[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FISHING = JOBS:
HOW STRENGTHENING
AMERICA'S FISHERIES
STRENGTHENS OUR ECONOMY
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Saturday, August 25, 2012, in Panama City, Florida
__________
Serial No. 112-126
__________
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
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-704 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
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
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC Betty Sutton, OH
Scott R. Tipton, CO Niki Tsongas, MA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Raul R. Labrador, ID John Garamendi, CA
Kristi L. Noem, SD Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Steve Southerland II, FL Paul Tonko, NY
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Mark Amodei, NV
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director
David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Saturday, August 25, 2012........................ 1
Statement of Members:
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Southerland, Hon. Steve, II, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Florida.................................. 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Statement of Witnesses:
Adams, Captain Tom, Mexico Beach Charters, and Chair,
Recreational Fishing Alliance ``Forgotten Coast'' Chapter.. 35
Prepared statement of.................................... 37
Anderson, Pamela W., Vice President, Panama City Boatman's
Association................................................ 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Hansard, Candace, Vice President and Reef Deployment
Director, Emerald Coast Reef Association, Inc.............. 33
Prepared statement of.................................... 34
Jennings, Captain Michael, President, Charter Fishermen's
Association................................................ 39
Prepared statement of.................................... 41
Kelly, Captain William E., Executive Director, Florida Keys
Commercial Fishermen's Association......................... 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
Merrick, Dr. Richard, Director, Scientific Programs & Chief
Scientific Advisor, National Marine Fisheries Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce..................................... 53
Prepared statement of.................................... 55
Waters, Donald A., Co-Founder, Gulf Coast Professional
Fishermen, and Commercial Fisherman, Pensacola, Florida.... 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Wright, Kenneth, Chairman, Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission.................................... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Zales, Captain Robert F., II, President, National Association
of Charterboat Operators................................... 43
Prepared statement of.................................... 45
OVERSIGHT HEARING TITLED ``FISHING = JOBS: HOW STRENGTHENING AMERICA'S
FISHERIES STRENGTHENS OUR ECONOMY.''
----------
Saturday, August 25, 2012
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in the
Lecture Hall of Holley Academic Center, Florida State
University-Panama City, Florida, Hon. Doc Hastings [Chairman of
the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Hastings and Southerland.
The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.
By way of introduction, let me introduce myself, I am
Congressman Doc Hastings and in the lower 48 States, I come
from about as far away as you can be from Florida, I come from
the great State of Washington, where in Washington, we say
``the real Washington.''
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. So it is a pleasure for me to be here with my
colleague Steve Southerland.
Before we begin, I would like to call Reverend Michael Ryan
of the Covenant Hospice to come up and give us the invocation.
Rev. Ryan. Let us pray.
God, thank you for the freedom we have to be here today.
Thank you for the minds to concentrate, to understand; thank
you for the hearts and the emotions that we all have associated
with the issues that will be discussed today.
Thank you for your presence; thank you for the beauty all
around us and the people with whom we share this beauty.
Today, oh, Lord, help our minds to understand, help our
hearts not only to hold tightly to what we want or hope for,
but also to reach out to others around us so that we all come
to deeper understandings of the issues.
Lord, we do lift up those who are hurting in any way. Help
us, oh, Lord, to do what we can to reach out to them. We will
thank you, we will give you credit.
Amen.
The Chairman. I would like to now ask that Mr. Davis lead
us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
[Pledge of allegiance.]
The Chairman. This is an official committee meeting of the
House Natural Resources Committee, it is not designed to be a
town hall meeting. In fact, the Committee is here to gather
testimony on obviously a very important issue, fishing in the
Gulf.
However, those of you that would like to--if you are
inspired by what you hear and would like to submit testimony to
the Committee, you can do so. You can go to the website, is the
easiest way to do that, and typically the comment period is
open for a period of 30 days so you will have plenty of time to
get your testimony in, if you desire to do so.
Before I start with my opening statement, I wanted to thank
my colleague, your Congressman, Steve Southerland for pushing
and trying to get this committee meeting down here. What is
interesting, prior to the time that Congressman Southerland
served on the--he is serving his first term on the Committee on
Natural Resources--there had not been a Member from Florida on
that Committee for nearly 10 years, the last one was
Congressman Adam Putnam, who is now your Ag Commissioner. But
now we have two Floridians from opposite parts of the State on
the Committee. And I think Florida is well served by having two
Floridians on the Committee and I know the Committee is well
served by having two Floridians on the Committee. So I want to
thank again, Steve, for advocating bringing this field hearing
down here, and I do want to thank the witnesses also for being
here. I will thank the first panel, and there will be two other
panels.
This is a Saturday, this is my first experience on the Gulf
with an impending hurricane coming, so you all know about that
better than I do, but I just want to say that I do very much
appreciate you being here on a Saturday morning.
I will now recognize myself for my opening statement, Mr.
Southerland will give his opening statement and then we will
recognize the panel and then we will have a series of questions
that we will have for the panel.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
The Chairman. The Committee has a number of issues under
our jurisdiction that can and do affect the State of Florida:
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,
which governs all fishing activities in Federal waters; the
Endangered Species Act; the Coastal Zone Management Act; the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act; Coral Reef Conservation Act;
the Marine Mammal Protection Act; and in addition, the
Committee's jurisdiction extends over almost all of the
Department of the Interior. So as you can tell, we have
jurisdiction over a lot of Federal agencies and Federal
statutes that do affect your activities here.
Today, we are here to talk about fisheries and as we will
hear from our witnesses, fishing plays a big part in the
economy of the Gulf of Mexico and particularly here in Florida.
According to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report, in
2006, nearly 3 million residents fished in Florida for a total
of nearly 46 million days and contributed over $4 billion to
the economy. According to the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Commission, in 2008, the commercial seafood industry generated
over $5.5 billion in sales in Florida. Now these are impressive
numbers and they show that the health of the fishing resources
off the coast of Florida can have a big impact on the overall
economy of the State.
This Committee has held a series of hearings in Washington,
D.C. and we have heard quite a bit of testimony that indicates
that different regions of the country have very different
challenges as the amount of scientific information available to
fishery managers varies significantly for most areas.
I am glad to be able to be here to hear from today's
witnesses directly about how the data collection and the
management policies that are written in Washington, D.C. affect
your activities. While I know there are always tensions between
the commercial and recreation fishing sectors, and even more so
when harvesting opportunities are restricted, I hope we can
look at ways to allow both sectors to grow, by identifying the
challenges that are affecting fisheries in this region.
I come from the Pacific Northwest where most of our fishing
is more in the commercial area. Not too many people go up in
the cold North Pacific, for example, as opposed to the Gulf. So
you have different tensions, and I recognize that. But I also
recognize very importantly that we have to bridge that gap
because both of those sectors, economic sectors, are very, very
important to our economy.
Through our hearings on fisheries issues this Congress, we
have identified some issues that are causing reduced harvest
levels. In particular, funding for fisheries surveys and stock
assessments by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, or NOAA, they sometimes do not seem to make
that a priority, that part does not seem to be a priority with
that agency.
When amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act were passed in
2007, the bill required councils to establish a mechanism for
identifying annual catch limits, or ACLs, in each fishery
management plan at a level so that over-fishing does not occur.
In addition, the councils are now required to include measures
to ensure accountability.
In January 2009, the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) published a guideline to address these new requirements
and aid the councils in developing ACLs and accountability
majors or AMs. Included in these guidelines were provisions
regarding how councils should deal with scientific uncertainty.
The use of the ``precautionary approach'' required buffers and
a protection of weak stocks where the data is unreliable or
old. The less reliable the information, the more precaution is
to be used. This has been a problem for fishery managers,
particularly here in the Gulf, where the stock assessments are
not done on an annual basis, and some fisheries have not been
surveyed for years.
