research with the fishing industry, and bycatch reduction, addressed the need to improve the science used to inform fisheries management, and sought to end illegal fishing and bycatch 

problems around the globe. 

Working together, fishermen, NMFS, the councils, coastal States 

and territories, and a wide range of industry groups and constituents have made significant progress in implementing key provisions of this legislation. As of December 31, 2012, we put in place 

limits to ensure overfishing does not occur in all Federally managed stocks. And we have demonstrated that overfishing has ended 

for 58 percent of those stocks subject to overfishing in 2007. 

In addition, 32 stocks have been rebuilt. A prime example of the 

benefits of rebuilding is seen in the New England sea scallop fishery, where revenues increased five-fold as the rebuilt fishery—as 

the fishery rebuilt from $44 million in 1998 to $353 million in 

2011, making New Bedford the largest port by value every year 

since 2000. 

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 does not come without 

cost. Fishermen, fishing communities, and 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. 

Without high-quality fishery science, we cannot be confident that 

we are preventing overfishing and rebuilding stocks. That is why 

NMFS is committed to regenerating the best fishery science today 

to support the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Today we know 

more about fish stocks than ever, and it is vital that our science 

not regress, as this would inevitably lead to declines in our stocks 

and loss in the economic and social values they provide. 

We are making great gains. We have great tools under the Magnuson-Stevens Act; 200,000 jobs added in the midst of the severe 

economic issues indicates just how successful we have been. We 

stand ready to work with Congress on moving forward this important Act, making the necessary changes that need to be made, if 

any, and continue to improve our management and ensure that the 

biological and economic sustainability of this vital natural resource 

continues. 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify, and I am happy to 

answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rauch follows:] 
78 

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

www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/commercial-landings/annual-landings/index. 2See Fisheries Economics of the U.S. 2011. NMFS Office of Science & Technology, available 

at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/economics/publications/feus/fisheries_economics_2011. 

Statement of Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce 

Introduction 

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

opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Samuel D. Rauch and I am the 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs 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 salmon in the Pacific Northwest and cod in 

New England, 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 it 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 show that the amount landed and the value of commercial U.S. wild-caught fisheries was up in 2011 while recreational catch remained 

stable. U.S. commercial fishermen landed 9.9 billion pounds of seafood valued at 

$5.3 billion in 2011, increases of 1.6 billion pounds (20%) and $829 million (18%) 

over 2010 figures; the highest landings volume since 1997 and highest value in 

nominal terms ever recorded.1 The seafood industry—harvesters, seafood processors 

and dealers, seafood wholesalers and seafood retailers, including imports and multiplier effects—generated $129 billion in sales impacts, $37 billion in income impacts 

and supported 1.2 million jobs in 2011. Recreational fishing generated $70 billion 

in sales impacts, $20 billion in income impacts, and supported 455,000 jobs in 2011. 

Jobs supported by commercial businesses held steady from the previous year, while 

jobs generated by the recreational fishing industry represented a 40% increase over 

2010.2

The Federal fishery management system is effectively rebuilding 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 and NMFS a 

very clear charge and some new tools to support improved science and management. 

It mandated the use of science-based annual catch limits and accountability measures to prevent and end overfishing, provided for market-based fishery management 

through Limited Access Privilege Programs (or catch shares), focused on collaborative research with the fishing industry and bycatch reduction, addressed the need 

to improve the science used to inform fisheries management, and sought to end illegal fishing and bycatch problems around the globe so that foreign fishing fleets are 

held to the same standards as, and do not economically disadvantage, U.S. fleets. 

While significant progress has been made since the last reauthorization, we recognize that this progress has not come without cost. 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. 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. We need to approach that challenge 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’s progress in implementing the Magnuson-Stevens Act’s key domestic provisions, and some thoughts about the future and 

the next reauthorization. 
79 

3See Fish Stock Sustainability Index. This report was the source for the underlying data, but 

the numbers presented here were compiled specifically for this hearing. The report is available 

Continued 

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 eight Regional 

Fishery Management Councils (Councils). This structure ensures that input and decisions about how to manage U.S. fisheries develops 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 management by 10 National Standards for fishery conservation and management. These standards, which have their 

roots in the original 1976 Act, provide a yardstick against which all fishery management plans and measures 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 for the 

U.S. fishing industry. 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—quotas, 

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. 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 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 Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

and together with the regional fishery management 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 of fishing 

communities across the country, the conditions of many of our most economically 

important fish stocks have collectively 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. Challenges remain in some fisheries, but in other fisheries, as fish 

populations grow and catch limits increase, the benefits for the resource, the industries it supports, and the economy are beginning to be seen. 

Progress in Implementation 

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

range of industry groups and other constituents, 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 is the mandate to implement annual catch limits, including measures to ensure accountability and to end and prevent overfishing in 

federally managed fisheries by a certain deadline. An annual catch limit is an 

amount of fish that can be caught in a year so that overfishing does not occur. Accountability measures are management controls to prevent the limits from being exceeded, and to correct or mitigate overages of the limits if they occur. This is an 

important move away from a management system that could only be corrected by 

going back through the full Council process—often taking years to accomplish, all 

while overfishing continued. 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 demonstrate that overfishing ended for 58% of the 38 domestic U.S. stocks that were 

subject to overfishing in 2007 when the Magnuson-Stevens Act was reauthorized.3
80 

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

%20Changes.pdf. 4See Fish Stock Sustainability Index. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/ 

statusoffisheries/2012/fourth/MapRebuiltStocksCY_Q4_2012.pdf. 5See The NMFS Commercial Fishing & Seafood Industry Input/Output Model. The change in 

landings revenue for each species was derived using the calculation: (Current Price*MSY)— 

(Current Price*Current Landings). If MSY is not available, a zero value is assumed for the 

change in landings revenue. These values were then entered into the model, which produced 

the job and sales impacts estimates. The model is available at: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/documents/Commercial%20Fishing%20IO%20Model.pdf. 6See Fisheries of the U.S., Vols. 2000–2011, Commercial Fishery Landings and Value at 

Major U.S. Ports (tables). Available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/publications.html. 

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. 

We recognize that learning from our past actions and adjusting is important. 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 that the guidance we have in place reflects current thinking on the most effective way to meet the objectives of National 

Standard 1. An Advanced Notice of Proposed rulemaking was published in May 

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

asked the public for input on 11 topics addressed in National Standard 1. We received a lot 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. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act also includes requirements to rebuild any overfished 

fishery to the level that can support the maximum sustainable yield, and as of December 31, 2012, we have rebuilt 32 stocks.4 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. We 

estimate that rebuilding all U.S. fish stocks would generate an additional $31 billion 

in sales impacts (including multiplier effects), support an additional 500,000 jobs 

and increase dockside revenues to fishermen by $2.2 billion, a more than 50 percent 

increase over current annual dockside revenues.5 A prime example of the benefits 

of rebuilding is seen in the New England sea scallop fishery, where revenues increased five-fold as the fishery rebuilt, from $44 million in 1998 to $353 million in 

2011, making New Bedford the largest port by value every year since 2000.6

As the fishing industry rebounds and the money involved increases, so does the 

need for comprehensive enforcement to ensure adequate, fair, and effective enforcement of the management plans so that they can continue to function for the benefit 

of those who play by the rules. 

Improvements to Science and Recreational Fishing Data 

Without high quality fishery science, we cannot be confident that 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 an 

investment 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 lead to declines in our stocks and a loss in the economic and social values 

they provide. 

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

quality of fisheries science with a better understanding of ecosystem factors, investing in cooperative research and electronic monitoring technology, and enhancing our 

engagement with fishermen cannot be stressed enough. Partnerships with industry 

are a key component of successful fisheries management. Cooperative research provides a means for commercial and recreational fishermen to become involved in the 

science and data collection needed to improve assessments and develop and support 

successful fishery management measures. For example, the Northeast Cooperative 

Research program enhances the agency and the New England Fishery Management 

Council’s capacity to respond to emerging management needs and research priorities 

associated with improving stock assessments, as well as supporting the industry 

during the transition to sector management and the implementation of annual catch 
81 

limits. In the Gulf of Mexico, NMFS supports a number of electronic monitoring programs including funding a project to test closed circuit televisions, gear sensors, and 

a data storage system to improve the overall catch and bycatch accounting system 

for the Gulf reef fish fishery thus improving management. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act also 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, 

also required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which NMFS has been using 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 2014. 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. 

Looking to the Future 

Remaining Challenges 

Looking ahead, we must continue to increase the quality and quantity of scientific 

data, continue progress made on addressing overfishing and rebuilding stocks, and 

better address the difficult transitions that can come with management changes 

leading to more biologically and economically sustainable fishery resources. 

The most effective annual catch limits and accountability measures will require 

further improvements to our stock assessments and monitoring efforts. Ensuring 

solid, science-based determinations of stock status and responsive management will 

also require better linkages to ever-shifting biological, socio-economic, and ecosystem 

conditions. 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. Together with our partners, 

we continue to explore alternative 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, including climate change, and 

incorporate them into our stock assessments and management decisions, as well, because resilient ecosystems and habitat form the foundation for robust fisheries and 

robust economies. As we end overfishing and rebuild stocks, the strategic alignment 

of habitat conservation efforts to support the need of fish stocks will be a key component of NOAA’s success. 

General Views on Legislation Proposed in the 112th Congress 

NOAA supports the collaborative and transparent process embodied in the regional fishery management 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, as necessary, rebuild stocks. Annual catch 

limits are an effective tool in improving the sustainability of fisheries around the 

Nation, and NOAA has concerns with efforts that would create exemptions or otherwise weaken provisions regarding annual catch limits. Uncertainty in the stock assessments upon which annual catch limits are based should not be used as a basis 

for exempting fisheries from annual catch limits. 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. 

In an increasingly constrained fiscal environment, we must not mandate duplicative or otherwise unnecessary actions. Additional stages of review for certain types 

of fisheries data, or repeating data collection and stock assessment efforts when 

there are already sound peer reviewed processes in place are examples of actions 

that will divert resources to a select few fisheries at the expense of others with little 
82 

7The Managing Our Nations Fisheries 3 conference is scheduled to take place May 7–9, 2013 

in Washington, DC. See ManagingOurNationsFisheries.org. 

additional benefit. Moreover, legislation should be cost-effective, particularly during 

this time of constrained funding. NMFS welcomes the opportunity to work closely 

with Congress, the regional fishery management councils, and the recreational and 

commercial fishing industries, to use the best available science to seek opportunities 

for efficiency and improved management in order to end overfishing, rebuild stocks 

and achieve stable economic opportunities for our fishermen and coastal communities. 

