NOAA Needs Congressional Oversight
My View; Inspector General's report shows NOAA has lost its way
My View
Stephen Ouellette
January27, 2010 05:50 am
The results of the Inspector General's investigation confirms concerns that many members of the fishing community have raised for 10 years with congressional delegations — the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is an agency out of step, if not outright adversarial with the industry it is supposed to be working to preserve and protect.
The abuses in law enforcement are but one, serious manifestation of the problem.
The IG's reports and NOAA's promise of a fix offer little satisfaction to those who have left or been forced from the industry by action of, or fear of action by,NOAA law enforcement and its Office of the General Counsel.
While NOAA has promised to review the law enforcement issue, this should not cloud the larger picture — the hostile atmosphere within the agency that allowed these abuses to occur for over a decade, and which threatens the viability of the entire commercial fishing industry and fishing communities.
NOAA ranks used to include many former fishermen and members of fishing families and fishing communities who brought to the agency the American values of hard work,respect for the resource and service to the community, dedicated to ensuring a continued supply of fresh, healthy fish for
While many of these committed individuals remain at the agency, doing their best to assist in their own way, the current management regime has fostered a hostile environment that ignores the practical impact of regulations — either in terms of complexity and costs of compliance, to the devastating impact of rules on small businesses.
Rather than approach problems in a spirit of mutual cooperation, NOAA's management follows an arrogant pattern — making it appear NOAA has no interest in preserving industry or communities.
Fishermen are being excluded from regional fishery management councils — bodies that were created to ensure their participation in the management process — in favor of NOAA's selections that follow NOAA's politicized agenda.
NOAA pre-shapes council policy by effectively limiting options to those it creates.NOAA controls all aspects of the science, guarding some (its "closed area model") like proprietary secret, making it virtually un-reviewable, and thus violating a basic tenet of science.
NOAA downplays or demeans scientists who attempt to enlighten the councils. Where independent science finds flaws with NOAA's, rather than seek to welcome this independent assistance, NOAA seeks to squelch it or gain control of it. The pressure to commoditize the fishery through sectors or catch shares is but one aspect of this.
Seldomdo fishermen or fishing communities see the benefit of the rebuilding programs they are told to sacrifice for. In Amendment 13 to the groundfish plan, NOAA claimed that, by giving up significant landings in the short term, the fleet would see returns in every year afterward that would result in a break even point— albeit in 35 years. Five years later, fish stocks have recovered to the point that the scientists advised that the groundfish fleet could land 180,000 metric tons of groundfish. The fleet was limited by NOAA regulations to approximately50,000 metric tons — making one wonder if we will reach the break even point before the next millennium.
This is only one fishery where NOAA has squandered results of conservation, at the cost of thousands of jobs. This underfishing problem can be traced to NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service's absurd interpretation of the rebuilding requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which interpretation guarantees that rebuilt stocks will never be accessible to the fleet.
The NOAA administrator and congressional delegations need to understand that the IG's report reveals just one of the many causes — albeit one of the most troubling — of the agency's lack of credibility with its constituency.
Despite the outrage of politicians, the law enforcement issues have been complained of for more than 10 years. NOAA, and in particular NMFS, need to be restored to agencies that work cooperatively with industry and the public to achieve the statutory directive of getting America's commercial fisheries back to work and protecting fishing communities, with sound, rational common-sense conservation principals incorporating the needs of industry and fishing communities.
To accomplish this, the agency needs to reassess its commitment to the fishing industry and to either re-evaluate its interpretation of the Magnuson Act, or advise Congress of the impossibility of maintaining a viable fishing industry under the statutory language.
At the same time, the agency must re-engage the fishing industry and communities by assessing its core values, including ensuring that the agency staff reflects an understanding of a commitment to working with and preserving the fishing industry and fishing communities.
In order to rebuild fisheries, we must first rebuild the agency itself.
Stephen Ouellette is a
Copyright© 1999-2010 cnhi, inc.
SFA Statement opposing Red Snapper ban
SOUTHEASTERN FISHERIES ASSOCIATION INC.