While the goals of the bill were to make sure that
management decisions were based on science, our Committee has
heard a lot of testimony that the new provisions require a
level of scientific information that was not available in all
regions of the country. We have also heard that the regulations
which implement the new amendments were unreasonable for those
regions with limited scientific information. And the guidelines
were creating situations where the multiple levels of
``uncertainty buffers'' were reducing harvest levels
unnecessarily.
I look forward to hearing from you today, the panelists, on
what primary challenges to fisheries management are here in the
Gulf and what the Congress can do to make the necessary
changes. In addition, I hope to hear from you about what other
Federal restrictions or initiatives are affecting your
activities. In many regions of the country, the Endangered
Species Act is being used by groups that do not like
development to tie Federal agencies in knots so they cannot
issue permits for their activities. And to make matters worse,
they often settle their lawsuits with the agencies which then
takes Federal funds away from recovering species. Our Committee
has been looking into that Act to see if there are specific
provisions in the ESA that Congress can agree to review in a
bipartisan manner.
The Natural Resources Committee has also held a number of
hearings on the National Ocean Policy, an unauthorized new
bureaucratic layer of oversight that will almost certainly
restrict everybody's ability to fish. I look forward to hearing
your views on how this policy will affect the Gulf.
Again, I would like to thank very much my colleague
Congressman Southerland for inviting me here today. And with
that, I will recognize your Congressman, Mr. Southerland.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Hastings follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman,
Committee on Natural Resources
The hearing will come to order.
Before I begin my opening statement, I would like to thank
Congressman Steve Southerland for inviting me to come down to his
beautiful district and for the opportunity to learn more about some of
the challenges that fishermen face here in the Gulf of Mexico.
As you all know, Congressman Southerland serves on the Fisheries,
Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs Subcommittee where he is one of
six freshmen Republican Members. Steve has been one of the most active
members of that Subcommittee and can always be counted on to ask the
tough questions when we have hearings. I appreciate his energy and his
enthusiasm.
I would also like to thank today's witnesses and those of you who
have given up your Saturday to come to this hearing.
Despite the fact that the Natural Resources Committee deals with a
number of important coastal issues and all fisheries management issues
in Congress, the last time the Committee had a Florida member was
2003--almost 10 years ago--when Congressman Adam Putnam (now the
Commissioner of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services) was on our Committee. I am pleased that Florida is now
represented. That is not only good for the Committee but also good for
the State of Florida.
This Committee has a number of issues under our jurisdiction that
can and will affect Florida: the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act which governs all fishing activities in federal
waters; the Endangered Species Act; the Coastal Zone Management Act;
the National Marine Sanctuaries Act; the Coral Reef Conservation Act;
the Marine Mammal Protection Act; and in addition, the Committee's
jurisdiction extends over almost all of the Department of the Interior.
As you can tell, we have jurisdiction over a lot of federal agencies
and federal statutes that can and do affect your activities.
We are here today to talk about fisheries. As we will hear from our
witnesses, fishing plays a big part of the economy of the Gulf of
Mexico and in particular, Florida. According to a U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service report, in 2006, 2.8 million residents and non-
residents (16 years old and older) fished in Florida a total of 46.3
million days and contributed $4.3 billion in fishing-related
expenditures. And according to a Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission
report, in 2008 the commercial seafood industry generated $5.6 billion
in sales in Florida. Those are impressive numbers and show that the
health of the fishery resources off the coast of Florida can have a big
impact on the overall economy of the State.
This Committee has held a series of hearings in Washington, D.C.
and we have heard quite a bit of testimony that indicates that the
different regions of the country have very different challenges and
that the amount of scientific information available to fishery managers
varies significantly. I am glad to be able to be here to hear from
today's witnesses directly about how the data collection and management
policies that are written in Washington affect your activities.
While I know there are always tensions between the commercial and
recreational fishing sectors and even more so when the harvesting
opportunities are restricted, I hope we can look at ways to allow both
sectors to grow by identifying the challenges and impediments that are
affecting fisheries in this region.
Through our hearings on fisheries issues this Congress, we have
identified a number of issues that are causing reduced harvest levels.
In particular, funding for fisheries surveys and stock assessments by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are not
keeping pace with the needs of the fisheries.
In addition, Congress passed amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act
at the end of 2006 and the bill was signed in early 2007. The bill
required Councils to establish a mechanism for specifying annual catch
limits (ACLs) in each fishery management plan at a level that
overfishing does not occur. In addition, the Councils are now required
to include measures to ensure accountability.
In January 2009, NMFS published the guidelines to address these new
requirements and aid the Councils in developing ACLs and accountability
measures (AMs). Included in these guidelines were provisions regarding
how Councils and their SSCs should deal with scientific uncertainty.
The use of the ``precautionary approach'' requires buffers and the
protection of weak stocks where the data is unreliable or old. The less
reliable the information, the more precaution is to be used. This has
been a problem for fishery managers particularly here in the Gulf where
stock assessment are not done on an annual basis and some fisheries
have not been surveyed for years.
While the goals of the bill were to make sure that management
decisions were made based on science, our Committee has heard a lot of
testimony that the new provisions required a level of scientific
information that was not available in all regions of the country.
We have also heard testimony that the regulations which implement
the new amendments were unreasonable for those regions with limited
scientific information and the guidelines were creating situations
where the multiple levels of ``uncertainty buffers'' were reducing
harvest levels unnecessarily.
I look forward to hearing from you today on what the primary
challenges to fisheries management are here in the Gulf and what
Congress can do to make changes. In addition, I hope to hear from you
about what other federal restrictions or initiatives are affecting your
activities. In many regions of the country, the Endangered Species Act
is being used by groups that do not like development to tie federal
agencies up in knots so that they cannot issue permits for activities.
To make matters worse, they often settle their lawsuits with the
agencies which takes federal funds away from recovering species. Our
Committee has begun looking into the Act to see if there are specific
provisions in the Act that Congress can agree to review in a bipartisan
manner.
The Natural Resources Committee has also held a number of hearings
on the National Ocean Policy--an unauthorized, new bureaucratic layer
of oversight that will almost certainly restrict your ability to fish.
I look forward to hearing your views on how this Policy will affect the
Gulf.
Again, I would like to thank Congressman Southerland for the
invitation to hold a hearing here in Panama City and look forward to
hearing from our witnesses.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Southerland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
say welcome to my home. Last year when we talked about this
hearing, I knew that it would be a great honor to have you come
and meet the people that my family has called friends for over
200 years. So it is a great privilege to have you here.
To my knowledge, this is the first Congressional hearing
ever held here. And I want to tell you why we are here. I
remember last year in this very room, I remember having a
fisheries--a seafood roundtable where we invited different
individuals that are stakeholders in producing a livelihood
from the Gulf of Mexico. I remember that meeting, it is crystal
clear almost like it was yesterday. Some of the names of the
individuals that were here read like a Who's Who of Florida
legacy when it comes to seafood--Mickles, Ward, Crum,
Snelgrove, Zales, Dana, Abrams, Ratfield, Anderson, Miller,
Hartsfield, Blander, Hart, Petromas, Gandy, Parish, Ward,
Gillette, Blackman. Those are just some of the names that were
here. So it was a pretty good gathering of individuals that
bring knowledge from generation after generation of making
their living out of the water.
Why are we here? Because at the end of that meeting, I
asked this simple question--would there be any interest in this
group in me going back to Washington and asking Chairman Doc
Hastings if he would be willing to come to Northwest Florida
for a field hearing, so that our Committee could gather
important data that affects the livelihoods of you, your
families and so many people. I am very proud to tell you that
unanimously all those names that I read, unanimously all said
bring a field hearing here.
