Monthly Archives: August 2010

The Future of the Pacific Groundfish Trawl Fishery Without the Catch Share Program

Merrick Burden - Senior Fisheries Economist

Merrick Burden - Senior Fisheries Economist

Fishermen in the Pacific groundfish trawl fishery are understandably anxious about the transition to catch shares that starts January 2011, but it’s helpful to consider what is likely to happen if the fishery is left under current management. Perhaps the biggest problem facing fishermen and fishery managers is that eight out of over 90 species caught by fishermen are overfished.  To protect these overfished species, fishery managers have closed parts of the ocean to fishing by creating “Rockfish Conservation Areas” that have changed shape in response to locations of overfished species.  In recent years, productive fishing grounds off Washington and southern Oregon have been among the areas closed.  If current management were to continue there would likely be more closures off other areas of the coast.

I’ve had the experience of working as a fishery manager in the Pacific commercial groundfish fishery for over 6 years and have seen how the existing management system is slowly suffocating the industry and fishing communities. Avoiding closures is just one reason why I see the groundfish trawl IFQ (catch share) program as progress in Pacific groundfish fishery management.

Read More »

Posted in Pacific / Tagged , , , , , | Comments are closed

Civility, A Surprise Visitor to the NOAA Law Enforcement Summit

Donald Barry - Managing Director, EDF Oceans

Donald Barry - Managing Director, EDF Oceans

I spent  yesterday participating at the NOAA Law Enforcement Summit in Washington DC along with 60 or 70 other stakeholders and a rare thing happened, at least for this city:  Despite having strongly differing views about NOAA’s past law enforcement record and how the agency should move forward in remedying problems from the past, there was no shouting, no name calling , no fist shaking, no angry diatribes.  Instead, there was politeness, constructive comments and interesting and creative ideas on improving law enforcement transparency, consistency and communications.  In polarized Washington DC ? How the heck did that happen?
For one thing, the summit was organized and well run by professional facilitators with the participants assigned to small working groups for focused discussions.  The people assigned to my table were an amazing mix of people with extremely different backgrounds with significantly differing views: a representative of the charter boat industry, the head of a state fishery agency, a University of Maryland professor who had conducted exhaustive research on NOAA law enforcement activities, a New England seafood marketer, a NOAA law enforcement agent, a representative of the commercial fishing industry, and myself representing the Environmental Defense Fund. 
At least one of our table participants stated firmly at the beginning that he was staunchly anti-law enforcement or something to that effect and my initial internal reaction was “oh boy, here goes the bar fight” but then the unexpected thing happened. A really fascinating conversation began unfolding with everyone being very respectful of each others opinions and folks trying real hard to come up with constructive ideas for helping NOAA enhance the effectiveness of its law enforcement program. 

The professor from Maryland turned out to be a virtual fountain of fascinating statistics and past analyses of NOAA law enforcement activities and the representatives at the table from the Pacific Northwest and Alaska shared insights on how they had resolved many of the issues years ago that are now starting to surface in the South Atlantic. But perhaps the conversation that transfixed me the most was the dialogue which unfolded between the NOAA law enforcement agent and the participant who had initially stated that he was strongly anti-enforcement.  It was respectful, constructive and enlightening. 

By the time the summit ended, the comment that I heard from virtually everyone in our group was that it had been a “really good group of people” at our table and that people had really enjoyed the conversation and the ideas that we had ultimately developed.  Everyone exchanged business cards and I truly expect to touch base with many if not most of these people again.
This was the second facilitated summit-like meeting sponsored by NOAA that I have attended in the last three months (the other one involved recreational fishing) and in each case potentially explosive, emotion charged issues were handled diplomatically and effectively, creating an atmosphere that facilitated the exchange of ideas with civility and respect.  Boy, have we been missing those elements recently in the political gladiator wars in this city. 

The hard work on improving and enhancing NOAA law enforcement has just begun and a one day summit is not going to provide all the answers or solutions that will be needed.  Far from it.  But having said that, Dr. Jane Lubchenco and Eric Schwaab have now twice organized meetings where people with strongly held (and often differing) opinions could discuss their differences in a constructive atmosphere without insulting the motives or the values of the person seated next to them.  I generally hate day long meetings but I would willingly come back for a third NOAA summit if it would allow me to work on problem solving again with as interesting and insightful people as the ones sitting around my table.

Posted in Uncategorized / Tagged , , , | Comments are closed