Tel 850/224-0612 Fax850/222-3663
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 24, 2009
NOAA FisheriesService
Southeast Regional Office
Sustainable Fisheries Division
St. Petersburg
Ref: Public comment on a proposed rule (74 FR 31906) to implement interim management measures to reduce overfishing of red snapper in the
Greetings:
Southeastern Fisheries Association (SFA) is a 501 (c) 6, fisheries trade association founded in 1952, in
We submit these comments knowing that input from the fishing/seafood industry rarely changes the outcome of a Council/NMFS initiative once the decision has been made to adopt regulations reducing fishing. We are watching our once robust fishing industry in the southeast vanish because of flawed scientific data. Fix the stock assessment protocols and return to the scientific method,then we - the regulated - would change our opinion of NMFS science and its antiquated stock assessment system. There have been major technological improvements in the measuring of fish stocks since the enactment of M-S FCMA thirty-three years ago. Use them.
The managers,who make decisions on fish harvests, should not be in control of the scientific quality issues of the data they use in their decisions. The data collection should be under the oversight of independent academicians. We need checks and balances, and fear if this is not done and done soon, fisheries will become a chapter in the history books, rather than the proud and productive industry contributing important aspects of independence to the character of our society, putting heart-healthy seafood on menus across the nation, generating billions of dollars to our economy and reducing our trade deficit.
It is our conviction the red snapper ban is not justified because there is healthy recruitment and increasing numbers of older spawning fish in most areas we fish. We believe there is a necessity for major changes in the spatial characteristics of managing the red snapper because the current practice does not protect the spawning aggregations that we fish, which are likely to be distinct stocks.
Fishermen have historically caught large numbers of older spawning red snapper at several specific locations in the spring of each year, year after year, suggesting that these aggregations have unique site and timing fidelity for spawning,which with the above observations suggests there may be several distinct stocks within the management area that has been arbitrarily designed and used by NMFS. This should be the highest priority of research, and the research needs to be independent of the council.
We are and always have been in support of science-based management to maintain healthy fish stocks and sustain the industry and our livelihoods. However, even with continued compliance we have seen continued losses in both fish stocks and fisheries. This has made us take a harder look at what management has done to affect our once robust fishing industry. We make these specific points.
1. Based on the scientific information available to us, the red snapper ban proposed by the South Atlantic Council and NMFS is not justified. The data needed for stock assessment determination does not exist. Council staff has said as much in testimony before a national commission. Bad data creates bad decisions.
2. There are no facts on the number of red snapper stocks in the
3. NMFS conclusions based on bad data are used to develop models that cannot predict with any certainty the number offish there are, how old they are and what their relative abundance is now compared to five years ago, ten years ago or fifty years ago.
4. NMFS intends to implement red snapper regulations on the "best scientific information"available, but NMFS determines on their own what “best scientific information” is used, so peer review or independent evaluations don't occur until after the process is well on the way to conclusion.
5. The SEDAR process is so tightly managed that before stock assessment and other information is available to fishermen and NGO’s not part of the inner-circle, most decisions are practically cast in stone.
6. There are no checks and balances in the manner NMFS controls fishing from beginning to end. For instance:
1. NMFS screens council nominees submitted by Governors
2. NMFS recommends appointments to the Secretary of Commerce
3. NMFS conducts or pays selected grantees for desired research
4. NMFS interprets the research submitted to them
5. NMFS helps draft proposed fishery management regulations
6. NMFS interprets the management regulations they helped prepare
7. NMFS recommends regulations through the council process
8. NMFS approves or rejects council proposed regulations
9. NMFS enforces the regulations
10. NMFS administrative judges sentence violators of NMFS regulations
11. NMFS fines are placed in a seldom audited NMFS law enforcement fund
These comments are not aimed at individuals. They are aimed at the management process and policies put in place over the past decades because of voids in oversight not spelled out in law.
7. The current management system in the southeast uses defective stock assessments resulting in unfair and unnecessary regulations. This is what the southeastern fishing industry believes and will continue to believe until convinced otherwise by factual, peer-reviewed science.
8. The practical solution to the South Atlantic Council’s red snapper problem is to redo the assessment after correcting the selectivity problem and addressing the other issues raised by Dr. Frank Hester in his report submitted to the council during their June, 2009 meeting in
9. It’s possible to do this without missing the administrative deadlines. It’s unjust to even consider bad science to meet an arbitrary, one size fits all, deadline.
10. A second possible solution lies in the administrative interpretation that requires an approximation of K to be estimated and used as a “recovery” benchmark.
11. We applaud the decision to continue and expand the otoliths work in
12. The red snapper fishermen and many non-government scientists are convinced old and flawed data was used by the SSC and Council on which to base their conclusions to ban red snapper fishing.