And so in true fashion, as over the last 18 months, I am
proud to fulfill my commitment of what I made in this room. I
think that it is imperative that men and women who work hard
and cannot afford to buy a $1,000 plane ticket and come to
Washington, D.C., with $500 a night hotel rooms, and eating
$100 meals in restaurants and being away from their business--
it is only proper when Congress can come to you. I think that
is fair and I think that is responsible. And so to those who
were here in this room a year ago--commitment fulfilled. And
thank you for being here.
When I was fortunate enough to be elected, I wanted to
serve on committees that were a reflection of my history, that
represented the people that I will now serve. Well, Natural
Resources seemed like a pretty good fit. I serve nine coastal
counties, that is a lot, thousands upon thousands of people.
And so all the way from Dixie County all the way up to Okaloosa
County. And it has been wonderful to represent those nine
counties because my family has lived in this district for over
200 years, hardly here today and gone tomorrow. This is home.
Over my lifetime, I have seen those who make their living
in these waters, I have seen them abused. I have seen them with
no representation and they have done everything right, they
have worked hard, they taught their children to work hard. They
held their boats together with duct tape and baling wire, in
order to put food on their table.
You know me, I'd never been elected to an office before,
not local, not state until I was elected to go to Congress. My
promise was to fight for those who were not just acquaintances
but were lifelong friends, my neighbors, my classmates, my
friends whose families have been decimated by government
bureaucracies that could care less. They do not care. So my
promise was to fight for you. My promise was to represent you.
My promise was to listen to you.
Last Tuesday morning, I met with commercial fishermen in my
office for an hour and a half, listening to their concerns,
hearing their pains and hearing their struggles. I left there,
I went to Destin and I walked on the docks of Destin Harbor.
The charter boat captains just coming off the water, telling me
their challenges, their hurts, their hopes and how all of them
feel that they are having to try to make a living with the
Federal Government's boot on their neck. Sound familiar? Yes,
it does. That's not new to me, because I am one of you. I am
one of you.
And so today we are here to listen. We are here to listen
to these witnesses and I want to say thank you to our first
panel. And we are going to have two panels today, so after this
first panel is done, we are going to go into the second. I want
you to know, this field hearing, regardless of what some have
accused, has been requested now for over a year in order to
fulfill a commitment, because those of you that are here, you
cannot afford to come to Washington. But please believe me,
Washington can afford to come to you and here we are. So thank
you very much for being here.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Southerland follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Steve Southerland, II,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida
Mr. Chairman, welcome to Florida. I want to thank you for your
leadership and the decision to bring the committee to Panama City.
I thank the faculty, staff, and students of Florida State
University, Panama City for allowing us to use this great facility.
I would also like to thank the men and women here today who will be
providing us with their expert testimony, all of whom understand the
need for logical, sound, and fair management of our fisheries, a
resource belonging to all the citizens of this great nation.
As you know, while there are only two members, including myself,
from Florida serving on this committee, I am in the unique position of
being the only one serving on the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife,
Oceans and Insular Affairs.
This gives me the opportunity to be a voice for not only the
fishermen in Florida's 2nd Congressional District, but also for the
fishermen throughout this state. Their frustrations have become my
frustrations.
I have been a member of Congress for over a year and a half now,
and I have learned a great deal from not only Florida's fishermen, but
also the owners of marinas, hotels, restaurants, and small business
owners that depend upon a strong tourism industry. These groups all
agree that Magnuson-Stevens, the law that governs our fisheries, is
broken.
To understand this better, I began sending staff to the Gulf of
Mexico Fishery Management Council meetings. I was astounded to learn
that councils have strayed from their original purpose and have been
influenced by outside groups not affiliated with the fishing industry
with the only goal of locking up our fisheries with no regard for our
fishermen or our economies.
Mr. Chairman, my family's roots in Florida pre-date statehood. For
over 200 years, generations of my family have been blessed by the
bounty that God has provided for us along the Gulf Coast. We have
respect for this resource and understand that responsible management
will not only provide for a sustainable fishery but also economic
growth throughout our coastal communities.
As I mentioned earlier, Florida depends on a strong tourism
industry to sustain its economy. Florida's fisheries create and support
thousands of jobs throughout the state and contribute to local
businesses through hotel, restaurant, and bait store expenditures from
out-of-state anglers. A U.S. Census Bureau report found that 2.8
million resident- and non-resident anglers contributed $4.3 billion to
Florida's economy in fishing-related expenditures in 2006.
Today, Florida's tourism industry is at risk. Florida attracts
tourists from all over the world to enjoy our beautiful beaches and--
most importantly--to catch some fish. Though thousands of species of
fish exist in the Gulf of Mexico, the most popularly sought after is
the red snapper.
Recreational fishermen in the Gulf are limited to a 40-day red
snapper season. The 40 days fall in the middle of the peak tourist
season, but when you factor in inclement weather, sickness, or any
other obstacle life sends your way, recreational fishermen face the
reality of a significantly shortened season and a negatively impacted
economy.
If the boats are not out on the water catching fish, our hotels,
restaurants, marinas, and small businesses of every kind throughout the
Gulf Coast will face imminent closure.
There are strongly held beliefs on all sides of fisheries
management. However, one thing we can all agree on is that we are at a
crossroads.
I am pleased to be part of this important effort to make federal
fisheries policy more responsive to the needs of our recreational and
commercial fishermen.
I hope today, through the testimonies before us that we can hear
from all sides and find an effective way to move forward.
I yield back.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
When you were describing your district, for full
disclosure, my district is a very heavy agriculture district
and it sounds like your constituency is a lot like mine.
We are very pleased to have our first panel here. We have
Mr. Kenneth Wright, Chairman of the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission; Ms. Pamela Anderson, the Operations
Manager for Capt. Anderson's Marina; Mr. Don Waters, a
Commercial Fisherman from Pensacola, Florida and Mr.--Captain I
should say, not Mr. but Captain William Kelly, Executive
Director of Florida Keys Commercial Fishermen's Association.
Now if you have not had an opportunity to testify in front
of a Congressional committee, we have this 5-minute clock which
is in front of you. You have submitted testimony to the
Committee. Generally that testimony is longer than 5 minutes,
and that is fine, it will all be part of the record. But what I
would like you to do is keep your comments within the 5-minute
timeframe. When the green light comes on, that means you are
doing extremely well; and when the yellow light comes on it
means that there's a minute left; and if the red light comes
on, those are special type chairs there----
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Not really, but just try to keep it within
that time period, if you will.
So with that, Mr. Wright, we will start with you and you
are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH WRIGHT, CHAIRMAN,
FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Mr. Wright. Good morning, Chairman Hastings, Representative
Southerland from our great State of Florida, fishing capital of
the world, and members of the Committee absent today.
My name is Ken Wright, I am Chair of the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission, which I will refer to as the
FWC. We are the agency responsible for managing fish and
wildlife resources in the State of Florida, and I appreciate
the opportunity to address our concerns regarding effective
management of marine fisheries in Florida and the Southeast.
Fishing is big business in Florida. As you stated, there
are approximately 150,000 Floridians directly employed, not
counting those that are involved in the multiplier of the
industry. In the recreational sector, there are 100,000 in the
commercial sector, 50,000. Florida alone accounts for nearly 40
percent of all marine recreational fishing nationally, with
$5.7 billion total sales from recreational fishing and $5.6
billion in commercial sales.
I am here to express the view that Florida and my agency
are essential partners with the Federal Government making sure
the fishery resources are sustainable and available to be
enjoyed today and by generations to come. We in Florida, and
particularly Florida FWC, have many years of experience and
know that the public enjoyment of natural resources can be
balanced with resource protection. By nature, fishermen are
leery of increasingly restrictive regulations, but the
fishermen have expressed their support for past management
measurements after seeing stocks recover from over-fishing.
Today, however, fishermen are more than leery. Many are angry,
some are afraid, most are distrustful of a new set of rules
they perceive as inflexible and without justifiable merit.