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 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 upcoming conference, Managing Our Nation’s Fisheries 3—co-sponsored by 

the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils and NMFS—will bring 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.7

The conference was developed around three themes: (1) improving fishery management essentials; (2) advancing ecosystem-based decision making; (3) and providing 

for fishing community sustainability. 

The first theme, improving fishery management essentials, will examine the core 

principles, practices, and tools essential to the long-term sustainability of fishery resources. This includes challenges that arise in using annual catch limits, implementing stock rebuilding programs, and participating in international management. 

The topics related to the second theme, advancing ecosystem-based decision making, 

are designed to foster conversation around the fact that fisheries affect, and are affected by, an ever-changing ocean ecosystem, and that we therefore need to consider 

relationships between managed species and their environment when setting policy 

and developing management strategies. These topics include assessing ecosystem effects and integrating climate considerations, forage species management, and integrating habitat into fisheries management. The last theme explores fishing community sustainability, including recreational and subsistence fisheries, socio-economic 

trade-offs, and fishing communities. Discussion will focus on meeting management 

objectives while taking into account the needs of different user groups and their diverse social and economic objectives. 

We are looking to this venue as a critical step in bringing together a wide range 

of stakeholders. The session speakers and panelists represent many points of view, 

from commercial and recreational fishing to the conservation and science and management communities. Before the last reauthorizations, 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. 

Ideas that emerge from this event may inform potential legislative changes to the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, but the benefits are much greater than that. The communication across regions and councils provides an opportunity to share best practices 

and lessons learned, and may also inform changes to current policy or regulations 

that can be accomplished without statutory changes. 

Conclusion 

Because of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the U.S. has taken action to end overfishing in Federally-managed fisheries, rebuild stocks, and ensure conservation and 

sustainable use of our marine fisheries. Fisheries harvested in the U.S. are scientifically monitored, regionally managed, and legally enforced under 10 strict national 

standards of sustainability. 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 regional fishery management 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 due to 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. 
83 

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

where we are. We need to 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 the discussions that will take place during the upcoming 

Managing Our Nations Fisheries 3 Conference, and will happily work with Congress 

on any efforts to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

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

Magnuson-Stevens Act and future efforts of reauthorization. I am available to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Mr. Rauch, thank you for your testimony. 

Just like our first panel, each Member here today is given 5 minutes to ask you questions. And I reserve the next 5 minutes for 

questioning. 

In the cases like the South Atlantic red snapper fishery, which 

has been closed for most of the last 3 years, how will a new stock 

assessment come up with the different results, when there is no 

new fishery-dependent data, and there is no new survey data? 

Mr. RAUCH. So, that fishery actually was opened this year—— 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. For, I think, a weekend. 

Mr. RAUCH. A limited season. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Well—— 

Mr. RAUCH. So there is some data, but not much. And that is one 

of the concerns that we do have about closures, where you break 

the time series of fishery-dependent data, data that you get from 

the fishermen themselves. It creates a concern and a problem, as 

we go forward. That is why such large-scale closures are often 

viewed as a last resort in our case. 

We do have a stock assessment coming up in 2014, which will 

deal with some of these issues. I don’t know what the new information is going to be. I am pleased that we are able to offer some limited opportunities, even though it is not as much as what the fishermen, obviously, would like. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I am worried about that particular fishery because, like you heard in the testimony earlier on a 7 to 6 vote with 

data that was vague, at best. And when you close a fishery for 3 

years, the economic damage that is out there is something that, 

well, quite honestly, 301 requires you to take into consideration. 

So, with that being said, since that requires you to take that into 

consideration, do you know if that was, in fact, taken into consideration when basically that particular fishery was shut down? And 

has been fished—when you mentioned a season, I want to be very 

clear. It was a weekend, if you call that a season—maybe a sample 

of a season, but a season from Virginia to South Florida. 

So, was that requirement of 301 that you have to take into consideration, did you consider the economic impact that followed 

when that closure took place? 

Mr. RAUCH. Yes, sir. We took into account all of the requirements 

of the Fishery Management Act as we were developing that, and 

working with the Council to deal with that issue. We have actually 

been sued on that case, and have won on all counts, people raising 

claims such as that one, that we had not appropriately followed the 

requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I am told that the Senate CR includes language regarding NOAA’s lack of responsiveness toward commu-
84 

nities in the Mid-Atlantic area, and requires a report on a number 

of issues, including how to improve relationships with fishermen. 

Would you like to comment on why the Senate has felt—or do 

you even know why the Senate has felt it necessary to include this 

language, and how NOAA is likely to address the Senate’s concerns? 

Mr. RAUCH. I cannot comment on the Senate’s language, nor do 

I know why they felt it necessary to include that. 

But we do feel that one of our jobs, as a fishery manager, is outreach to the coastal communities. We control a limited industry, in 

terms of the fishing industry. Many of these coastal communities 

are not particularly diverse, and they rely heavily on these fishing 

industries. And that is, I think, the nature of the requirements in 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act reflects that, so that we believe it is 

part of our obligation to reach out to them, to understand their 

needs, to try to develop measures that impact them in as minimal 

a way as possible, being mindful of the other requirements of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

But I can’t speak to the Senate CR language. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. That is fair. One of the other topics that we 

addressed on the earlier panel was regarding the explosives that 

are used to remove rigs. And I am just curious about NOAA’s opinion. If you have tens of thousands of fish that are being killed and 

floating in the open water, with that being a fact, clearly in 301 

there was a concern regarding the mortality of bycatch. Bycatch is 

specifically mentioned in 301 as something that NOAA and the 

councils must consider. 

So, if my catch is a consideration in coming up with our regulations and our seasons, I mean, is it fair to say that we should be 

somewhat appalled at the fact that it seems to be OK with the government to blow up rigs, killing tens of thousands—it seems to be 

a contradictory—and undermine the integrity of the process. 

Mr. RAUCH. Thank you. So on the issue of rig removal, that 

issue—we have a consultative role in that situation. We do not authorize the removal of rigs, nor the processes in which they do that. 

That is handled by the Interior Department. However, we have 

worked with them, and expressed some of the similar concerns 

about making sure that, as they carry out their obligations under 

their statutes, that they do so in a way that minimizes the effect 

on fishing and fish habitat. 

I know that the Gulf Council is working on a potential amendment to identify the rigs as essential fish habitat. We are concerned about if they have to be explosively removed, that they are 

done so in a way that would minimize the effect on the fishery— 

bearing in mind, though, that it is the Interior Department’s ultimate decision as to how to carry that out. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I understand. OK. I see my time has expired. 

I will move now to Ms. Hanabusa. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rauch, you must 

have been pleased to hear the prior panel. No one said that the 

MSA should be repealed. However, everyone says that it has problems, and it has to be fixed somehow. 

One of the things that I was struck by in your testimony, you 

talk about MSA being in place for 35 years, and all the positives 
85 

that have come from it. And yet we do know that the United States 

is importing about 92 percent, 90 to 92 percent, of its fish coming 

in for consumption. So do you, by any chance, have an idea of what 

it was 35 years ago, in terms of the amount of fish that was being 

imported for consumption? 

And you, in your testimony, stated that we are doing a lot better 

now, and the whole purpose of this Act was to basically address 

overfishing, how are we doing? 

So, first question is do you know where we were 35 years ago, 

and also this idea of overfishing. And I would also like to know how 

you believe we are going to address—well, you have heard the fishermen saying it is not sustainable for many of them. They cannot 

make a living doing this. So I would like to hear your response. 

Mr. RAUCH. I don’t have the figures for 35 years ago. I do know 

that at that time, within U.S. waters, a significant portion of the 

catch was being caught by foreign boats in U.S. waters. And that 

has changed. There is little or no foreign fishing in U.S. waters any 

more. That doesn’t change the global dynamic. We export an awful 

lot of fish. We import for consumption an awful lot of fish. Some 

of that is fish that we have exported out and has been processed 

and we import it back. 

In terms of overfishing, I think we have made great progress. We 

have put in place measures to end overfishing in all Federally managed fisheries. We still have some concerns in international fisheries. I think you are starting to see—I gave some economic figures 

about job creation and job growth. I think that is a reflection of rebuilding fish stocks. That is a reflection of stability. 

But what those figures mask is that this has come at a transitional cost. Many fishing communities are having difficulty adapting to these new requirements. There is great economic opportunity 

for rebuilt fish stocks and economic stability, but we have to get 

to that place. And what I think you are seeing are transitional 

costs that the fishermen are, quite rightly, indicating has been very 

difficult for them to bear. 

So, we bring a lot of tools to bear in such a situation. The Magnuson-Stevens Act is not as rigid as many people believe it is. 

There is room in there to account for local communities to design 

programs to better allow for new entrance and those kind of issues, 

but it requires effort on both us and the councils to take advantage 

of all those provisions. 

Ms. HANABUSA. But, Mr. Rauch, aren’t the fishermen really one 

of the major players or stakeholders in this process? So if you are 

saying, for example, we have rebuilt and they have great opportunity, but you are almost saying, ‘‘But somehow they don’t see 

that opportunity,’’ or they don’t know how to adjust to that opportunity. 

What is NOAA going to do about that? Because it seems like 

they are the people you should be talking to. And do you feel any 

obligation to adjust the way you are approaching it so that they 

can better understand it, or they can better take advantage of the 

situation? 

Mr. RAUCH. So I think fisheries are diverse around the country. 

And there are fisheries that are doing very well, and that are driving some of the economic numbers. And there are fisheries that are 
86 

not doing as well, based on local issues, environmental issues, regulatory issues, all kinds of different reasons. 

So I don’t think that one message fits all when you are talking 

to the fishermen, and you need to reflect that variability and diversity of situations. We try very hard, through the council process, 

to tailor our regulations and our approach and our communications 

directly to the fishing communities themselves, and to reflect that 

there is no universal, one-size-fits-all solution. What works in Alaska may not work in Hawaii. It may not work in the Keys. We need 

to be mindful of that. What works for an industrial commercial 

fishery may not work at all for a recreational fishery. 