13. The selected scientific data used to justify a red snapper ban does not reflect the actual sizes of red snapper and extent of biomass of red snapper available for sustainable harvest.
14. Use of commercial and large enough recreational fishing boats as platforms for acoustic surveys and sub-sampling acoustic targets for biological information has to be developed. How else can the spawning aggregations be measured on a routine basis?
15. Monitoring of the status of the fish stocks, their environment and change over time has been the responsibility of NMFS.This needs review and Congressional oversight.
16. The development of methods, and data analysis should be independent of NMFS control to avoid the perception, or reality, of their tweaking the science to accomplish a political or social goal.
17. One of my associates offered the following as an option to improve the system. It seems to be worth consideration and discussion.
Select a peer review team of experts to individually critique a new plan.
Revise the plan and bring the team together to discuss and fine tune.
Some key elements:
- Work with fishermen in local coastal areas in a comprehensive fashion.
- Use time-space coded echo-integration survey approach with fishermen to sea-truth acoustic data.
- Use local area expertise at as many coastal communities as necessary
- Expect a five year developmental period for basic approach for the easy species.
- Target large signal species first, or measure what you can because it is likely that it is affecting whatever you are interested in looking at for answers.
- Development of trophic structure model with large signal species, and hypotheses for testing of the effects of natural and anthropogenic factors.
- Definition of stocks, abundance and distributions, overlap, and spatially-temporally strategies for monitoring, and enhancing natural productivity.
- Development of in-season, empirical management methods
- Development and testing of specific stock models
- Identification of spawning and nursery areas for managing fishery.
- Identification of efficient species-specific, removal/harvest strategies
- Identification of dominant species dependencies, such as, prey importance and influence on the abundance of dominant predators, migration routes, etc.
18. Is it possible NMFS used a one stock assumption in the development of the stock assessment for
If there wasn’t a genetic stock structure, did NMFS assume none existed? As a colleague opined,“As to who knows the truth, or who has the correct intuition, it is probably the mossback fishermen, with their knowledge of the spawning aggregations because some of them may have been here when it started. Hence, the old-timers know some things that could be extremely important if we are ever going to restore fish stocks to highly productive status, and have prosperous fisheries.”
19. Another statement I received concerning the interim red snapper regulations asked, “You should be asking why anyone in the fish management or research business would not be trying like mad to find any possible way to get an accurate count of the fish? What kind of scientist or manager will accept and use "highly uncertain" data? Call it a politeness or etiquette or whatever you like, but it is basically "I won't be critical of you if you won't be critical of me." How did the fisheries discipline get this bad? How can scientists and managers not care about the quality of data, or even fail to understand the natural priority of abundance data in the learning process?” For red snapper it seems NMFS played an arbitrary game of setting harvest rates on fictitious stocks of unknown abundance. That’s the real problem.
20. What do we think is necessary to provide better science to better manage the fisheries? One associate offered,
- First, fishermen need to be interviewed who are willing to share information about when and where red snapper have spawned in the past. This information needs to be put into a GIS data base to support the following steps.
- Second, acoustic surveys of the past spawning areas will have to be planned; prioritized and implemented (this will include capturing fish for identification and demographics).
- Third, areas that are found to be holding spawners have to be established as annual survey sites to determine/document temporal and spatial fidelity and precision obtainable by repeating acoustic surveys.
- Fourth, if multiple spawning sites and timings are found, the fish captured at each location will need to be compared to identify any effects of segregated spawning, such as demographics, DNA, etc.
- Fifth, extent of the dispersal of spawning fish on feeding migrations will be determined by tagging studies.
- Sixth, catch reporting areas will be redefined for each unique group of spawning fish and quotas will be establish separately for each area based upon the precise estimate of fish that are in the area.
21. Weak and strong spawning stocks are a fact of life that management does not recognize. Identifying the spawning stocks, estimating their biomass and age structure, and documenting their fidelity in time and space are keys to fitting the management to the fishery in the future. It is not that difficult to accomplish
22. Many
23. Another associate said, “If you want to have prosperous fisheries, including snapper and grouper, you need to develop fishery independent surveys, spawner escapement practices, and ease the governments out of the preseason stock assessment business.” This surely seems worthy of discussion by a panel of scientists not paid by the Council.
