Whitehouse, Sheldon

English

HELIN Digital Commons

Taking Stock: The Magnuson-Stevens Act Revisited: Fisheries Science: A Bridge, Not a Divide

DOCS@RWU

Roger Williams University Law ReviewVolume 17 | Issue 1 Article 2Winter 2012Taking Stock: The Magnuson-Stevens ActRevisited: Fisheries Science: A Bridge, Not a DivideSheldon WhitehouseU.S. SenateFollow this and additional works at: http://docs.rwu.edu/rwu_LRThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at DOCS@RWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Roger Williams UniversityLaw Review by an authorized administrator of DOCS@RWU. For more information, please contact mwu@rwu.edu.Recommended CitationWhitehouse, Sheldon (2012) "Taking Stock: The Magnuson-Stevens Act Revisited: Fisheries Science: A Bridge, Not a Divide," RogerWilliams University Law Review: Vol. 17: Iss. 1, Article 2.Available at: http://docs.rwu.edu/rwu_LR/vol17/iss1/2Taking Stock: The Magnuson-StevensAct RevisitedFisheries Science:A Bridge, Not a DivideSenator Sheldon Whitehouse*The New England ground fishery has weathered its firstseason under new catch limits and its first sector management* U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) is a member of the SenateEnvironment and Public Works (EPW), Budget, Judiciary, and HealthEducation, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committees. Serving as RhodeIsland's U.S. Attorney, in 1997 he led the investigation into the North Capeoil spill and secured more than nine million dollars in criminal penalties thatwas used for restoration of Narragansett Bay. Since his election in 2006,Whitehouse has continued his strong record on natural resource protectionestablished during his time as U.S. Attorney and Rhode Island AttorneyGeneral. For the past two Congresses, he has introduced the NationalEndowment for the Oceans Act, to establish a dedicated funding source forocean and coastal research and restoration efforts. Whitehouse consistentlysupports increased funding for fisheries science and cooperative fisheriesresearch as well as efforts to improve transparency and efficiency in thefisheries management process. He is also active in protecting coastal andestuarine habitats, successfully fighting to reauthorize the EstuaryRestoration Act (ERA) in 2007, and leading efforts to fund andreauthorize EPA's National Estuaries Program (NEP). As chair of theEnvironment and Public Works Oversight Subcommittee, SenatorWhitehouse has examined the Administration's response to pressingenvironmental issues, such as the Gulf oil spill, climate change, and threatsto native wildlife species.78 ROGER WILLIAMS UNIVERSITYLAW REVIEW [Vol. 17:7plan. Depending on whom you talk to, the season marked asuccessful chapter in fisheries management, or proved to be theunmitigated disaster that some had feared. At first blush, itwould seem there is no room for agreement on this topic.Early numbers look promising - despite lower catch limits,revenue for groundfish vessels was twenty-four percent higherthan in the previous season.1 However, the effect of the transitionto sector management has not been consistent across the fishery.Moreover, no matter what the numbers show, fishing is a toughlivelihood, and adjusting to new fishing regulations createsadditional challenges in an already difficult enterprise.In this environment, it may seem impossible for proponentsand opponents of catch limits and sector management to findcommon ground. However, based on my conversations with RhodeIsland fishermen, I believe common ground does exist: mostnotably, there is a shared desire for more and better science toinform management decisions, and a recognition that agencydecisions in this area need to be made more quickly andtransparently. I would like to suggest a few ways to address thosecommon concerns - because efforts to protect our fisheries and ouroceans need the full participation and knowledge of our fishermento be successful.It is important to remember, however, that the fisheriesmanagement debate exists in the broader context ofunprecedented threats to our oceans and coasts. We must alsoaddress these threats - whether it is ocean acidification, warmingocean temperatures, sea level rise from climate change, ornutrient and chemical pollution - and restore the health of ourmarine and coastal ecosystems, to truly help the fishing industryover the long term.In the face of these threats, we must rethink our relationshipto our oceans and coasts. We must build an ocean constituency, acritical mass of scientists, fishermen, young people, electedofficials, coastal protection organizations, and marine industries,to move humans from being takers to caretakers of our seas andoceans. I am working to organize my peers around this issue in a1. NE. REG'L OFFICE OF THE NAT'L OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMIN.,TABLE 1: COMBINED SECTOR AND COMMON POOL VESSEL LANDINGS & REVENUE,2009 & 2010 (2011), available at http://www.nero.noaa.gov/ro/fso/reports/Sectormonitoring/ Table1.pdf.20121 FISHERIES SCIENCE: A BRIDGE, NOT A DIVIDEnewly formed Senate Oceans Caucus.We must also invest in our oceans and coasts. We need toadequately fund research, to improve catch assessments, analyzethe life cycles of marine species, and monitor trends in