They are frustrated with fishery managers and altogether
skeptical of the public process. To make matters worse, many
feel that the new regulations are being proposed at a time when
they are still suffering from the ill effects of the 2008
economic downturn and the irony is not being lost on these
fishermen. Charter captains, party boat operators, marina
owners, bait and tackle shops owners, seafood wholesalers, as
well as recreational anglers tell FWC Commissioners about the
negative impacts of what they consider over-restrictive and
perhaps unnecessary management measures.
Changes to the current system are needed, especially in
terms of strengthening and expanding current fisheries data
collection programs in our region. Fisheries management in the
Southeast United States suffers from chronic, yet well-
documented data shortages. Essentially, our current system does
not seem capable of adequately supporting the data and
analytical requirements of annual catch limits management
policies. The problem is two-fold. There are major deficiencies
in the quality and the frequency of stock assessments and
fishery statistics. Number two, management goals and time lines
need to be more flexible, given our current scientific capacity
and performance limitations of the council management system.
In the context of decreased budgets, addressing the
problems we have experienced in the Southeast will require
reprioritization of scientific resources, we are well aware.
Fundamentally, we need broader and more comprehensive data
collection programs as well as sufficient numbers of highly
trained analysts to provide reliable, high-quality scientific
data and information on a timely basis.
This concludes the remarks that I have, which I prepared,
Chairman, Congressman, to summarize my written testimony.
I will take the balance, the little bit of time I have to
tell you that I am speaking on behalf of Florida's fishermen,
all of the industries that rely upon the fishing industry.
Fishermen in the Southeast come here, we need relief. I am
tired of being in Commission meetings and having gentlemen come
to me my age in tears because their business is crumbling. We
are having to impose highly draconian restrictions upon the
ability of our citizens to catch fish, recreationally or
commercially, when we lack the sufficient data to support a
decision that is so impactful to their lives and livelihood,
without having the proper information. It is painful.
I know that budgets are tight. I ask only that you give us
more time. Red snapper in particular, it is recovering, we know
that intuitively, because that is mostly what we have to rely
on. But it is recovering, but to recover in so short a period
of time may be at the cost of those people who will benefit
from recovery. They may be out of business by the time we get
to the point that we can document success.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Wright, for your
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wright follows:]
Statement of Kenneth Wright, Chair,
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) is the
agency responsible for managing fish and wildlife resources for the
State of Florida. Ken Wright, Chair of FWC will address the agency's
concerns regarding assessment and management of Gulf of Mexico
fisheries.
Fishing is big business in Florida. There are approximately 150,000
Floridians directly employed in fishing-related businesses--100,000 in
the commercial sector and 50,000 in the recreational sector. Florida
alone accounts for nearly 40% of all marine recreational fishing
nationally, with $5.7 billion in total sales from recreational fishing
in 2011 and $5.6 billion in commercial sales in 2008. Gulf of Mexico
fisheries are vital to Florida's economy. They are a main target for
the recreational boating community, and are highly prized by resident
and visiting anglers. The importance of Florida's fisheries and the
unprecedented pressures they face force the state's management agencies
and stakeholders to search for new, creative and sound fisheries
management approaches.
While there is always controversy about the status of regulated
stocks--this is the nature of fisheries management--there is ongoing
concern and a lack of credibility among commercial and recreational
fishers about the findings of recent stock assessments. Of even more
concern to fishermen are the management decisions being mandated based
on these stock assessments. By nature, fishermen are leery of
increasingly restrictive regulations, but fishermen have expressed
their support for past management measures including size limits, bag
limits and commercial quotas, after seeing vital Gulf of Mexico stocks,
such as king mackerel and red grouper, recover from historical
overfishing. Today, however, fishermen are more than leery. Many are
angry, some are afraid, and most are distrustful of a new ``set of
rules'' they perceive as inflexible and without merit. They are
frustrated with fishery managers and altogether skeptical of the public
process. To make matters worse, many feel that new regulations are
being proposed at a time when nationally we are still suffering from
the effects of the 2008 economic downturn--and the irony is not being
lost on fishermen. Charter captains, party boat operators, marina
owners, bait and tackle dealers, seafood wholesalers as well as
recreational anglers tell FWC Commissioners about the negative impacts
of what they consider over-restrictive and perhaps unnecessary
management measures.
Changes to the current system are needed, especially in terms of
strengthening and expanding current fisheries data collection programs.
Fisheries management in the southeast United States suffers from
chronic, yet well-documented, data shortages. This hampers scientists'
abilities to evaluate exploited populations and managers' abilities to
develop, and ensure accountability with, management measures. Required
data are simply stated: accurate catch statistics, adequate biological
sampling, and comprehensive population monitoring. The lack of these
data adds uncertainty at all levels of scientific and management
processes, which, due to requirements in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Management and Conservation Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), translates into
an obligation to be increasingly conservative in management
specifications. Therefore, it is highly likely that fisheries which are
neither overfished nor experiencing overfishing, will nonetheless face
harvest reductions and increasingly restrictive regulations.
More recreational angling trips are taken in Florida annually than
any other state. In fact, the number of angling trips in Florida each
year exceeds the sum total of the next highest five states combined.
Therefore, concerns with recreational statistics provided through the
Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Program (MRFSS) are
particularly relevant. The level of recreational data collection for
Florida's Gulf Coast fisheries is considered inadequate to support
timely and relevant stock assessments for many species. The MRFSS
survey in Florida interviews approximately 45,000 anglers annually.
This level of effort is nowhere near that required for a state with
more than 24 million recreational angling trips each year. As a result
of this under-sampling, statistics for many of the species managed by
the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council are measured with
considerable imprecision by the MRFSS, even by the program's own
standards. It is extremely difficult to develop effective
accountability measures that can function adequately when applied to
these imprecise estimates. Timing is also an issue. Under the current
survey approach, final estimates of recreational catch and effort for
each calendar year are typically delayed by at least eight months.
The FWC recognizes that improving the precision of recreational
statistics in Florida is not an easy task. The number of angler
interviews required to enhance the precision of catch and effort
estimates is enormous, likely at least 100 times the current level of
effort. This reality suggests that alternative approaches are required
to reliably estimate recreational fisheries statistics. The FWC
believes that approaches should be developed that take advantage of
many fishermen's stated willingness to report what they catch directly
and to participate more fully in the data collection process.
Implementing electronic or online reporting systems for recreational
fishermen would improve both timeliness and sample sizes. The FWC
supports efforts underway to resolve recreational data collection
issues through the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP), and
we hope that future programs will not only reduce uncertainty in
estimates and considerably improve the timeliness of their
availability, but also take advantage of current technology to address
fishermen's willingness to submit information.
The final requirement for expanding and strengthening this region's
data collection programs is fisheries independent monitoring of
resources, essentially the information that is provided by scientific
surveys of fish and their habitats. There is no comprehensive
monitoring program for the fisheries resources of the Gulf of Mexico, a
fact that directly contributes to the large number of stocks in the
region for which overfishing status is unknown. Scientific monitoring
provides information for stock assessments that is proven to greatly
reduce uncertainty. Data from these surveys allows analysts to separate
out changes due to fishing from those caused by natural factors. In
addition, scientific surveys provide a means of evaluating resources in
areas that are closed to fishing, and generate more comprehensive
information that is critical to future ecosystem-based fisheries
management efforts. The FWC has long supported implementation of a
comprehensive survey program in the region, and believes it is critical
that such a program provide thorough spatial and temporal coverage.
Some progress has been made by the development of an eastern Gulf of
Mexico fishery-independent survey that FWC conducts in cooperation with
the NOAA Southeast Fisheries Science Center. The geographic scope of
this survey, however, is limited and not suitable for properly
addressing fishery-independent data needs for stocks with broader
ranges.