24. The cost of lost jobs and income as a result of the proposed red snapper ban is the area of concern that received the least attention in the development of the red snapper ban. It’s as though the economic demise of fishermen or fishing related businesses has no validity in implementing a rule based on such inadequate science. People don’t seem to count in the equation.
25.
26. I could continue with numerous other points but conclude by respectfully requesting the Secretary of the US Commerce Department to send the Interim Red Snapper Plan back to the Council and continue with current management until a new stock assessment is completed under a protocol allowing full participation and transparency from beginning to end.
Respectfully submitted,
Bob Jones
Bob Jones,Executive Director
Southeastern Fisheries Association
850/224-0612
FIX THE MAGNUSON ACT NOW!!!!
This is the first time commercial and recreational fishermen and fish related businesses have joined ranks on a national issue. The goal is to improve the direction of fish management by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fisheries Management Councils.
Fishermen from all coastal states and the Great Lakes are invited to gather at the reserved space near the steps of the Capitol by 11:00 AM on February 24th. There will be at least 50 fishing representatives from Florida who are currently making appointments with the Congressional delegation.
Southeastern Fisheries Association and the East Coast Fisheries Section have already scheduled a dozen appointments and all of the Florida delegation has been open to meeting with us and listening to our story. Nils Stolpe has done great work in setting up communications with everyone and is one of the drivers behind the birth of the rally. Bob Zales has several of his groups on board and Dennis O'Hern, Fishing Rights Alliance and Jim Donofrio of the Recreational Fishing Alliance are working hard to make the rally a success. Donofrio has been the point man and has made all the physical arrangements for the event. A Master of Ceremonies has been selected and commitments from the sponsors of the bill, Congressman Pallone of New Jersey and Senator Schumer of New York have been given.
Think about participating in this event either in person or contributing to the costs.
2003 Statement on Magnuson Act
10/22/2003
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN KERRY
SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, FISHERIES AND COAST GUARD OVERSIGHT
HEARING ON NMFS MAGNUSON NATIONAL STANDARDS IMPLEMENTATION
|
WASHINGTON, DC – Senator John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) submitted today for the record the following statement at the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Fisheries and Coast Guard oversight hearing on NMFS Magnuson National Standards Implementation: Good morning. I want to thank Chairman Snowe for holding today’s very timely oversight hearing on NMFS’ implementation of the National Standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Following passage of the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS issued revised National Standard Guidelines to provide technical guidance to the Councils in developing fishery management plans. However, implementation of these National Standards has been inefficient and a number of problems have been identified. The primary concern is that the Guidelines have not allowed for the management flexibility intended by Congress. In particular, we need to take a hard look at how NMFS and the Councils have implemented two of the National Standards: ** National Standard 1, under which overfishing and rebuilding standards are set; ** National Standard 8, under which socio-economic effects on fishing communities are addressed. These implementation issues have come to light in ports around the nation, but no where are they more acute than in New England, where NMFS and the New England Fisheries Management Council are under court order to develop a Magnuson-compliant management plan known as Amendment 13. The development of Amendment 13 has been plagued by conflict, scientific controversy, delays, and overly-stringent and inconsistent interpretations of the 1996 law. Throughout this time, New England has had to cope with significant environmental and economic instability. Overfishing has continued on certain stocks, and fishing communities have experienced an ever-changing set of management decisions that have contributed to economic stresses on fishermen and fishing-dependent communities. In real terms, that means commercial fishermen cannot implement even a two-year business plan because they do not know how, when or where they will be allowed to work in the fishery. This uncertainty extends to the multi-million dollar shore-side infrastructure and local economies. In these difficult economic times it is imperative that NMFS bring about a reasonable and stable management plan that will allow businesses – from the small boat entrepreneur to the national seafood processor – the opportunity to compete in the American and world marketplaces. The Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) calls for a balanced approach to fisheries management which is designed to sustain and grow this nation’s fishing industry through necessary conservation and reasonable management measures. That means we must reduce fishing mortality to end overfishing and restore stocks to sustainable levels, but such reductions must be technically justified and effects on communities minimized to the greatest extent possible. Consistent with the conservation requirement to end overfishing, National Standard 8 mandates that management plans developed by the Councils and approved by NMFS take measures to provide for the sustained participation of fishing communities and minimize the adverse economic impacts of management measures on these cities and towns. Nevertheless, NMFS’ Draft Economic Impact Statement analyzing the four