watertemperature and chemistry. We should expand coastal andmarine spatial planning efforts to site uses appropriately, wherethey will produce the greatest benefit with the leastenvironmental harm. Grover Fugate of the Rhode Island CoastalResources Management Council and Jennifer McCann of URI'sCoastal Resources Center have placed Rhode Island at theforefront of marine spatial planning efforts, and we need toreplicate their success from coast to coast.To support these efforts, I have introduced legislation withSenator Snowe of Maine to establish a National Endowment forthe Oceans. The bill has a number of cosponsors, includingSenator Rockefeller, Chairman of the Senate CommerceCommittee, where this bill was referred, and Senator Inouye,Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.2Finally, we should act now to protect our marine and coastalresources, to ensure their long term viability. For instance, I haveintroduced legislation to re-authorize EPA's National EstuaryProgram. For 25 years, EPA's National Estuary Program hasconvened stakeholders to forge solutions to coastal pollutionproblems, and I want to see this valuable program, a legacy of thelate Senator John Chafee, continue to thrive.Building an oceans constituency, investing in ocean research,marine spatial planning programs, and protecting our oceans,coasts, and estuaries - these are absolutely necessary steps in acomprehensive, "all hands on deck" plan to protect our fisheries.However, while we work to achieve these broader goals, ourfishermen face very real economic distress. How to address theirshort term needs, while protecting the long term health of thefisheries, is a pressing challenge for fisheries management.The U.S. commercial fishing industry is valued in the tens ofbillions of dollars. Our region represents a huge portion of that2. For additional information regarding the National Endowment forthe Oceans Act please visit: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php (enter, inthe "Search Bill Summary & Status" search box, "National Endowment forthe Oceans" as a "Word/Phrase" search or "S.973" as a "Bill Number" search).910 ROGER WILLIAMS UNIVERSITYLAW REVIEW [Vol. 17:7value - in 2009, New England commercial fisheries landed $782million worth of fish, second only to the Pacific region (whichincludes Alaska).3 Men and women have fished the westernAtlantic for over 400 years, enriching our culture, our economy,and our history. Many families passed the vocation down throughgenerations. Others joined the fleet late in the twentieth century.Members of both groups face economic hardship, amplified by thegeneral economic downturn.When you consider what is at stake, the value of this industryboth economically and culturally, it comes as no surprise thatpassions run high around fisheries regulation and management.How we respond to this passion will dictate whether we aresuccessful in protecting our fisheries and our fishing industry.I believe that a successful response would bring regulators,scientists, and fishermen together, face-to-face, as often aspossible. Moreover, I believe science can be the reason to cometogether. Having spoken with Rhode Island fishermen about thecatch limits prescribed by Magnuson-Stevens and the NortheastFisheries Management Council, I believe mistrust in the scientificbasis for these numbers underlies most of the disagreements.When they hear fishermen criticize the science of catchassessments, some scientists and regulators dismiss the criticismout of hand, believing it reflects an unwavering belief that allstocks are healthy. This is an unfortunate reaction. Whilescientists and regulators are right not to abandon their workbecause of criticism, neither should they ignore the fishermen'sexperience-rich perspective. We may need to reconsider the dataused to inform our fisheries management decisions, the methodswe are using to collect data, and - where data is missing - whatassumptions we make in place of that data.To strike the right balance, we must bridge the credibility gapbetween scientists and fishermen on fisheries science. Fishermenexpress little confidence in the scientific community's ability toperform stock assessments. "Research" tells scientists one thing;"experience" tells fishermen another.3. Annual Commercial Landing Statistics, NAT'L OCEANIC ANDATMOSPHERIC ADMIN., http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/stl/commercial/ landings/annuallandings.html (last visited Sept. 26, 2011) (Select "2009" in both ofthe "Year Range" boxes and select "New England" or "Pacific" in the"State/Area" box).2012] FISHERIES SCIENCE: A BRIDGE, NOT A DIVIDEThis problem is compounded by a long history of distrustbetween the fishing industry and government fisheries managers.Cries of foul play from fishermen long went unheeded, until a2010 report by the Department of Commerce Inspector Generalrevealed that New England fishermen have in fact been finedmore heavily and more often than fishermen in any other region ofthe country.4 More generally, some fishermen complain thatMagnuson catch limits were set arbitrarily, and do not reflectreality.I see several ways to overcome this tension and rebuild trust.First, we should require a rapid common-sense review of stockassessments when they are