So, we need to be mindful in tailoring our message to talk to the 

fishermen themselves, and to understand what is driving that local 

fishery, because it could be vastly different around the country. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Do you believe the law, as it now stands, gives 

NOAA enough flexibility to be able to address the needs of basically your regional councils of the various fishing regions, and addressing the fishermen in each one? 

Mr. RAUCH. It gives us a lot of diversity and flexibility at the moment. 

Two things that we are doing to actually answer that question. 

One is we put in these annual catch limits in 2012. And it was our 

first effort to do this nationally. And we do not know whether or 

not—I mean in that process we identify some things that didn’t go 

as well as we wanted to. So we are engaged in a process of looking 

at the regulations and trying to change them within the confines 

of the Act to take advantage of those needs. 

The other thing, as I think the Chairman mentioned at the outset, we are engaged with the councils in a broad process looking 

at managing our Nation’s fisheries to decide that exact question, 

whether the Act currently provides the kind of flexibility and opportunities we need to address all the problems around the country. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Thank you, Ms. Hanabusa. Next is Mr. 

LaMalfa. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rauch, thank you 

for appearing. I was disturbed earlier to hear the figure for the observer costs when they can do a similar service for $300 that, because it may come through a government entity, it is triple that 

price, $1,000. And so, I was wondering why is there such a discrepancy. And, more importantly, what can be done to relieve this cost 

and have it be more in line with what the industry would be able 

to pay, since they do have to meet a bottom line, unlike around 

here, government does not? 

Mr. RAUCH. So I am not familiar with the $1,000 cost. I am not 

sure how it was derived. I am not saying it is not the right cost. 

I don’t know. This is the first I had heard of that. 

Often times, when we talk about observer costs, we split it into 

two categories. We talk about the cost that is borne by the industry, or the total cost. The total cost includes the cost to analyze the 

data, the cost to the government of the whole data collection process. I suspect that might be some of what you are hearing with the 

$1,000, but I don’t know. 
87 

On the broader issue, though, of decreasing that cost, it is clear 

to me that the pressure for more observers is out there. The observers are becoming more expensive. We need to find a different, 

better way to collect data. There has been a lot of talk in the prior 

panel about the use of cameras and monitoring, something that we 

very strongly support. 

You have to realize that there are two issues with cameras. One 

is a technological issue. What can the cameras tell you now? On 

that issue, they are very good at the moment of identifying discard 

events. Did somebody throw something overboard? They are not yet 

to the point where they could identify individual fish. So if you are 

asking somebody using a big trawl net to say how much of any particular kinds of fish, a camera is not going to do that very well. 

And then there is a regulatory side of the issue. We have to 

adapt our regulatory requirements to take advantage of cameras. 

If you wanted, as one of the prior panelists said, to have a full retention fishery, which means the fishermen basically keep every 

fish and they land it on the dock, you can have someone count the 

fish on the dock, and all the camera needs to say is they do throw 

something overboard. That situation, I think, is achievable in many 

fisheries today. But the fishing councils and the fishermen do not 

want to go to that full retention fishery. It requires a cost. Because 

if you have to catch everything that you brought on board, some 

of that is not going to be marketable. And so there is a cost to that. 

So, the fishermen have not wanted to embrace full retention, so 

they have wanted a more complicated situation, where you look at 

the kind of fish that are caught, you make certain assessments 

about that, and you still discard some. That is not impossible, it 

is just more complicated to deal with, and we need to move forward 

on that. And hopefully we will be moving forward aggressively. But 

we have to do that to solve the observer problem. 

Mr. LAMALFA. They don’t always ask for extra complication, 

though. That is what I observe. I don’t have a coastal district any 

more, but I do have an inland one where farmers and ranchers, for 

example—but it is a similar thing—are not asked, told to shoulder 

a greater and greater burden of cost of monitoring, of different 

things they have to do, on water use, and I think that would apply 

to the way fishing is done, as well, that the requirement by regulators, they have to shoulder more and more burden to do things 

that they didn’t ask for that may not necessarily be producing a result for them. 

So, we have to take into account that it is a huge—becoming a 

huge burden, and is pricing some people out of the business. So 

when we talked about the possibility of electronic monitoring, that 

in the part of the Pacific fleet that—in designing the program, electronic monitoring was seen as an integral part by the fleet for 

doing so. And then that has kind of fallen out, that component is 

not in it any more as a reliable part. You touched on that a little 

bit, but it seems like, again, the people from the fleet side were expecting certain things, and then that doesn’t happen, and so they 

get a higher cost. What is going to be—what is fair for them? 

Mr. RAUCH. There were a number of provisions, in terms of the 

Pacific groundfish fishery that balanced the need for a changing 

regulatory system with some things that would provide economic 
88 

flexibility. The monitors were one, there are certain other things 

that are all sort of packaged in what is called the trailing amendments to that. 

We are working through those with the council as quickly as we 

can, because it is, as the fishermen have told me—and I am sure 

they have told you—there is a gap now. This has become more costly because some of the cost-saving mechanisms that they had expected to see aren’t in place yet. Some of those are regulatory, some 

of those are the camera systems. We continue to move with the 

council, with the Pacific Commission on cameras. We had a meeting, the Pacific Council had a meeting 2 or 3 weeks ago to try to 

move out on how you can implement cameras more broadly within 

that fishery, as a cost-saving mechanism. 

So, I am hopeful that, as a result of that meeting, the Council 

will take up management measures that will actually get us down 

the road to replacing some of these human observers with cameras. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Time has expired. Thank you, Mr. LaMalfa. 

Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple issues, Mr. 

Rauch. One is, as you know, that Mike Thompson and I and 

Huffman and Don Young have been working on lowering the burden of the cost of the buy-back program with lower interest rates. 

And I am hopeful that your agency would be supportive and helpful 

in that effort. 

Mr. RAUCH. Yes. The Administration has not taken a position on 

the particular bills, but I think we are, in general, very supportive 

of working with the Hill and with the industry on trying to find 

a way to make this program cost-effective, and to achieve the benefits that we had originally designed it to achieve. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Great. Now, the observers you have just been talking a little bit about the observers. Do you know what the observer 

cost or what portion NOAA will cover this year? 

Mr. RAUCH. I can get you the exact figure, or I can spend the 

time to look it up. I think that we had allocated—this fishery was 

designed that, over time, the government would start out funding 

all of the observers, and—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. There is a theory that the catch will become 

so much more valuable that—— 

Mr. RAUCH. Right. 

Mr. DEFAZIO [continuing]. The fishermen should carry more of 

the burden. They are also paying 3 percent of their gross. And the 

fishery hasn’t gotten substantially more valuable. 

So my question is, you are going to be putting additional burden 

on the fishermen this year, on the observer program, even though 

they are not necessarily seeing those kind of gains. It is a pretty 

quick turnaround to say, ‘‘Gee, we have had this 2 years, now your 

fishery is so much more valuable now that you guys can pay for 

it.’’ And I know you have budget problems. Is sequestration going 

to hit this? 

Mr. RAUCH. I can’t answer the question of sequestration. Plus, in 

reality, under my continuing—the resolution expires at the end of 

this month. So I have no budget after March 27th. And so maybe 

you can answer the question better than I. 
89 

We do envision, bearing in mind the uncertainties of sequestration and the budget, picking up a portion of the observer costs. I 

think it is somewhere around $300-something for the observer day. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. 

Mr. RAUCH. So that is a substantial amount. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Sure. 

Mr. RAUCH. It is not the entire amount. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. But then, on the issue of the transition to 

other means of monitoring, essentially you talked about a full retention fishery could, with today’s technology, off-the-shelf, relatively inexpensive cameras, be implemented at that point if it is 

full retention. And essentially, as I understand it, we are pretty 

much a full retention fishery for groundfish. 

Mr. RAUCH. Some aspects of the groundfish are full retention, 

yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. So—— 

Mr. RAUCH. And so you could move forward in those fisheries 

fairly quickly. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Good. Then how do we move forward, toward cameras? 

Mr. RAUCH. So that requires the Pacific Council to take action. 

I think the equipment is not an issue, because that is already funded through the Pacific Fisheries Commission. But it does require 

us to work with the councils to make sure that full retention, that 

those requirements, such as you have to keep the cameras on, and 

to figure out what happens when the cameras turn off, we have 

dealt with these kind of situations with other electronic equipment, 

with electronic log books, with vessel monitoring systems. 

So, it is not particularly groundbreaking, but it does require the 

fishery management council to put in the supporting regulations to 

support that. And they are working on that, as I indicated in the 

last series of questions. They had a meeting earlier this month to 

deal with that exact issue about moving forward and transitioning 

to cameras where you could have them. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes. And, of course, your agency would save 

money, because you wouldn’t have to help support the observers, 

and the fishermen would save money. So it seems to me that if we 

can give the Pacific Fisheries Management Council a sense of urgency here to both help the people who are fishing and to help an 

agency whose budget is strapped and about to be partially sequestered, it seems like we would all come out ahead. 

Mr. RAUCH. I have had discussions with them along the same 

lines. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, good. Well, I will add my voice to that. Thank 

you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. Next is Mr. Pallone. 

[Pause.] 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I apologize. We are going to move to Mr. 

Horsford next. I apologize, Mr. Horsford. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the 

witness for being here. I just have a couple of questions. 

First, can you talk to us about how the investments in stock assessments translate into greater fishing opportunities, more economic benefits, and reduced risk of overfishing? 
90 

Mr. RAUCH. Yes, thank you. As the prior panel indicated, increased investment in stock assessments decrease—give us a better 

indication of what actually is being caught. We can manage much 

closer to the target. As uncertainty is decreased, in certain fisheries 

we have been able to clearly tie that to economic opportunities. 

Like in Alaska, for every point reduction in uncertainty, you can 

set the quotas closer to the limit, and that means that you get a 

much higher economic benefit. 

And I agree with what most of the prior panel had said. There 

is great return on investment from increasing the scientific support 

for that. You can, with better data, better manage the fisheries, extract as much economic opportunity as is available for the fisheries, 

all while ensuring that you have met the statutory standards. And 

we have a number of good examples of where that has happened. 

Mr. HORSFORD. So then, would additional appropriations from 

Congress help ensure more timely and accurate stock assessments, 

then? 