The importance of a comprehensive fishery-independent monitoring
program to the future success of fisheries management in the Gulf of
Mexico cannot be overstated. Data generated from these types of surveys
allow managers to be proactive, and stand in stark contrast to the
retrospective, quota-based management of the present day. Today, stock
assessments for Gulf fisheries rely mostly--and in some cases
exclusively--on data from the fisheries themselves. As a result, these
assessments are only feasible when fishery data is available.
Restrictive regulations or fisheries closures reduce or eliminate the
information stream informing the stock assessments. In these
situations, data generated by independent scientific surveys becomes
absolutely critical. Due to the lack of scientific surveys, recent
management closures in the South Atlantic and those due to the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico created periods
during which little or no fishery data were available for future stock
assessments.
Also of great concern are the recent budget cuts by NOAA to the
Interjurisdictional Fisheries program (IJF), one of the oldest
cooperative state/federal assessment and management efforts in the
country. IJF is the only such program in which the states determine
management priorities through planning and research efforts for inshore
and nearshore species, such as spotted seatrout, striped mullet, blue
crabs, and oysters. In the Gulf of Mexico, these nearshore species
comprise the majority of the commercial and recreational harvest,
resulting in significant social and economic benefits to the Gulf
states and the nation. IJF is the cornerstone of the fishery management
programs for the states and has provided the support for long-term
databases for shrimp and juvenile finfish in the Gulf of Mexico, which
would otherwise not be available. In recent years, it has provided for
regional planning efforts, by states, to manage nearshore resources in
a manner consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In essence, the IJF
has provided a critical linkage between federal and state fisheries
management plans and needs to be reinstated at full funding levels.
While the Florida-based concerns are vitally important, we must
also make the point that the Southeast Region of the United States,
including the jurisdictions of the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and
Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, has historically not been funded
at levels needed to provide data and stock assessments on a timely,
comprehensive basis. The NOAA Southeast Fisheries Science Center has
the unenviable task of providing scientific support for three separate
Councils and dozens of species. When asked about this discrepancy, the
FWC has been told that the Southeast Region has ``boutique'' fisheries
that are not worth as much as commercial fisheries in other parts of
the country, thus not warranting increased funding to the area for
needed assessments and data collection. The FWC argues that the people
involved in fisheries in the Southeast, many of which have a large
recreational component, deserve the level of data collection and
assessment processes afforded in other parts of the county, especially
in light of the stringent timelines and requirements in the Magnuson-
Stevens Act.
In summary, state and federal agencies are all spread very thin.
Data collection systems, however, need to be revamped to get more
active participation by fishermen and more timely data for stock
assessments. The Southeast region needs to be recognized at the same
levels as other parts of the country and funded at similar levels. We
should have the ability to collect the basic information on the
numerous species in the Southeast region as well as hire additional
stock assessment scientists to support more timely and a larger number
of assessments. These requests would help the fisheries management be
more predictable and forward thinking. Fishermen would benefit greatly
from this data and this type of management. We realize that the funding
challenges are considerable, but these critical needs must be addressed
now. Implementing priority program enhancements should be combined with
appropriate adjustments to management timelines to allow more
flexibility in achieving healthy stocks without imposing undue burdens
on fishermen. The FWC has dealt with the fisheries challenges of the
past and we are prepared to continue to work hard to successfully
implement the level of well-informed and credible fishery management
that the people of Florida rightfully deserve.
In closing, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
would like to thank the House Natural Resources Committee for holding
this important hearing in Panama City, home of Representative Steve
Southerland, and we greatly appreciate the Committee's interest in the
effective management of marine fisheries in Florida and the southeast.
______
The Chairman. I will recognize Ms. Pamela Anderson for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF PAMELA W. ANDERSON, VICE PRESIDENT, PANAMA CITY
BOATMAN'S ASSOCIATION
Ms. Anderson. Chairman Hastings----
The Chairman. Speak directly into the microphone. Turn it
so it is facing you. I think it is on, is it not? It was on a
moment ago. Yes, it is on.
Ms. Anderson. You want me to get closer?
The Chairman. Yes, get it--I am trying to be nice about it.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Anderson. Chairman Hastings, Representative
Southerland, my name is Pam Anderson and I am appearing today
on behalf of the Panama City Boatman's Association and Capt.
Anderson's Marina here on Panama City Beach. We know first-hand
many of the negative economic impacts legislative issues have
had on our industry. Our anglers and I appreciate the
opportunity to share with you these issues that are costing
jobs in the fishing and tourism industry.
What I will speak to concerns the Gulf red snapper fishery.
In other areas of the country though the message is the same,
just a different species.
The original Magnuson-Stevens Act gave NOAA the mandate to
rebuild and better manage the fisheries. The fisheries began to
noticeably recover and rebuild in 2000. In 2006, recreational
fishing was good. We had a four fish bag limit and 6 months of
good fishing and tourism. then came the Magnuson
Reauthorization of 2006, with inflexibility of non-scientific
arbitrary deadlines and mandates. Our gradual rebuilding of the
red snapper fishery became a mandate to stop over-fishing by
2010--3 years to fix what fishery managers had allowed to
happen over decades. Each year since, the season has been
shorter and we have been told we over-fished the annual limit
even as we abided by the regulations. In 2009, the updated
assessments show we are no longer over-fished nor undergoing
over-fishing, the season still got shorter.
This was due to the weight of the fish. In 2006, the
average weight of red snapper was 3.2 pounds; in 2012 the
average weight is 7.6 pounds. Each year the fishery managers
have under-estimated the growth of the fish and that has thrown
us into over-fishing. For instance, in 2006, with the average
fish weight of 3.2 pounds, we were harvesting about 1.4 million
fish. This year, with the annual catch limit almost the same,
but the average fish weight of 7.6, we were held to about
521,000 fish. The real problem was they did not factor that
average weight properly when they determined the annual catch
limit. They estimated the average weight to be less which set
us up to over-fish. This has happened every year since 2007 and
we have had days deducted from the following year's season.
When we had the red snapper open, business was really good.
When red snapper is closed, business is down 30 to 50 percent.
The 40 businesses at our marina support about 300 jobs in red
snapper season.
What can our legislators do to help? We need flexibility in
the non-scientific arbitrary deadlines in the Magnuson-Stevens
Act to rebuild the fisheries. As long as a fishery is
rebuilding, going in the right direction, we should be able to
fish. I believe since NOAA says we over-fished for the last 5
years, and the fishery is rebuilding faster than expected,
there is a data problem.
Southeast Fisheries Science Center provides fishery
independent data based on data collected in 10 to 15 of the
same natural reefs each year. Because in part this data
collection started before the tens of thousands of artificial
reefs and petroleum platforms were in place, they do not
consider them in their data. The reason they say they do not
use the artificial reefs in the data is a concept called
production versus attraction.
With this theory, they say the natural reefs are the main
source of reproduction territory in the red snapper fishery;
the fish are drawn to the artificial reefs for a food source. I
find it hard to believe that fish go out to lunch at the
artificial reefs and go back home to the natural reefs to
spawn, especially after seeing videos and hearing divers'
reports of their dominance on the artificial reefs. Dr. Bob
Shipp at the University of South Alabama presented data to
prove that reproduction takes place on the artificial reefs in
the February 2010 council meeting. He also has written a
research paper that you have there, ``A Perspective of the
Importance of Artificial Habitat.'' He presented this paper to
the SEDAR committee in proof of the higher abundance of red
snapper, but it was set aside as ``not the best available
data.'' This must be due to the NOAA scientists not believing
the red snapper reproduce on artificial reefs. But this paper
is on the NOAA website.