alternatives under consideration for Amendment 13 demonstrates that economic losses to vulnerable New England fishing communities were not specifically identified in the document – and thus, no mitigation measures are proposed. The analysis simply projected that, on a regional basis, each of the four alternatives before the Council would result in short-term economic and job losses, with surprisingly little economic or environmental net benefit over the long term. Massachusetts alone is expected to shoulder between 55 and 68 percent of all expected losses in income, revenues, and jobs in the region. Commercial fishing is an important economic engine in cities like New Bedford and Gloucester, where hundreds of jobs stand to be lost. Analyses provided by NMFS suggest that the “no action alternative” (representing 2001 fishing effort) could achieve more than 85 percent of the economic and biological benefits of any of the four alternatives. Analyses of 2002 fishing effort are expected to demonstrate even greater strides. If this course is followed to its conclusion, Amendment 13 could require significant economic losses in certain communities with little future economic and conservation benefit today or tomorrow. The 1996 revisions to the Act were not intended to result in a paper exercise plagued with unworkable rules; it was intended to result in better management and better decisions to benefit real people. We believed that successful management would involve measurable increases in biomass, smarter management, modern techniques, and increasing opportunities for our coastal communities. However, it is my view that NMFS is not fully taking advantage of the flexibility in the law, and that, in part, is the cause of our current problems in New England. The MSA allows NMFS and the Councils sufficient flexibility to create a workable management plan for New England, so long as we ensure there will be an end to overfishing and return to sustainable stocks. I believe there is plenty of room for establishing common-sense rules under the Act. For example, the Senate unanimously approved my amendment to H.R. 1989 last Congress, which clarifies that the agency has the discretion to extend existing rebuilding timelines when new assessment information increases targets well above the previous goals – as long as overfishing does not occur and rebuilding progress continues. This is a rational interpretation of the Act that an expert agency can make, and we are glad to see that this approach is reflected in the Amendment 13 alternatives. The MSA also provides plenty of room for Councils and the agency to develop a range and combination of reasonable management approaches that can both end overfishing and provide benefits to the fishery. These include multispecies management approaches that provide incentives for harvesting of plentiful stocks and avoiding vulnerable stocks, adaptive management rules to accommodate new information, community-based sector approaches, real-time reporting that will improve timeliness of stock information, and cooperative research to improve the quality and quantity of scientific information on our stocks. The agency must work with the Councils to use the discretion afforded to it to meet the requirements of the law to both end overfishing and keep fishing communities strong. Any management plan must take account of the good work already done in New England, and target mitigation measures to the port communities at greatest risk of economic downturn as a result of NMFS’ actions. In addition, I am concerned that fishermen have complained that NMFS has failed to provide oversight to ensure Council-designed management plans meet other National Standards (4 and 5). These standards require that management measures not discriminate among residents of different states; not have economic allocation as their sole purpose; and, if they result in allocation, that such allocation be fair and equitable. I believe this is an area that needs additional attention, or the future of the entire management and Council system will be called into question. I thank Dr. Bill Hogarth for joining us to today in order to help us better understand NMFS’ implementation of the MSA and to guide the agency in meeting its obligations to create a fair and responsible management plan for New England, and for fishing communities around the United States. |
A good example of how restaurants don't need to switch fish species
Open Letter to Roy Crabtree of NMFS about the current state of fisheries science
Roy,
A few minutes after your e-mail about red snapper arrived on Friday, April 24, 2009, I received an e-mail from Dr. Gary Thomas about the current state of fisheries science. His remarks are revealing and echoes our concerns about science used to ban red snapper fishing in the South Atlantic Ocean.
Many in the fishing industry are concerned NMFS is too powerful and unchecked in controlling the marine fisheries of the United States. I have felt that way going back to the time I was Chairman of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, (1981). NMFS has plenty of competent scientists, but from our point of view there are no checks and balances in the way our lives are managed by NMFS. For instance:
1. NMFS screens council nominees submitted by Governor’s
2. NMFS recommends appointments to the Secretary of Commerce
3. NMFS conducts or pays selected grantees for desired research
4. NMFS interprets the research submitted to them
5. NMFS helps draft proposed regulations
6. NMFS interprets the regulations
7. NMFS recommends regulations through the council process
8. NMFS approves or rejects council proposed regulations
9. NMFS enforces the regulations
10. NMFS Administrative Judges sentence violators of NMFS regulations
There is a pattern here that can lead to blemished decision-making. There is little oversight on the day to day operation of NMFS, other than cursory reviews by Congress or GAO on an infrequent basis.