Mr. RAUCH. I can’t speak to the appropriations. I do know that 

overall, the Fishery Service budget has decreased, in the last 2 

years, the one area where we have seen modest increases has been 

in expanding stock assessments. And much of that has been directed toward the Southeast, but some of it has gone other places. 

Where we have made that investment, we will, over time, see returns on that investment. And I think that money is well spent. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Good. Now, fish in United States waters are a 

common property resource that belongs to all Americans, not just 

the ones with harvest quota allocations. So how does that fact influence management decisions under the Act? And do you think 

that the Act adequately protects the interest of all Americans in 

achieving a healthy marine environment? 

Mr. RAUCH. So the Act requires a very open, transparent, 

participatory process. You have fishery management councils that 

engage the public in an open way that has representatives from a 

cross-section of the public, including the States, and it is not limited to just quota holders. Sometimes there are environmental 

groups, other public groups, universities, and the States. So I think 

that one protection is the participatory process. And we need to 

make sure that it is as transparent and open as possible. 

Within that there are a number of requirements that require us 

to look not just to the short-term economic needs of the industry, 

which are important, but also to balance a broader range of social 

and environmental issues. One of the provisions which was mentioned here earlier is the requirement to consider the effects on 

communities. Some of those communities do not hold quota share. 

So you might theoretically make a decision to benefit a community 

which would not be in the best interest of all the quota shareholders. 

There are also provisions to look at the broader habitat impacts 

and the ecosystem impacts in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. So there 

are flexibilities in the Act which allow you to consider the broad 

range of societal interest in the fishery, but the most significant is 

the council process itself, and the members of the council. 
91 

Mr. HORSFORD. So, based on the concerns that there needs to be 

additional regulatory flexibility, can the NOAA work with councils 

and fishermen to address some of their concerns? 

Mr. RAUCH. We are trying to do that. We are looking at what we 

call National Standard 1. That is our overarching guideline on how 

you adopt the annual catch limits and accountability measures. 

After the first suite of accountability measures and catch limits 

were put in place at the end of last year, we need to go back and 

look at how we did that work? Did we do it well? Did we not do 

it well? 

So, we are engaged in a regulatory process within the statute, 

within the bounds of the statute, to find out whether we can 

change our approach to deal with some of the issues that you heard 

earlier today and other issues that have been raised by the other 

fishermen. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Thank you. Next is the Ranking Member, Mr. 

Pallone. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask Mr. 

Rauch. The 2006 reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens required 

NOAA to implement recommendations from a National Research 

Council report, and to put in place improved science and data programs, including a recreational angler registry program. Since I 

was a part of the Committee at the time, I know the idea was to 

have NOAA replace the faulty MRFSS system with an improved 

recreational registry system that would be more accurate. And the 

deadline written into the law to complete the program and implement the improved program was January 1, 2009. 

Has the NMFS entirely moved away from using the MRFSS system at this time? And is the recreational angler registry the primary source of fisheries management information at this time? 

Mr. RAUCH. Thank you. It is correct that—as you indicated—that 

we had a 2009 deadline that we did not entirely meet. We have 

been working diligently in implementing the Marine Recreational 

Information Program, or MRIP. And it has been more of a transition than a flipping-the-switch kind of situation, where we have implemented pieces of it as we move forward. 

Currently, we have released revised estimates for catch for Atlantic and Gulf Coast fisheries from 2004 to 2011 based on MRIP, 

as opposed to MRFSS. It is a more accurate way of collecting the 

catch. We are implementing this year a new onsite intercept survey 

as part of MRIP—— 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, let me ask you that, because that was my 

second question. I wanted to ask whether there are adequate number of intercepts being made to accurately estimate recreational 

catch, as required in the 2006 reauthorization. So maybe you can 

throw that in, too. 

Mr. RAUCH. Yes. So I think that is an issue of statistical power. 

Are you looking at the right places in order to make the assumptions that you are making? And this is one of the things that they 

have been trying very hard to address in that issue. I can’t tell you 

exactly how many we have made, or how many intercepts that we 

are doing this year. But we are working on that. That is a part of 

the MRIP process. I believe that we plan to cover enough to give 
92 

us the right kind of statistical significance. I can get you more information on that, though. 

Mr. PALLONE. But in terms of—going back to what I originally 

said—I mean you still are using the MRFSS to some extent. You 

still consider yourself in transition from MRFSS to the registry at 

this point? 

Mr. RAUCH. Yes. If you had asked me last year, we were more 

on the MRFSS end. This year we are more on the MRIP end, I 

think. 

Mr. PALLONE. Now, what about the development of a weather 

corrective factor that can be applied to recreational catch and for 

estimates? Again, that was required under the 2006 reauthorization. 

In other words, how are storms calculated into harvest levels and 

fishing efforts? I mean, obviously, this is important to me, given 

Hurricane Sandy. I am going to ask you to go quickly, because I 

am trying to get to two more things. 

Mr. RAUCH. OK, I am going to have to get back to you on that 

issue, about—— 

Mr. PALLONE. On the weather? 

Mr. RAUCH [continuing]. Calculated in there. I am not clear. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. If you could, I would appreciate it. 

Through you, Mr. Chairman, he can get back to me in writing? 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Yes. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. The Secretary of Commerce, following 

Superstorm Sandy, made a Federal fishery disaster declaration for 

New Jersey and New York. And under Magnuson-Stevens, NOAA 

has 2 months to develop a comprehensive, economic, and socio-economic evaluation of the affected region’s fisheries. 

And I wanted to ask you if this evaluation has been done and 

what do you see as a result are the needs, and whether changes 

in Magnuson-Stevens could allow NOAA to further better assist the 

region after the disaster. Do you have that? Is that evaluation 

done? Can you share it with us? 

Mr. RAUCH. Shortly after the hurricane, or the superstorm, we 

did send out teams to do an economic survey. We have provided the 

data that we collected directly to the States about a month-and-ahalf ago. The report is not complete yet. That is, the accumulation 

of that data. But the States do have that data. 

Mr. PALLONE. When do you think the report would be complete? 

Mr. RAUCH. I cannot say. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. 

Mr. RAUCH. Hopefully soon. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Obviously, we would like to see that as 

soon as possible. And I guess I can’t ask you what the follow-up 

would be on the report until you finalize it, right? 

Mr. RAUCH. Yes. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Well, let me ask you a last question 

about resources. In terms of funding, do you think that NOAA has 

the funds and resources necessary to do adequate data collection, 

to perform an adequate number of intercepts, to include weather 

in your model, to provide information sufficient for fisheries management? I am just basically asking about the funding of all the 

things I have brought up, whether you have enough funds to do the 
93 

different things I mentioned, the data collection, the weather, the 

intercepts, and ultimately, respond to the storm. 

Mr. RAUCH. Well, as I indicated before, I have no funds after 

March 27th. So I can’t speak to what the future will hold, and we 

are still working through sequester issues. We have made a substantial economic commitment to the MRIP program and to other 

scientific data, as I indicated. While our overall budget was decreasing, the investment in stock assessments was increasing. 

You could always do more, and you can get a good return on your 

investment from doing more. The current Magnuson-Stevens Act 

requires an awful lot of data collection in order to operate well. 

And we have struggled with—as we are starting that program— 

with getting the right kind of data collection to match the regulatory needs. But, as I said, at this point I don’t have a budget 

after March 27th, so I can’t say what the future will hold on that 

one. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. Just a follow-up 

question. I am curious. I asked you earlier, in reference to the removal of the rigs, and you had mentioned that the removal of the 

rigs was instituted by another department that did not fall under 

the oversight of NOAA. But with the thousands, tens of thousands 

of fish that are killed as a result of another department’s actions, 

I am just curious. Could you share with us the concern of NOAA 

that another department has, in such a, I think, damaging way undermined what Magnuson-Stevens was set in place to do in the 

first place? 

Mr. RAUCH. Yes. So that other department is the Interior Department, who authorizes rig removals and those kind of things. And 

we have been concerned over the course of time with the way they 

operate their oil and gas program in the Gulf of Mexico, not just 

with rig removals, but with the entire suite of activities, because 

it can have an effect on fish stocks, and also on endangered specieslisted stocks and things like that. 

We have worked with them over time on limiting the size of explosives charges, on placing them in such a way to minimize impacts, on requiring site clearance procedures, on looking at no-activity zones, in terms of things, issues. So we have worked with 

them on their program. We do not consult with them on an individual—because we don’t have the resources to do it—on an individual, rig-by-rig removal. We consult with them generically. And 

we have shared our concerns with them about the way that they 

operate. And they have been responsive, over time, to our concerns. 

Obviously, there is more work that may still need to be done between us and them, and the Administration has convened a work 

group led by the CEQ and the National Ocean Council to bring all 

the agencies together to try to find a path forward on rig removals, 

to balance the need for the fish enhancement that they can bring, 

versus the need for the oil companies to limit their liability. 

So I can’t say more about it than that. But we are concerned, and 

we are working through the interagency process to share those concerns with them. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. How are you going to—last year, as a result 

of the storms that we had in the Gulf, the season, the fishing sea-
94 

son in the summer, was extended for 6 days, from 40 days to 46. 

I am curious. When you have tens of thousands of fish, and there 

is so much that goes into an extension of a season—I mean it is 

like it requires an Act of Congress—how should tens of thousands 

of dead fish, snapper, affect the season, as far as the assessment 

towards a total allowable catch? I mean they are real fish. Well, 

wait a minute, I take that back. NMFS doesn’t count those fish, because they are on artificial reefs. But if we picked them up, they 

would be counted. 

So, how do you determine how those fish affect the total allowable catch, because we want good data, and that seems to be something that you need to address. 

Mr. RAUCH. So they have been doing rig removals for a long time 

in the Gulf. That mortality should be accounted for in the overall 

population. So if those fish are dying, and they are not contributing 

to overall population, then the population numbers are depressed 

as to what they should be. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. But how could they be, if you don’t count 

those fish because they are on artificial rigs? 