Reputable researchers across the Gulf disagree with NOAA on
the status of the red snapper. It has been shown that by
including the thousands of artificial reefs and petroleum
platforms in the stock assessment, instead of a red snapper
biomass of 15 million pounds, there is closer to 100 million
pounds of red snapper out there.
In addition, we have been working to prevent Sector
Separation and Catch Share from being implemented in the
recreational Gulf fishery. In 2004, the IFQ program for red
snapper in the commercial sector cut them from 1,600 permitted
boats to about 800, picking winners and losers. Catch Shares is
privatization of our natural resource, our fishery in the Gulf.
This week, the Gulf council has on record almost 3,500 emails
from stakeholders, of which more than 90 percent are against
Sector Separation and Catch Shares and yet, instead of voting
it down, they tabled it for a year. We are hoping that you will
help us defund this job killing program.
Tourism, the fishing industry, and coastal communities have
come to rely on fishing as an economic driver as well as our
heritage. And so it is imperative that regulations that impact
the fishery are accurate, fair and made in consideration of the
economic impacts they cause. We need your assistance in getting
flexibility in the over-fishing deadlines in the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, in stopping any new Catch Share programs, and
demanding that the data collection, stock assessments, and
model of the data, reflect true, accurate science as you direct
fishery managers to relax some of the strict regulations and
get our industry back to work.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Anderson follows:]
Statement of Pamela W. Anderson, Vice President,
Panama City Boatman's Association
Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey, Representative
Southerland and members of the Committee, my name is Pamela Anderson
and I am appearing today on behalf of the Panama City Boatman's
Association (PCBA). I am also the Operations Manager of Capt.
Anderson's Marina here on Panama City Beach and know first-hand many of
the negative economic affects some of the legislative and governmental
issues have on our industry. Our Panama City anglers and I appreciate
the opportunity today to share with you issues that are costing jobs in
the fishing and tourism industry.
Most of what I will share with you concerns the Red Snapper fishery
because that is the species we deal with most in the Gulf. In other
areas of the country, the message is the same, but it is concerning a
different species of fish.
As you are aware, the original Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries
Conservation and Management Act of 1976 and reauthorized in 1996 put in
motion a new set of regulations to give NOAA Fisheries Service the
power to rebuild and better manage the fisheries. As the new
regulations were implemented in our area, the commercial and
recreational sectors were designated certain allocations of the
different managed species, and a 6 month season was put in place
instead of a year-round season. In 2004 a limited access privilege
program was put in place for the recreational for-hire industry in the
Gulf. This was followed by an IFQ program for Red Snapper (now referred
to as Catch Shares) in the Commercial Gulf fishing industry in 2004. As
these programs came on line the fishery began to noticeably recover
from the overfishing that had occurred. In 2006, fishing was good, we
had a 4 fish bag limit and 6 months of good fishing and tourism. Then
came the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act of 2006, which was signed
into law in January, 2007, with inflexibility of non-scientific
arbitrary deadlines and mandates.
Our gradual rebuilding of the red snapper fishery became a mandate
to stop overfishing by 2010--3 years to fix what fishery managers had
allowed to happen over decades. In May, 2007, we went to a 2 fish bag
limit and finished out the 6 month season. In 2008, it was reported
that we `overfished' in 2007, so our season was cut to 65 days; in
2009, we were told we were fortunate-fishery managers `gave' us 75
days, but were then told we overfished so much that in 2010 we were
given 53 days, then 45 days in 2011 and 46 days this year. Each year we
have been told we have overfished the annual catch limit, but each year
we have done exactly as we were told, abiding by the regulatory bag
limits and seasons. In addition, there was an update assessment
completed in 2009 which showed the growth of the fishery to a point
where we are no longer overfished nor undergoing overfishing.
The reason for this supposed overfishing was not due to the number
of fish we harvested, but due to the weight of the fish. In 2006, the
average weight of the harvested Red Snapper was 3.2 pounds. In 2012,
the average weight is 7.6 pounds. Each year the Fishery managers have
underestimated the growth of the fish and that has thrown us into
overfishing. For instance, in 2006, with the average fish weight of 3.2
pounds we were harvesting about 1.4 million fish. This year, with the
annual catch limit almost the same but the average fish weight of 7.6,
we were held to about 521,000 fish. But the real problem was they did
not factor that average weight properly when they determined the annual
catch limit. They estimated the average weight to be less, giving more
days to fish, which set us up to overfish. This has happened every year
since 2007. As we go over the annual catch limit, we have days deducted
from the following year's season.
What impacts has it had on our businesses? First of all, it is a
detriment to our business to not be able to tell our customers who
begin making summer vacation plans in January and February that we know
the season will begin June 1st but do not know when it will end-
sometimes not until the June meeting when the closure may come in July.
It is impossible for them and us to plan ahead.
During the Red Snapper season, our headboats, there are five at our
marina, have seen a significant effort shift from long trips (10-12
hours) to short trips (5-6 hours) as you can see on the chart provided.
The same has happened to the charter boats, of which we have 22. Their
customers are shifting from the long trips to shorter trips. The reason
given? Folks don't want to pay to go the extra hours if they can only
keep 2 Red Snapper. For the marina, this causes issues with decreasing
fuel sales and some operators having a difficult time paying rent due
to the short window of time they have to make a profit. In addition,
since the headboats pay according to a percentage of sales, as
customers choose the shorter, lesser expensive trips, the marina loses
more revenue. But it does not stop there. We also have a 500 passenger
dinner cruise boat, a 200 passenger sightseeing boat, a large
restaurant, seafood market and gift shop. They all work together
providing entertainment and dining for folks who come in with their
families. If fishing is down, traffic to the marina is down. The other
businesses are affected. So this has happened to one marina that with
all 40 businesses probably employs 300 people when business is good. In
addition, those folks who are not coming to the area are not visiting
other local attractions, staying in hotels, and eating in other
restaurants.
When is business really good? When we have the Red Snapper season
open. Without Red Snapper, but during tourist season, business is down
between 30 and 50%.
What can our legislators do to help? We need flexibility in the
non-scientific arbitrary deadlines in the Magnuson to end overfishing
and in rebuilding the fisheries. As long as a fishery is rebuilding,
going in the right direction, what does it matter that we are
overfishing? Overfishing is not harvesting more than the science-based
overfishing level set by the Science and Statistical Committee.
Overfishing is harvesting more than what the SSC thought we could
harvest and still rebuild the fishery. We have done that for the past 5
years and the fishery is still on the right track for its rebuilding
plan, and researchers say, probably better than expected. What that
means to me is there are more fish out there than the NOAA data is
showing.
NOAA scientists at the Southeast Fisheries Science Center in Miami
provide data to the fishery managers for regulatory purposes. Their
fishery independent data is based on data collected across the Gulf in
as few as 10-15 of the same natural reefs each year. Some years there
are only 150-200 samples taken at these locations. Because, in part,
this data collection started before the tens of thousands of artificial
reefs and petroleum platforms were in place, they do not consider them
in their data. The reason they say they do not use the artificial reefs
in the data is a concept called production vs. attraction.
With this theory, they say the natural reefs are the main source of
reproduction territory in the Red Snapper fishery; the fish are drawn
to the artificial reefs for a food source. I find it hard to believe
that fish go out to lunch at the artificial reefs and go back home to
the natural reefs to spawn, especially after having seen videos and
heard diver's reports of their dominance on the artificial reefs. Dr.
Bob Shipp, head of Marine Biology at the University of South Alabama,
presented data to prove that reproduction takes place on the artificial
reefs in the February, 2012, Gulf council meeting. (http://vimeo.com/
37538879) He has also written a research paper that has been published,
`A Perspective of the Importance of Artificial Habitat on the
Management of Red Snapper in the Gulf of Mexico.' He presented this
paper to the SEDAR committee in proof of the higher abundance of Red
Snapper, but it was set aside as `not best available data'. One would
assume this is due to the NOAA scientists not believing the Red Snapper
reproduce on artificial reefs.