challenged. Sometimes the agencyitself engages in reassessments - for instance last year, when theNational Marine Fisheries Service exercised its emergencyauthorities under Magnuson and increased the pollock catch limitbased on new data. However, it is intensely frustrating for afisherman who thinks a stock assessment is just wrong, andfounded in bad sampling, to have no means of relief as the seasonslips away. Without this rapid response, it cements a view in thefishing industry that catch limits are numbers made up bybureaucrats and frozen in stone, long after the situation demandsa change.Second, we need to get scientists and fishermen speaking thesame language, and embracing the same data collection methods.Each group has something to teach the other, so working togethercan only improve fisheries management science. Cooperativefisheries research can reduce the conflict between research andexperience by calling on both in data collection methods.Early results from cooperative research are encouraging.Fishermen and scientists are gathering fisheries data together onworking fishing boats, using the same gear as NOAA researchboats. The premise is that research and experience, workingtogether, makes for more solid outcomes - and it seems to beworking. Last fall, I spent a day on the Darana R, with CaptainJimmy Ruhle. Captain Ruhle fishes with his son and another4. OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GEN., U.S. DEP'T OF COMMERCE, OIG-19887,REVIEW OF NOAA FISHERIES ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS AND OPERATIONS 13-14(2010), available at http://www.oig.doc.gov/Pages/ReviewofNOAAFisheriesEnforcementProgramsandOperationsOIG-19887.aspx.1112 ROGER WILLIAMS UNIVERSITYLAW REVIEW [Vol. 17:7crewman for scallops and groundfish. His family is well regardedin the Atlantic groundfishing community. For a month each springand fall, he takes scientists out on his boat to gather juvenile andadult samples of species along the North Atlantic coast. The datais then fed into the Northeast Area Monitoring and AssessmentProgram, or NEAMAP.Jim Gartland of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science wasthe lead scientist on board. He spoke highly of Captain Ruhle andhis experience with the gear and collection methods. CaptainRuhle in return told me he was impressed by the hard work andearnestness of "his" young scientists. This kind of collaborationdoes not guarantee that collection gear and methods will never bequestioned in the future, but it makes it more likely that thenature of the questioning will be more productive than accusatory.Third, we need more and better data. We will never have theperfect data set, and we cannot wait to act until we do. Acting onimperfect information is the stuff of governance. However, we cancertainly do a better job of gathering information, using the latesttechnology and planning tools.For instance, Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP)can map important fishing grounds and protect them fromconflicting uses. CMSP can also identify critical habitats forcommercial species of fish at all stages of life.There is also work just under way using GPS positioningtechnology for catch assessments. I recently met Steve Arnold, aRhode Island commercial fisherman, who is participating in aGPS study with the Northeast Fisheries Science Center.Participants use an electronic log, integrated with GPS, depthsounders, and temperature sensors, to log each trawl made. Inaddition, the boat logs the bycatch and landings of eachvoyage. On-board observers compare this data to estimates madeby the captain. These programs marry the latest technology withcenturies-old fishing wisdom, resulting in accurate, industry-relevant data to inform stock assessments.We have entered a new era in the New England fisheries: thepost 2006-Magnuson era of catch limits. To prevent catch limitsfrom deepening the divide between fishermen and fisheries5. For additional information regarding the Northeast Area Monitoringand Assessment Program, please visit: http://www.neamap.net.20121 FISHERIES SCIENCE: A BRIDGE, NOT A DIVIDE 13managers, we must make sure regulators can and will nimblyrespond to new catch assessments and other data.The advent of new technology can promote efficiencies in gearand fishing methods; scientists and fishermen working togethercan rebuild confidence in the data underlying managementdecisions; speeding up the bureaucracy can keep catch datacurrent and policies relevant. These measures can go a long wayto bridging the unproductive divide between stakeholders onfisheries management issues. As the New England groundfisherynavigates new catch limits and sector management, it can helplead the way for fisheries throughout the region, by highlightingissues likely to be faced in any new sector. In each fishery,stakeholders must look past their differences and work together,to bring our fisheries and the fishing industry back to full healthas quickly as possible.

https://docs.rwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1471&amp;context=rwu_LR

Taking Stock: The Magnuson-Stevens Act Revisited: Fisheries Science: A Bridge, Not a Divide

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

HELIN Digital Commons

HELIN Digital Commons

DOCS@RWU