Mr. RAUCH. Well, we are going—so on that issue, in the new 

stock assessment, which is expected in June, I believe, we are 

going to start taking into account surveys on artificial reefs and 

those issues. So we have heard the concern about the way that we 

don’t trawl on artificial reefs. And some of that issue is going to 

be taken into account in this new stock assessment for red snapper 

that is coming up. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. So one could surmise that the mere fact that 

you all have made that recognition that the stock assessments in 

the past could have been significantly flawed because, as we have 

talked about earlier, 40 percent of all the red snapper landed in the 

Gulf of Mexico or landed off of Alabama, which has done an extensive push to build their artificial reef program, accounting, thus, for 

the increased landings. So I, first of all, want to thank you for that 

acknowledgment, going forward, that you are going to count fish on 

artificial reefs. And I appreciate your concern with Interior, and I 

will be interested to hear how that goes. 

Obviously, this action out there killing tens of thousands of fish 

is one that is gaining a lot of attention. 

So are there any other questions, I think I am it. So I am it. Let 

me say this to Mr. Rauch and to the members of the previous 

panel. Thank you very much for being with us today. Thank you 

for standing here and taking the questions, and your responses. 

Members of the Committee may have additional questions for the 

record, and I ask that you respond to those in writing. 

If there is no further business, without objection, the Committee 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:04 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

Statement Submitted for the Record by Mike Jennings, President, 

Charter Fishermen’s Association 

My name is Captain Mike Jennings and I am the President of the Charter Fishermen’s Association (‘‘CFA’’). CFA represents for-hire charter boat captains and private recreational anglers throughout the Gulf of Mexico. I appreciate the oppor-
95 

tunity to testify in support of achieving sustainable and accountable fisheries in a 

way that will increase access to our nation’s natural resources. To reach these goals, 

it is critical that the congressionally-created Regional Fishery Management Councils 

have the flexibility to explore all available management options. Dictates from 

Washington, D.C. that take management options off the table inhibit our ability to 

craft solutions that work for our regions and could devastate our businesses. At the 

same time, Congress should support efforts to improve data collection necessary for 

effective fisheries management and protect valuable fish habitat. 

I have been a licensed charter boat captain fishing the Gulf of Mexico off Texas 

for over 25 years. I grew up fishing Texas’s inshore and offshore waters and I am 

proud to make a living by taking my clients fishing and giving them access to the 

fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, the for-hire industry in the Gulf of Mexico 

provides access to millions of recreational anglers every year who cannot afford their 

own boats, live far away or who want to fish with an experienced captain. Last year 

my boats took more than 1,500 people out to fish in the Gulf. Our customers come 

from all over the country and are a large part of the economic machine that supports thousands of small businesses like mine in our coastal communities. 

The recreational fishing industry in the Gulf is suffering under increasingly restrictive management measures that threaten our businesses. Fishing seasons have 

gotten shorter and bag limits have gotten smaller. These factors make it very difficult for charter boat operators like me to stay in business. The service we provide 

to our customers is access to ocean fisheries, but in recent years government regulations have prevented us from providing this access. In some cases, recreational fishing seasons have shrunk to just a few weeks in duration. It is nearly impossible 

to operate a successful business of taking people fishing when fishing is closed for 

11 months of the year. 

Fortunately, there are solutions that can simultaneously provide increased access 

to our fishery while also providing for the long-term conservation of those resources. 

We do not want to return to the days when unrestricted fishing depleted our fisheries. Instead, we want to use the flexibility that currently exists in the MagnusonStevens Act (‘‘MSA’’) to increase access while also preventing overfishing and ensuring that fish stocks rebound. Congress should do four things: 1) allow fisheries managers the flexibility to use all available management tools; 2) improve monitoring 

and data collection on our fisheries; 3) protect valuable fish habitat now in place 

throughout the Gulf of Mexico; 4) explore the issue of 10-year arbitrary time lines 

that are currently overly restrictive for some fisheries. Congress should set a science 

based approach that allows Fisheries managers the ability set species specific rebuilding periods in order to help keep fishing communities economically viable, 

without compromising the ultimate rebuilding goal. 

ALLOW MANAGERS TO USE ALL AVAILABLE MANAGEMENT TOOLS 

What we need is continued flexibility to explore different types of management 

approaches. At least in the Gulf of Mexico, traditional methods of managing our 

fisheries—setting of fishing seasons, size and bag limits—simply are not working. 

The MSA allows local regions to explore other options that might work better. These 

options include sector allocations, Limited Access Privilege Programs (‘‘LAPPs’’) and 

Individual Fishing Quota (‘‘IFQ’’) programs among others. Right now there are several pilot projects in the Gulf under development or consideration that would test 

whether these alternative approaches could work better to manage our fisheries. 

There is absolutely no reason Congress should dictate to local regions that these 

options cannot be explored. Now is the time when stakeholders need the flexibility 

to be innovative and find creative solutions. Now is not the time for bureaucratic 

dictates from Washington, D.C. that tell us what we can and cannot do. Why on 

earth would Congress want to prevent us from even considering management options that might work to both conserve our fisheries and boost our revenues? 

We acknowledge that LAPPs may not be appropriate for all fisheries and all fishermen. For example, LAPPs may not work for managing fishing by private anglers. 

But the charter industry or any other group of stakeholders should have the option 

to explore LAPPs if it sees fit. Under the MSA, the Regional Fishery Management 

Councils now have the option to implement a LAPP where the stakeholders in a 

fishery want such a program. Here in the Gulf of Mexico any new LAPP is subject 

to a fishermen referendum and must be approved by a majority of the active participants in the fishery before it can be implemented. No other fishery management 

program requires that level of fishermen input. 

There have been numerous attempts—some of which have been successful—to 

strip our right to explore options for our industry in the Gulf of Mexico. But Congress should not decide what tools fisheries managers and fishermen can and cannot 

use in their regions. Congress got it right when it set up the MSA to allow local 
96 

issues to be managed at the local level. Congress should allow those local processes 

to take place. 

IMPROVE MONITORING AND DATA COLLECTION 

Fisheries management cannot be successful without good data on what fishermen 

are catching. In some commercial fisheries, such as the commercial IFQ programs 

for red snapper or grouper in the Gulf, there is near 100% accountability for all fish 

caught. By contrast, the recreational fisheries lack sufficient methods of monitoring 

and accounting for their catches. Fortunately, new methods of electronic monitoring 

and catch reporting—such as user-friendly software programs that can be used on 

a smart phone—are being developed which could revolutionize data collection in recreational fisheries and provide a mechanism to achieve a level of accountability for 

catches commensurate with what is achieved in the commercial sector. CFA has 

been actively involved in developing and testing these new products to improve 

catch accountability. We support electronic monitoring requirements for the entire 

for-hire sector in the Gulf of Mexico. 

In addition to supporting efforts to improve catch accountability in recreational 

fisheries, Congress should also make funds available for fisheries data collection and 

stock assessments through the RESTORE Act. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill had 

untold effects on Gulf fisheries, and dedicating some of the RESTORE Act funds to 

fisheries-related research would help quantify the extent of those effects and improve our ability to respond to them through the fisheries management process. 

Finally, Congress should also consider methods to improve fisheries science in 

general. In recent years there has been a lack of stakeholder buy-in to the science 

that supports fishery management decisions. Congress can improve the science and 

stakeholder buy-in by ensuring more timely and valid stock assessments, having 

more direct involvement by fishermen in data collection and analysis, increasing access to fisheries where necessary data can be supplied by fishermen, academics or 

other third-parties, and ensuring that any monitoring required in fisheries is costeffective and expanding cost-sharing by industry. 

PROTECT VALUABLE FISH HABITAT IN THE GULF OF MEXICO 

One of the top priorities for recreational fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico today 

is maintaining the Rigs to Reef program. Gulf of Mexico offshore oil and gas production platforms were originally designed and built to provide our nation with energy. 

Today, however, these structures have also become critical habitat for many types 

of marine life and are also a valuable asset for recreational fishing and diving. The 

federal Rigs to Reefs program successfully allows removal of hazardous materials 

while allowing the useful habitat to remain and has been working great for decades. 

Many businesses and user groups have come to rely on the structures, which have 

improved our quality of life and ability to enjoy our Gulf of Mexico. 

Unfortunately, recent changes to federal policy are causing this beneficial habitat 

to be destroyed at enormous cost to our communities and the Gulf ecosystem. The 

Department of the Interior has sped up the process of removing non-producing rigs, 

regardless of their value as fish habitat. As a result, much habitat has been lost 

and continuing to remove more rigs will harm our businesses. 

The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council also has expressed concern 

about the method and rate of oil and gas platform removal. The Council sent a series of letters asking the agencies responsible for rig removal to reconsider the use 

of explosives to remove rigs because explosives are known to kill fish dwelling near 

those structures. The Council also asked that the rate of rig removal be slowed or 

discontinued until more information is gathered regarding the effects of structure 

removal on the fishery. We strongly support the Council in these efforts. 

* * * * * 

Sustainable fisheries provide healthy seafood to Americans, public access for 

sportfishing enthusiasts, and long-term economic benefits for fishermen and our 

coastal communities. Current rules that limit fishing with short or closed seasons 

are hurting anglers, fishing businesses, our coastal communities and the fisheries 

they all depend upon. These problems can be solved by giving fishermen management flexibility and not through rolling back conservation provisions and creating 

management loopholes. 

CFA members see our role as providing access to the average American who just 

simply has no other avenue or opportunity to fish in the Gulf of Mexico. Current 

management practices are stripping the American public of this access. Now should 

be the time when Congress is giving us more tools to manage our fisheries, not less. 

The CFA looks forward to working with the Regional Fishery Management Councils, 

Congress and the Administration towards long-term solutions, including any and all 
97 

options that may increase fishing time, improve the economics of our businesses, 

and ensure a sustainable fishery. We need all the options at our disposal and we 

need to allow the user groups to work within the guidelines of the MSA at the regional level to best manage our fisheries. 

[A letter and statement submitted for the record by Lee R. 

Crockett, Director, U.S. Fisheries Campaigns, The Pew Charitble 

Trusts, follows:] 

March 20, 2013 

The Honorable Doc Hastings 

Chairman 

Natural Resources Committee 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Edward J. Markey 

Ranking Member 

Natural Resources Committee 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member Markey, 

On behalf of The Pew Charitable Trusts, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to submit the attached statement for the record for the Committee’s March 

13 oversight hearing on the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). As we begin discussions on reauthorizing this landmark law, it is 

important to take note of the significant benefits the MSA is delivering to the nation 

as a result of the conservation requirements Congress added to the law in 1996 and 

2006. 