This theory is the one that is holding back the fishing industry
further through regulations. Reputable researchers across the Gulf
disagree with NOAA on the status of the Red Snapper stock. It has been
shown that by including the thousands of artificial reefs and petroleum
platforms in the stock assessment instead of a Red Snapper biomass of
15 million pounds, there is closer to 100 million pounds of Red
Snapper.
In addition to all of this, we have been working to prevent a Catch
Share system from being implemented in the Recreational Gulf Fishery.
This week the Gulf Council, again, as in the last 4 years, discussed
the issue of Sector Separation. Sector Separation is not Catch Shares,
but it must be in place dividing the recreational sector into private
angler and for-hire groups, in order for Catch Shares to be implemented
in the for-hire, then, later, the private angler group. In 2009, in
giving mandates from NOAA Fisheries in Washington, D.C. to the Catch
Shares Task Force it was said, to `go to your regions, find out what
the impediments to the program are, and fix them.' You cannot fix
deceit, but you can stop it. That is what we plan to do with our
efforts here as we attempt to inform the stakeholders and with your
efforts in passing legislation to stop this job-killing program.
Dr. Jane Lubchenco, head of NOAA Fisheries, states that the Catch
Share program will reduce participation in the fishery, that we are at
overcapacity. NOAA staff in the Gulf region say there will be winners
and losers. According to that terminology, I believe it is not meant to
be a choice, even though that is what is stated publicly by NOAA in DC.
Catch Shares is privatization of our Natural Resource, our fishery in
the Gulf. Even though numerous times we have presented information
proving the majority of stakeholders do not want Catch Shares in the
Gulf, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council finds a way to
`kick the can down the road' again. This week, they have on record
almost 3500 emails from stakeholders of which more than 90% are against
Sector Separation and Catch Shares. As this talk was being written, I
was sitting in Gulf Council meeting as the Council made the decision to
`table' the issue of Sector Separation. After 4 years of controversy,
of discussion, of NOAA Science Center time and effort, it is tabled!
One last issue that will affect our Gulf fishery is the demolition
of the petroleum platforms in the Gulf which have become artificial
reefs teeming with corals, plantlife, all species of Gulf fish,
dolphins and turtles. We ask that you assist in stopping this
unnecessary destruction to preserve this fishery habitat. With the
destruction of the platforms scheduled for 2012, it will kill an
estimate of 2 million pounds of Red Snapper alone. Our recreational
annual catch limit was about 4 million pounds this year.
Tourism, the fishing industry, and coastal communities have come to
rely on fishing as an economic driver and so it is imperative that the
regulations that impact the fishery are accurate. Fishery regulators
depend on the science and interpretation of that science to implement
proper regulations. The fishing industry expects the regulations to be
fair, equitable, and made in consideration of the economic impacts they
cause. We need your assistance in getting flexibility in the
overfishing deadlines in the Magnuson, in stopping any new Catch Shares
programs, and demanding that the data collection, stock assessments and
modeling of the data, reflect true accurate, science that will give
fishery managers the ability to relax some of the strict regulations
and get our industry back to work.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Again, I say thank you
for including me in this discussion. I am happy to answer any questions
you have to the best of my ability.
Attachments: Please supply copies of this document: A Perspective
of the Importance of Artificial Habitat on the Management of Red
Snapper in the Gulf of Mexico by Robert L. Shipp and Stephen A. Bortone
www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR24-RD39_Shipp2009.pdf?id=
DOCUMENT
______
The Chairman. And now I am pleased to recognize Mr. Don
Waters, a Commercial Fisherman out of Pensacola, Florida. Mr.
Waters.
STATEMENT OF DONALD A. WATERS, COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN, PENSACOLA,
FLORIDA
Mr. Waters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My
name is Donald Waters, lifelong Florida fisherman. I have been
fishing in the Gulf of Mexico for four decades.
Fishermen are speaking out. I ask that newspaper articles
circulating through our Gulf region papers yesterday be
submitted for the record.
The Chairman. That will be part of the record.
Mr. Waters. Thank you, sir.
I am here representing those fishermen, but I am also
representing more than 250 million Americans that do not fish
but like to enjoy fresh Gulf seafood.
I am proud to be a commercial fisherman, we are a huge part
of the Gulf economy. Just here in Florida, the seafood industry
generates 65,000 jobs and $2.4 billion in income. So we
commercial fishermen know that fishing equals jobs. But we also
know that it is not always that simple.
It was not that far back we fished ourselves out of a job.
You cannot condemn the system we are in today unless you have
lived the system in the past. When I first started
participating seriously in the Gulf of Mexico fisheries
management process our fisheries were hardly managed at all. It
is easy to say we want to be liberated from regulations, but
those of us who fished so hard for so little in the old open-
access fisheries know better. We could not depend on red
snapper for a living. I remember back in the 1970s when we
caught 400 pounds in 5 days we counted ourselves lucky.
In the red snapper fishery, we moved from open-access to
derby fishing. We was told to fish the first 9 days of the
month. The personal impact was terrible. I missed my wife's
birthday for 15 years in a row. I had no choice but to go
fishing--weddings, funerals, even my son's graduation. The
economic impact was terrible. Buyers wanted a constant supply
of fish, we could not provide that. We were selling fish for
$1.50 a pound. Imports had the upper hand on us by supplying a
constant supply to the restaurants. We were basically exporting
American seafood jobs.
Fishermen helped implement two big reforms under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. First, we adopted science-based catch
limits. We moved into a system that ended over-fishing in red
snapper and we are now on a 40-year rebuilding plan.
Second, we voted to adopt new systems to allow us to fish
at our own pace. These catch share systems have worked well,
starting with spiny lobster, stone crab. Soon after, the red
snapper IFQ was implemented in 2007, the price rose to $3.00,
the first time in 15 years that I had seen this price. These
fisheries went from low pay part-time jobs to better paying
full-time jobs, not just for fishermen, for fish houses,
distributors, restaurants, and boosted the economy of the Gulf
and the Nation.
I would never suggest that every fishery should be managed
by catch share, and the current law requires no such thing. But
the participants of every fishery should retain the right to
make that decision.
We have come a long way, but our fisheries still face
enormous challenges. With all due respect, we do not need
Congress taking us back to the failures of the past. We need
you to help us address the changes of the future. For example,
American fishermen are the victims of rampant seafood fraud,
which costs jobs at home. Help us create a traceability system.
Funding for fishery science and data collection, help us
secure investments for these programs.
And Mr. Chairman, a distinguished bipartisan Congressional
coalition got us where we are now, and it helped. Senators like
Trent Lott and John Breaux, tackled the challenges of their
day. We need similar leadership from Congress. Do not turn back
the clock, help us create fisheries and jobs for tomorrow.
Thank you.
[Applause and cheers.]
Mr. Waters. Thank you, Mr. Southerland.
The Chairman. As I mentioned, this is a Committee hearing
and one of the things that we do when we have Committee
hearings is expect decorum when there are differing views. I
know there are differing views on this, we would not be having
this hearing here if there were not differing views.
But for goodness sakes, if we are Americans, we should
expect to have those differing views respected by people in the
audience. I thought the testimony was--you could tell it was
real. That came across very clear. But please, this is a
Committee meeting and we would like to have respect for the
people that are giving the testimony. We are here to gather
information.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Waters follows:]
Statement of Donald Waters, Co-Founder,
Gulf Coast Professional Fishermen
Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on how
strengthening America's fisheries can strengthen our economy. My name
is Donald Waters and I've been an active commercial reef fish fisherman
out of Pensacola, FL since 1974. My grandfather first introduced me to
red snapper fishing when I was just six years old. At age fourteen I
began gill net fishing, which I did for over twenty years until the
Florida net ban. I am the owner of the F/V Hustler, which I've operated
for the last twenty years. I've been an active participant in the Gulf
of Mexico Fishery Management Council process since 1985, and have
attended more Gulf Council meetings than any other commercial fisherman
alive. I serve on the Red Snapper Advisory Panel, Red Snapper Ad Hoc
IFQ panel, and the Red Snapper stock assessment panel. I am also a
founding member of the Gulf Coast Professional Fishermen.