There is a natural tendency of survival by NMFS employees not to “rock the boat” or question scientific conclusions due to repercussions from the leaders of the agency.
There is a tendency within government, and in the private sector as well, that if you want to get along you need to go along. That’s a natural way of surviving for many folks and agencies and is understandable. But there is a line that must not be crossed.
NMFS is not only in control of the process from A to Z, it controls millions of dollars that appear to be directed to science projects not in conflict with NMFS agenda.
Science is supposed to be robust, complex, controversial and honest. Young scientists, or even old scientists, should examine other scientists’ stock assessments. If their own independent science shows changes or miscalculations, the new science should be published with the errors corrected. In our opinion that’s what science is all about. Science should never be used in a manner where the end justifies the means. The end should justify the hypothesis through experimentation and replication.
Dr. Thomas makes several important points in his e-mail that he copied you, Senator Nelson’s rep Lynn Bannister, Bob Mahood and Captain Paul Nelson.
He talked about a paper presented last week at U of M. It was about sailfish, which should be applicable to other species in that, “there was far too much variability in the catch data to ever show a trend in the change of relative abundance.” I think I understand what the presenter said, but at some point in time, I will have to step back and let a true scientist do the talking. The presenter further said, “This is exactly the same presentation that was made by Paul Smith (NMFS) in 1970 at the SWFSC in La Jolla, when he concluded that fishery dependent data were not valid for determining trends in marine fish abundance.”
It seems that independent science, not in any manner tied to a predetermined conclusion is the way to go for the benefit of the fish, fishermen and NMFS. If independent science supports what NMFS says, then so be it. If it doesn’t, then new science projects need to be designed and funded to find the truth, no matter how illusive it might be. Dr. Thomas points out that catch is a function of two behaviors. If NMFS is only using the catch data, or one behavior, then “thedata are fundamentally and irreparably flawed.”
We need independent science. A possible way we can get that is to reprogram some of the S-K money for independent science critical to the management of red snapper and other species defined as overfished. NMFS has the money to fund independent science although I don’t know how much money is in the S-K reserve at this time.
We are being lead to a paradigm that NMFS isn’t interested in funding independent stock assessments of exploited species because it doesn’t want any of its mistakes, if there are some, to become public knowledge. Without an independent stock assessment, any mistakes NMFS has made can be obscured from the public until the end of time. I’ve learned from listening and reading that if NMFS doesn’t have to measure fish directly, and can use catch trends; chances of us going out of business is far greater than NMFS creating sustainable fisheries under the present scientific protocols.
My mentors have this to say, “Why don’t we put a working group of scientists and fishermen together to assess the feasibility of acquiring empirical data for the assessment of the red snapper fishery in the South Atlantic area? The goal might be the development of preseason empirical data that would allow an escapement-based fishery to develop that protects a predetermined stock size for spawning fish, and allow harvests of all fish above that level. At a minimum, we would be looking to develop an empirical method for measuring natural mortality and making adjustments to the harvests before the fishery instead of after the damage is done (spawners depleted or harvest truncated). The economic benefits of a sustained fishery would be better than no fishery and conservation would also be served.”
Red snapper are plentiful. We know that because we are on the water when the weather lets us and we see them in great abundance. We have a standing offer for any biologist to come go with our fishermen and see what we see, but so far nobody from NMFS or the SA Council has accepted our invitation. That makes me think they don’t want to know how many red snapper are in the water.
We will have additional scientific data on the SEDAR to send to you in the near future that we hope will convince you not to deliver the death knell to the fishermen and communities that depend on catching red snapper on the Atlantic coast.
I refrained from writing about “sequestered science” and other situations I’ve observed over the past 46 years. The industry wants to concentrate on today and how we can stop the insanity surrounding the national drive to stifle commercial and recreational fishing to accomplish a not so hidden agenda.
You have a tough job and we know it. We, who suffer the impact of NMFS regulations, have a tough life as do the families and myriad businesses dependent on the fruit of our labor.
The government must look at the faces and lives of those harmed by their regulations.
Sincerely yours,
Bob Jones, Executive Director Southeastern Fisheries Association East Coast Fisheries Section
Welcome
Bob Jones, Executive Director
Southeastern Fisheries Association Inc.