Thanks to these requirements, 32 fish populations have been rebuilt since 2001, 

including Atlantic sea scallops (one of America’s most valuable fisheries) and midAtlantic bluefish; and other important fish populations, such as red snapper in the 

Gulf of Mexico, are on the road to recovery. Last year, we also achieved a significant 

management milestone by putting in place science-based annual catch limits that 

do not allow overfishing on all federally-managed fisheries. We can now boast one 

of the best fishery management systems in the world, and many countries are emulating the conservation requirements of the MSA as they seek to bring about sustainability in their fisheries. 

As we look forward to the next reauthorization, I urge you to protect these hardwon gains and adopt new, ecosystem-wide approaches that will build resilience in 

our oceans to withstand the impacts of changing ocean temperatures, acidification, 

and other emerging threats. The future of our nation’s fisheries depends upon these 

actions. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 202–552–2065 or at 

lcrockett@pewtrusts.org. Thank you for your time and consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Lee R. Crockett 

Director, U.S. Fisheries Campaigns 

cc: Members of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs 

Statement Submitted for the Record by Lee R. Crockett, Director of U.S. 

Fisheries Campaigns, The Pew Charitable Trusts, on ‘‘The reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act’’ 

The Pew Charitable Trusts (Pew) appreciates the opportunity to provide a statement for the Committee’s oversight hearing on the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). In this statement, we will offer a brief historical perspective on the MSA, illustrate how conservation reforms added to the 

law in 1996 and 2006 are beginning to bear fruit, and urge you to continue supporting these critical reforms. Finally, we will provide you with our recommendations on how the MSA reauthorization can build upon these successes by adopting 

new, ecosystem-wide approaches that will build resilience in our oceans to withstand the impacts of changing ocean temperatures, acidification, and other emerging 
98 

i National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 2011. Fisheries Economics of the United States, 

2011. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memo. NMFS–F/SPO–118, 175p. Available at: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/index.html. ii Ecotrust, Hidden Cost of Overfishing, 2011. http://www.pewenvironment.org/news-room/reports/the-hidden-cost-of-overfishing-to-commercial-fishermen-85899361965. iii NMFS, 2011. Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2011. https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

st5/publication/index.html. 

threats. Such measures are vital to the future of U.S. fish populations that our fisheries depend upon. 

Historical Perspective 

Ocean fishing is one of our nation’s oldest industries, providing nourishment, employment and recreation to generations of Americans. Unlike other natural-resource 

related industries such as farming or forestry, ocean fishing involves hunting wild 

animals inhabiting ecosystems that are vast and varied. When healthy, ocean ecosystems sustain a national commercial seafood industry that is currently estimated 

to support 1.23 million jobs, and a recreational fishing industry that is estimated 

to provide more than 454,000 jobs.i

Congress first recognized the need to manage U.S. ocean fish populations in 1976 

when it passed the Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the precursor to the 

MSA, to phase out rampant foreign fishing off the U.S. coast and promote the domestic fishing industry. However, over the course of the next two decades, policies 

focusing on expanding fishing, as well as dramatic improvements in technologies to 

locate and catch fish, resulted in overfishing (i.e., catching fish faster than they can 

reproduce) becoming a national problem. Historic overfishing led to the collapse of 

many important fish populations around the country, including cod in New England, 

red snapper in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, and rockfish off the west 

coast. Today, coastal communities continue to grapple with the impacts of these 

fisheries collapses. 

In response to this problem, Congress amended the law twice (first in 1996 and 

then in 2006), changing the focus of the MSA from promoting fishing to conserving 

fish populations. The goal of these amendments was to halt the decline of valuable 

U.S. fish populations and end the boom and bust cycle of fishing in order to create 

a more stable industry. The 1996 amendments (known as the Sustainable Fisheries 

Act) put in place critically important measures to advance sustainability including 

specific requirements to rebuild depleted fish populations to healthy levels; and the 

2006 amendments finally put an end to sanctioned overfishing by requiring managers to abide by the recommendations of scientists in establishing annual catch 

limits (ACLs) that do not allow overfishing. 

The MSA today 

Today, with science-based catch limits and accountability measures established 

for all federally-managed fisheries, the U.S. can boast one of the best fishery management systems in the world. Other countries, including the European Union, are 

seeking to emulate the central tenets of the MSA, including science-based catch limits and commitments to ending overfishing and rebuilding depleted species in a set 

time period. 

Though it takes time for these measures to result in change on the water, we are 

beginning to see tangible improvements. While 40 of the managed fish populations 

were subject to overfishing in 2010, we have seen significant progress, with 29 populations subject to overfishing in 2012, according to the most recent data from the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Furthermore, 32 fish 

stocks are fully rebuilt, compared to just 21 in 2010. 

NOAA Fisheries estimates that the economic benefits of rebuilding depleted species will be an additional $31 billion in sales nationwide, as well as more than a 

million jobs. The economic toll of allowing unsustainable fishing is equally stark— 

in a recent analysis, Ecotrust estimated that in 2009 alone, the cost of overfishing 

in New England, the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico commercial fisheries was 

$164.2 million.ii

Transitioning to Long Term Sustainability 

The conservation requirements added to the MSA in 2006 represented a fundamental transformation in the way we manage our fisheries by placing science-based 

catch limits at the core of our management system. Some regions such as the North 

Pacific have been managing their fisheries under this approach for many years, and 

the value of their fisheries demonstrates the long-term pay off of this system. For 

example, Alaska’s commercial seafood industry has more than doubled its revenue 

in the last decade, from $845 million in 2002 to $1.9 billion in 2011.iii
99 

ivhttp://www.pewenvironment.org/uploadedFiles/PEG/Publications/Fact_Sheet/FF– 

CatchLimits.pdf. vGoodyear, 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. viPrelude to Sustainability: Ending Overfishing in U.S. Fisheries. Our Living Oceans 6th edition, pps 57–66. 

As we look at the challenges facing certain regions transitioning toward sustainable management, we must bear in mind the progress we are making as a nation 

in turning the corner in our decades-long effort to end overfishing and recover from 

its troubling legacy. Problems in regions like New England are a direct result of decades of excessive fishing and collateral damage to the ecosystem caused by damaging fishing practices and gear. Offering more ‘‘flexibility’’ to allow continued overfishing and further deplete stocks that are already at unsustainably low levels will 

exacerbate problems for fishermen in the future. We only need look at our neighbor 

to the north, where the Canadian cod industry collapsed, putting thousands of fishermen out of work, to see how this story could unfold. 

Another controversial issue in the transition to sustainable fisheries management 

is setting science-based annual catch limits (ACLs) for fish populations that lack recent stock assessments, a situation that is most pressing in the South Atlantic, Gulf 

and Caribbean regions. Some are concerned that managers are making decisions 

based on inadequate science, and some have advocated for weakening or eliminating 

the requirement to set annual catch limits for these so called ‘‘data poor’’ species. 

However, there are no fish species managed under the MSA for which there are 

no data. Information is available on basic biology, life history characteristics or commercial and recreational catch numbers that can be used to set catch limits even 

for fish without complete assessments. For these fish populations, there are tools 

available for managers to set annual catch limits, some as simple as locking in current catch levels until more complete scientific evidence indicates that the population can support more fishing. Please see the attached factsheet for more information on setting catch limits in the absence of conventional stock assessments.iv

The lack of complete assessments should not allow managers to sidestep the legal 

requirement to establish catch limits that prevent overfishing. In essence, this 

would allow unchecked fishing unless or until a full scientific stock assessment is 

available to establish limits. Failing to establish science-based ACLs has created 

disastrous and demonstrably negative consequences in many parts of the country. 

For example, managers allowed overfishing of Gulf of Mexico red snapper for decades, reducing the breeding population to less than 5 percent of what scientists considered a healthy level by 1988.v In 2007, fisheries managers finally heeded the advice of their science advisors on sustainable catch limits and lowered allowable red 

snapper take from 9 million to about 6 million pounds and then again to 5 million 

pounds in 2008. These significant cuts may have been avoided had managers listened to the science and addressed red snapper overfishing years earlier. As a result 

of establishing science-based ACLs, Gulf of Mexico red snapper is now recovering 

and catch limits are gradually increasing. 

Addressing New and Emerging Threats 

The 1996 and 2006 amendments to the MSA have resulted in remarkable 

progress in ending overfishing and increasing the value of U.S. fish populations 

through rebuilding. However, as our understanding of the ocean and its inhabitants 

increases, we are recognizing that it is not only critical to protect economically important populations of fish, but also interrelated species and surrounding habitat. 

Ending overfishing is just the beginning of sustainable fisheries management.vi As 

we grapple with emerging threats related to changing ocean temperatures, acidification and other stressors, we must now make the shift to ecosystem-based fishery 

management to ensure that our fisheries can withstand these new challenges. 

Changing environmental conditions are already affecting our oceans and fisheries. 

The Gulf of Maine experienced the warmest summer on record in 2012, and some 

scientists believe that this may be have contributed to the poor condition of groundfish stocks there. Increasing acidity in the ocean is becoming an issue for shellfish 

in the Pacific Northwest, and its impacts on the broader food web are not yet fully 

understood. In addition to impacts on ocean health, changes in fish population sizes 

and distribution have a direct impact on the U.S. commercial and recreational fishing industry, which generates billions in revenue and provides jobs for millions of 

people. 

The MSA has tools in place to begin this process by protecting habitat and reducing the incidental catch of non-target species, or bycatch. As you begin to consider 

possible reforms to the MSA, we urge you to strengthen these existing tools and ex-
100 

amine new tools that can be used to protect the prey base of commercially and 

recreationally-important species. Finally, we must move toward an ecosystem basis 

for management so that fisheries management decisions are taken after considering 

the needs of the larger ecosystem. These reforms will restore and maintain healthy 

and resilient marine ecosystems that are critical to our nation’s fisheries. 

Attachment 

[NOTE: The fact sheet has been retained in the Committee’s official files. 

It is available at: http://www.pewenvironment.org/uploadedFiles/PEG/Publications/Fact_Sheet/FF-CatchLimits.pdf.] 

Statement Submitted for the Record by Glen Brooks, Vice President, 

Gulf Fishermen’s Association, Clearwater, Florida 

My name is Glen Brooks and I have been a commercial fisherman in the Gulf of 

Mexico for over 30 years. On behalf of the board of directors for the Gulf Fishermen’s Association, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony 

related to Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization. 

The Gulf Fishermen’s Association is the leading offshore commercial fishing organization in the southeastern U.S., with several hundred members. Our fishermen 

range from lifetimes of fishing experience to new entries to the fishery. We are dedicated to providing fresh domestic seafood to America’s citizens year-round in sustainable fisheries. This is important because more than 97% of Americans do not 

have the means to catch their own fish in federal waters. Instead they rely on us. 

In addition to providing the best seafood in the world to American citizens, the economic contribution of the commercial fishing industry in the Gulf of Mexico is 

128,000 jobs & $17 billion in sales. 

Until 2006, our Gulf fisheries were managed with traditional systems of seasonal 

closures, endorsements, income qualifications, gear restrictions, and other indirect 

means of controlling how many fish were caught. In 2005, as the Gulf Council tried 

to restore our fishery with conventional management, our season was cut short and 

restaurants had to take grouper off the menu. Fishermen sat at the dock for onethird of the year because managers hoped that would help rebuild the stocks, yet 

overfishing still happened. Fish prices were among the lowest in the United States, 

leaving more than 70 percent of fishermen with incomes below poverty level. Quality was poor because of gluts caused by fishermen catching all they could during 

the open season. Imports increased to fill the void caused by the closed season. 

The fishery was unmanageable, depleted, and without a future. Most fishermen 

were going out of business and very few could pay taxes or maintain their vessels. 

Things got so bad that in 2005 some in the industry developed a plan to reduce the 

fleet from 1,100 down to 400 boats. It was eventually abandoned, and fishermen 

looked for a better solution. 

The catch share system was the fairest solution that didn’t force fishermen out. 

We worked with federal managers and the regional Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council to establish our own program. At the local level—not through federal 

mandate or expanded regulations—we established individual fishing quotas (IFQs) 

that would enable us to spread out our fishing season and rebuild our fishery at 

the same time. In 2009, 81 percent of qualified fishermen voted in favor of an active 

fishery management program that was focused on rebuilding our grouper stocks. In 

2010 the Grouper catch share program took effect as a companion to the red snapper catch share program. 

Now, for the first time in history we have year-round sustainable fishing jobs and 

no closed season. The fishery is more valuable because we provide fresh grouper 

throughout the year. The product is the best it has ever been. Fresh fish has become 

a reality again in our region and restaurants are putting fresh Gulf Grouper back 

on the menu. 

The fishery dependent science produced is among the best in the world and fishermen help pay for this through the cost recovery program as the fish are landed. The 

enforcement system and regulatory compliance by fishermen are the Gold Standard 

for fisheries in the Eastern United States, and fishermen help pay for that with 

their Vessel Monitoring Systems. 

This is a tremendous accomplishment for our country and the future is brighter 

if we support the rebuilding plans in place. American fisheries Management is 

among the best in the world. No agency of the federal government has more stakeholder interaction than the fisheries management system created by the MagnusonStevens Act. The Gulf Fisherman’s Association feels that our management system 

is not broken and does not need an overhaul by Congress. 
101 

Gulf fishermen have lived through overfishing; we know what it causes and how 

hard it is to reverse. We are very grateful for the courage and foresight that our 

nation has had to end overfishing and rebuild our fisheries. Already we are seeing 

signs of improvement in our fisheries in the Gulf. For the first time in our lifetimes, 

management plans are in place to increase catch limits as the fishery improves 

rather than decrease them as the fishery declines. 

We want to thank Congress for the role it has played and America for the commitment it has made to healthy fisheries. The Magnuson-Stevens Act is working. We 

urge the present Congress be patient and let it continue to work to achieve a sustainable fishery now, and in the future. 

Sincerely, 

Gulf Fisherman’s Association Board of Directors: 

Glen Brooks: President, Cortez, FL: 941–920–7302 

Dean Pruitt: Vice President, Clearwater, FL: 727–512–2609 

Jim Clements: Board Member, Carrabelle, FL: 850–544–5703 

Brad Kenyon: Board Member, Tarpon Springs, FL: 727–639–0643 

Jason Delacruz: Board Member, Seminole, FL: 727–639–6565 

John Schmidt: Board Member, Palm Harbor, FL: 727–403–6281 

Will Ward: Board Member, St. Petersburg, FL: 727–638–8316 

Statement Submitted for the Record by The Honorable William R. Keating, 

a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

Thank you to Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey, and Members of the 

House Natural Resources Committee for holding the first hearing on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) 

today. I know a number of my colleagues on the Committee serve coastal districts 

and understand the complexities of fisheries management thoroughly. I would also 

like to thank both panels of speakers today. We have much to gain from their perspectives on how implementation of the MSA has affected fishing communities nationwide and it is my hope that Members of the Committee will keep these testimonies and eye-witness accounts in mind as reauthorization progresses. 

I have the distinct honor of representing Southeastern Massachusetts, including 

the Islands of Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard, where the fishing industry has 

been an integral part of the history for centuries. The South Coast was once the 

home of the epic whaling industry and the lore of whaling trips lives on its streets 

and piers, as well as in those of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket across Buzzards 

Bay. Today, the industry remains a vital economic lifeline for the region. The Port 

of New Bedford is the top fishing port in the country, with landings valued at approximately $400 million each year. New England’s largest fleet of commercial fishermen has access to a variety of fish stocks and sea scallops in Nantucket Shoals, 

Georges Bank and the Great South Channel. In fact, nearly 50 million pounds of 

sea scallops pass over New Bedford’s docks, which are also home to over 30 processors and distributors of all sizes. On Cape Cod, over 100 commercial fishing businesses catch over 12 million pounds of seafood worth $17 million each year, from 

cod and haddock, monkfish and dogfish, skates, clams, striped bass, and tuna. Massachusetts’ lobstermen have landed over 13 million pounds at docks along the Commonwealth’s coast, including nearly 8 million pounds from near shore state waters, 

accounting for over $50 million in revenue. 

However, one size does not fit all when it comes to fishery management policies. 

It is important that each fishery is assessed using the most sound, comprehensive, 

and accurate data available—and that is exactly what I have committed to achieving in Congress. We have learned that management is best left to regional stakeholders who understand the ebbs and flows of the industry and can identify the 

areas that need reform while the role of Congress should be to prioritize funding 

to improve on science and collaborative research. It’s important to ensure that interpretation of the law is met with congressional oversight to ensure that the law is 

being implemented in the way Congress intended. In some cases managers have refused to take advantage of the flexibility already provided in the law and in other 

cases they can abuse this flexibility. We must focus on the challenges at hand and 

promote the maximization of harvests of healthy species, the reduction of bycatch, 

and the improved management of areas closed to fishing. 

The issues currently plaguing the industry are not only complex, but repetitive. 

In September 2012, the Northeast Multispecies (groundfish) Fishery was issued a 

disaster declaration by the Department of Commerce after the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) allowed for a one-year interim measure before 
102 

implementing drastic cuts in quota for Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank cod and 

yellowtail flounder. New England’s fishermen are now facing such severe restrictions in allowable catch for the 2013 fishing season—which begins in just over six 

weeks—that many of them are facing the reality of losing their livelihoods and only 

source of income. It is my belief that many of the challenges of the fishing industry 

have been due to infrequent and inadequate data collection that then dictates catch 

quantities. In the face of ongoing challenges outside of our control—from increasing 

water temperatures, ocean acidification, and regime changes—it is imperative that 

Congress implement fair and effective fisheries management policies that support 

the existing successes of this implementation while helping to preserve those that 

are struggling. 

On December 1, 2011, this Committee hosted a hearing on several bills introduced 

in the 112th Congress to reform the Magnuson-Stevens Act and better fisheries 

management. I joined my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in testifying on behalf of my legislation, H.R. 1013, the Strengthen Fisheries Management in New 

England Act, which would have rerouted funds collected through penalties imposed 

by NOAA to the improvement of New England fisheries. In April 2012, we sent a 

letter to the Committee urging them to take up legislation to reform federal fisheries law in the immediate future. It was to our disappointment that a second hearing was not scheduled and that none of our legislation was considered. I am committed to working with my colleagues and Members of the Committee to ensure that 

the proposals included in these bills are thoroughly considered as reauthorization 

of Magnuson-Stevens progresses. 

The New England Fishery Management Council is charged under the MagnusonStevens Act to manage fisheries in the federal waters of New England. Each year 

it identifies research and monitoring priorities, most of which lack adequate funding. In order to make sound management decisions, the Council must have the increased capacity to address these knowledge gaps. In today’s age of austerity, it is 

essential that we maximize our reallocation of existing resources for best results. 

With the onset of sequestration and fiscal uncertainty, I hope that Members can 

work together to assist NOAA Fisheries in their ability to continue to provide atsea monitoring coverage through the 2013 fishing year. Currently, the Agency has 

announced its intent to cover this cost as they have in previous years, provided that 

the number of trips not exceed the number from the 2012 fishing year. I am very 

concerned that the Agency’s ability to meet this assurance comes at a cost: the very 

research that we are striving to improve. 

Furthermore, NOAA has also committed to participating in an end-to-end review 

of the flawed stock assessment process led by the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth’s School of Marine Sciences and Technology (SMAST). SMAST will be collaborating with NOAA Fisheries and the industry in holding workshops on three 

focus areas: incorporating environmental change in assessments and management, 

fishery monitoring and survey selectivity, and overfishing reference points and uncertainty buffers. This is a unique opportunity for industry engagement and I look 

forward to helping facilitate the review and provide my full support to this process. 

Finally, there is an urgent need for fishing communities—from legislators and 

regulatory officials to healthcare providers and families—to fully understand the socioeconomic impact of fishery regulations and management on all industry stakeholders. In Massachusetts, we are increasingly bearing witness to heart wrenching 

scenes of frustration and grief as members of the fishing community find themselves 

out of work without an alternative source of income. I implore the Committee to listen to the suggestions of the industry and incorporate mechanisms to measure both 

the social and economic consequences of job loss, uncertainty, and hardship within 

fishing communities. 

Thank you once again to Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey, and 

Members of the Committee. With challenges comes great opportunity, and I look forward to continuing to engaging with the Committee and participating in the robust 

conversation that will surely follow throughout the next year as we work toward 

constructive reform and reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 

Statement Submitted for the Record by Elizabeth Mitchell, 

Association for Professional Observers, Eugene, Oregon 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

My name is Elizabeth Mitchell and I am president of the Association for Professional Observers (APO). The APO is a non-profit association of biologists who advocate strong data collection programs for our national fisheries and a support net-
103 

work for the biologists who collect the data. In addition, I have over 25 years of experience working as a fisheries observer, primarily in the North Pacific Groundfish 

Observer Program (NPGOP). The underlying principle behind all of the APO’s activities is the belief that collection of high quality, unbiased data is essential to sustainable management of resources and that well prepared professional biologists are 

necessary to articulate this course of action. 

I had the opportunity to listen to the archived version of this hearing after it was 

held. I wanted to add written testimony to those panelists who presented. Since all 

but one panelist were exclusively from members of the fishing industry, and some 

of the discussion involved fisheries observers, I felt it was important to provide a 

fisheries observer’s perspective regarding several issues raised at this hearing. 

What Does a Fisheries Observer Do? 

Some of the discussion at the hearing was on the topic of replacing observers with 

electronic monitoring (EM) and ensuring that the next reauthorization pushes this 

forward aggressively. When changing technologies, we should proceed with caution 

to ensure that EM will provide us with the necessary information to effectively manage our marine resources. I thought I would provide an outline of just some of the 

observer duties but I would encourage a detailed outline specific to regions and fisheries of what information fisheries managers require, and a comparison of what observers now provide with what EM is capable of doing. We cannot sacrifice for the 

sake of convenience data and specimen collection that is necessary to manage our 

nation’s public fisheries resources in a sustainable way. 

Observers gather unbiased, objective data on daily fishing effort, including, but 

not limited to: 

• Total catch quantification by species, weight and number 

• Identification of all organisms using scientific taxonomic keys 

• Record incidental catch of protected species 

• Record interactions of protected species with fishing gear 

• Conduct rehabilitation of injured protected species 

• Make observations of seabird and marine mammal bycatch reduction mitigation measures 

• Conduct randomized samples of total catch to determine species composition 

of both target fish and bycatch 

• Determine disposition of catch by weight 

• Conduct a variety of randomized biological data collections and tag recoveries 

for basic research on age distribution, prey species and genetics studies 

• Monitor vessel compliance to U.S. fishery regulations as well as other regulations such as MARPOL (the International Convention for the Prevention of 

Pollution from Ships 

• Conduct safety checks of vessels prior to boarding 

Observer-collected data is used for in-season management of fish stocks and 

quotas and are essential for fishery management councils to write fishery management plans (FMP), which must comply with the Magnusun Stevens Act (MSA). 

Among other requirements, the MSA requires the use of the best scientific data 

available and efficient use of marine fisheries resources. 

Access to Observer Data and Information, Including Electronic Monitoring 

One of the sections of the last reauthorization of the MSA in 2007 caused a lot 

of consternation for users of observer data and information. The confidentiality provisions added in the 2007 reauthorization placed a blanket of secrecy over all information that observers collect, and specifically added electronic monitoring (EM) in 

the definition of observer information, assuming future trends toward the replacement of observers with EM. As mentioned above, observer data is essential for a 

whole suite of analyses to ensure sustainable management of our public marine living resources. The confidentiality provisions of this Act remained in limbo for five 

years, as National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) grappled with 

its implementation. Discussions, working groups, workshops and task teams languished behind closed doors, despite a MSA mandate to be inclusive of stakeholder 

input. 

In 2012, NMFS issued a proposed rule that appeared to go beyond the requirements of the MSA and in many ways conflicted with the Act’s mandates, including 

being ‘‘responsive to the needs of interested and affected States and citizens’’ and 

drawing ‘‘upon Federal, State, and academic capabilities in carrying out research, 

administration, management and enforcement’’. It included not only protection of 

identity of the fisherman, but also the protection of the fishermen’s business information. This included everything that is needed to study fishery impacts on the marine environment. The rule neglected to inform the public how the data would be 
104 

aggregated for public disclosure and a future decision on this would have been made 

behind closed doors without public input. It placed ownership of the data in the 

hands of the fishing industry, which is a direct conflict of interest, since this could 

enable the fishermen to release the data or not, according to their own exclusive 

benefit. 

Transparency is the cornerstone of a democratic society and observer data has 

long been considered to be the cornerstone of fisheries management. Observers risk 

their lives to collect this data for public good, not just for those we’re monitoring. 

The ocean belongs to us all. The fisheries are a public resource, an inheritance given 

to us for simply being born. Since not all of us have the capacity to fish for ourselves, we entrust our government to take care of these resources on our behalf and 

those of future generations. We request your consideration in re-examining the confidentiality provisions of the MSA to ensure adequate public access to observer data 

and information, including electronic monitoring information. Without access to observer data and information, other provisions of the MSA would be impossible to 

carry out, including the ability to monitor the effectiveness and efficiency of our 

monitoring programs. 

The Committee Must Treat its Citizens with Respect 

U.S. citizens have a right to expect respect and consideration from our Congressional representatives. I was appalled by the comments of Congressman Don Young 

about observers. He said: ‘‘I argue that observers are probably the worst thing that 

can happen to the sustainable yield rationalization. The observer is human. He can 

be corrupted. He can be put into the trawl net to solve some problems. He can be 

a drunk.’’ 

Observers are recognized worldwide to be an essential component to fisheries 

managers so that they may make the difficult objective decisions in order to 

sustainably and fairly manage public marine resources. Observers believe in this 

role and are extensively trained for it, so to hear a U.S. Congressman marginalize 

observers at a ‘‘public’’ hearing, where only fishermen are invited, is contemptible. 

I understand his point—that humans sometimes come with negative variables. So 

do cameras, with much more ease and likely with less consequence, not to mention 

less oversight. So too are fishermen and politicians corruptible. In Mr. Young’s home 

state, small boat fishermen are the recipients of the first time observer coverage this 

year that he was referencing. It was one of these fishermen who served in powerful 

political positions in Alaska who influenced fisheries policies in Alaska and the nation. He was then vetted to become the head of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) until it was discovered that he had been fishing illegally for five years. 

Jesting in front of a bunch of fishermen that killing observers would solve the 

problem of having them on board is beyond contemptible given the reality of our 

already risky and vulnerable situation. Harassment, assault and interference with 

our duties is a regular and serious problem for observers. Rationalization actually 

exacerbates this, so his statement about rationalization is the other way around— 

rationalization is the worst thing to happen to observers. Observers’ data is no 

longer pooled with other observers sample data in the fleet. Instead it is used to 

monitor the individual vessel’s quota. When the observer’s data is directly impacting 

a vessel’s quota on which he/she is monitoring, observers are often faced with additional pressures from fishermen to ‘‘match’’ their data with the vessel’s quota accounting. It’s not uncommon for fishermen to make attempts to subtlety (or outright) influence the observers’ sampling protocols. Additionally, fishermen in Alaska 

tripled many observers’ already heavy workload with rationalization—demanding 

that NMFS implement complex randomized and larger sample schemes of an impossibly small poplulation—the individual vessel. What the fishermen want is actual 

accounting against their quota, not a sample. However, we just don’t have that technology yet. That’s the cadillac version. So rather than insult observers and feed the 

resentment, we need to pull together to accept them as an essential componant of 

fishing sustainably. It is reprehensible for a politician to joke in front of fishermen 

about killing us. With an expected rise in harassment and interference that accompanies a new program, we’ll know who to partially blame. 

EM is not Proven to be Cost Effective 

Another panelist at this hearing, Bob Dooley, stated that observer costs (in the 

NPGOP) went up from $300/day to over $1000/day ‘‘once the government got involved’’. However this is misleading because the 300/day figure only includes cost 

to industry and the 1000/day includes costs to industry and for NMFS program 

management. Because contractors consider observer charges for service fees proprietary information, this makes it impossible to accurately analyze ways to save costs 

to industry or the government—only total cost after the service is completed. Since 
105 

cost effectiveness is a driving force for many, transparency about these costs should 

be of the first order. 

In addition, costs of enforcement of EM regulations is not included in cost analyses. Nor are non-compliance fee schedules. Non-compliance fee schedules should be 

a part of any cost analysis. Fines sometimes become the ‘‘cost of doing business’’ for 

some industries, so depending on the cost of non-compliance fines, these may not 

be effective in deterring EM violations. 

Thank you. 

Statement of The Honorable Austin Scott, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Georgia 

First, I would like to thank Chairman Hastings for bringing this important issue 

to the committee’s attention. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act plays a major role in the recreational and commercial fishing by 

Georgia citizens. This is no more apparent than with the management of Red Snapper in the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic. Over the last several years, the 

Administration has decided to severely limit the access to Red Snapper stating the 

erratic fluctuation of population. However, previous and current regulations of red 

snapper have lead to a steady and of late explosive growth in the Red Snapper population. This growth has been ignored by NOAA and National Marine Fishery Service in implementing new catch seasons and limits. 

There is only one answer for the contradiction in data and NOAA/NMFS actions. 

The quality and quantity of science and data used by NOAA/NMFS is fatally flawed. 

NOAA has chosen to actively pursue a path of severe and unwarranted closures 

while failing to address the severe deficiencies in its science and data collection. 

Many of my constituents fail to understand how generally actions by NOAA, much 

less acts of closures and restrictions, can be conducted without accurate, timely data 

collection and sound science. 

Further, NOAA has failed to conduct timely economic studies or assessments to 

determine the economic impact on communities who rely on fishing as a source of 

revenue. The basis of economic studies when conducted by NOAA are based on inadequate samples of fishing operations and could be argued, due to the sample size, 

that no economic study was actually conducted. If NOAA continues to implement 

severe policies based on flawed incomplete, poorly implemented science, an adversarial relationship will continue to grow between fisheries and NOAA. If not corrected, this will undoubtedly spill over into the other species and over 4,000 square 

miles of water that is regulated. This is no more evident than with the actions taken 

by states in the past few years who have extended their seasons past NOAA set 

dates. 

With the current economic climate, many communities need all the help that can 

acquire to provide their citizens with sustainable and fair economic stimulus. I 

charge NOAA/NMFS to discontinue its current practices and accept their responsibility to regulate the fishing industry with sound and adequate science, and in a 

manner that is first and foremost beneficial to coastal communities but also mandated by Congress. 

Æ