Mr. Chairman, our nation's fisheries provide us with food, jobs and
a way of life. Nowhere is that more true than here in the Gulf of
Mexico. I'm proud to be part of a commercial fishery that generates
jobs--not merely on the dock, but right down through the seafood supply
chain. Commercial fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico landed 1.4 billion
pounds of finfish and shellfish in 2009, earning $629 million in
landings revenue. But critically, that is only the start of the benefit
my industry brings to our region and our nation. For example, right
here in the State of Florida, the seafood industry generated 65,000
jobs and $2.4 billion in income. And perhaps just as important, we are
the conduit for the more than 250 million Americans who don't fish in
our oceans but want to enjoy the delicious, healthy seafood they
provide.
So Mr. Chairman, the assertion contained in the title of this
hearing--that ``fishing = jobs''--is a truth that I know better than
most. But with all due respect to you and members of your committee, it
also risks being a dangerous over-simplification of a very complex
issue. I've learned during decades of change in Gulf fisheries that
more fishing doesn't always mean more jobs. And I've seen up close how
an unwise policy or management decision taken in Washington, DC can
jeopardize the jobs of fishermen like me, and the wellbeing of coastal
communities like this one.
Today I would like to focus my remarks on matters that I believe
can help guide the committee during its fisheries deliberations--for
the remainder of the year and into the next Congress. Some members of
this panel are calling for immediate and far-reaching reform of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Others would
like to see significant changes in the context of the next
reauthorization, scheduled to occur as early as 2013. I hope my
testimony today can provide useful context for those debates. Because
although I believe there are significant improvements that can still be
made in our fishery management system, ignorance of the shameful
mistakes of the past must not be permitted to undermine the slow and
often painful strides we've made in creating one of the most successful
systems of science-based fishery management that exists anywhere in the
world.
A legacy of job-killing mismanagement
At the time when I first started participating seriously in the
Gulf of Mexico fishery management process, our fisheries were hardly
managed at all. It seemed to me that we were practicing a form of
`faith-based' fisheries management, crossing our fingers and hoping we
caught the `right' amount of fish.
Some who weren't there with me might look back on such a system
through rose-tinted glasses, viewing the absence of regulatory controls
as `liberating'. But you cannot condemn the system of today unless you
have lived the system of the past: for those of us who struggled
through it, the reality was anything but liberating. Red snapper was
chronically overfished, severely curtailing our fishing opportunities.
I remember back in the 1970s when if we caught 400 pounds in five days
we counted ourselves lucky. Mr. Chairman, more fishing may have equated
to more jobs for some of my predecessors--those who over-exploited
God's creation and left the fishery in crisis. But for me and my
contemporaries it meant that we struggled to make ends meet. For many,
fishing was no more than a low-paying part-time job. And the impacts of
fishing on the local economies throughout the Gulf were drastically
worse than they are today.
The depleted number of fish in the sea was not the only problem we
faced. Back then, it wasn't just a question of how many fish there were
to catch, but also how we went about catching them. In a clumsy attempt
to control fishing effort, managers instigated `derby' fisheries, which
allowed fishing activity to occur only on a small number of days
selected through an arbitrary process--for much of the time the first
10 days of the month. I sure didn't see much evidence of that system
creating jobs, but it did create a lot of mayhem. The limited number of
permissible `Days At Sea' meant being on the water whenever the fishery
was `open'. That meant going out in dangerous weather conditions, often
putting yourself, your crew, and your boat in jeopardy. And it meant
missing weddings, funerals and birthdays because you couldn't afford to
miss a fishing day--no matter what.
The derby system wasn't just dangerous and depressing for
fishermen, it was also disastrous for our bottom line. Unnecessary wear
and tear on our vessel, and higher fuel and maintenance bills resulting
from the race for fish, cut into what money we could make at the dock.
Even more absurd, though, was the impact the derby fishery had on
the prices we could command. With all the catch arriving on shore in a
glut when the fishery was `open', there was little fishermen could do
to secure a fair price for their catch. Equally intractable was the
fact that the derby system didn't generate a regular source of supply.
Buyers found in imports the certainty and consistency that our
fisheries lacked. In a manner of speaking, the derby system was
shipping jobs that should have stayed right here in the Gulf region to
countries that exported seafood to the United States. It was absurd.
A growing number of us viewed the status quo as a low-paying, high-
risk gamble. As we were fond of saying in Pensacola, if we kept
swimming in circles like a one-legged duck we were destined to be eaten
by a Vietnamese catfish. Something had to change.
Fishermen-led, job-creating reforms
No single tool was wholly responsible for our success in charting a
different course. But I'd like to tell the Committee about two reforms
that were critical in rebuilding our fisheries: reforms that are
turning our fisheries around, and should bring sustained economic
benefits to our region for years to come.
First, wholesale changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act included
mandates that science-based Annual Catch Limits be imposed in all
fisheries, and that overfished stocks be rebuilt. It has taken years of
additional hard work at the council level to implement these
legislative mandates, and in some cases the effort controls they
required imposed additional limitations on my fellow fishermen and me.
But the fact is that we're seeing results--here in the Gulf and around
the country. The number of overfished stocks in federal waters has
steadily ticked down, while the number of depleted fish populations
that have been rebuilt has gradually ticked up. Mr. Chairman, you have
no doubt seen the same estimates from NOAA as I have regarding the
additional economic activity and employment opportunities rebuilt fish
stocks could generate. Thankfully I'm a fisherman, not an economist.
But my belief, based on the decades I've spent working and helping to
manage the Gulf's fisheries, is that the economic dividends healthy
fisheries could provide are immense.
Second, we commercial reef fish fishermen won the opportunity to
choose for ourselves how to manage our fishery. And we chose--through
two overwhelming majority votes--to move away from a derby fishery and
instead to embrace a catch share program.
Mr. Chairman, I know that on Capitol Hill catch shares have been
controversial among some of your colleagues; and that Mr. Southerland
has led a thus-far-unsuccessful effort to prevent fishermen here and
around the country from deciding for themselves whether they want to
transition to a catch share system. I certainly would not presume to
suggest that catch share management would be the right choice in every
fishery. But I'm very surprised that Mr. Southerland would presume to
suggest that it would never be--and that he would enshrine his
misguided conviction on that point in legislation.
The truth is that catch share management has worked well for Gulf
fisheries. Although the Florida net ban caused me significant economic
hardship at the time it was passed, it had the benefit of forcing
commercial fishermen to examine ways to more effectively regulate
themselves. The Lobster fishermen had already entered into a tag
program in 1992. And after the net ban, they were followed by the Stone
Crab fishery in 2002. The Red Snapper fishery ITQ went into effect in
2007. Today, fishermen are able to catch their limits under safer
conditions and we get paid far better for it. A slower harvest results
in little or no glut in supply, which has allowed ex-vessel prices to
climb from as low as $1.50 per pound under the derby fishery to $4.75
per pound today. Higher prices and a year-round commercial season have
flow-on effects for the regional economy. For example, local fish
houses are staying busy year-round, resulting in more full-time
employment.
We can do even better
Of course, there are more challenges looming.
The BP Deepwater Horizon disaster of 2010 was a
catastrophe for us and its impacts continue to be felt in our
fishery. I remain very fearful about the long-term consequences
that disaster will have on the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem and our
fisheries' long-term health.
Red Snapper is still rebuilding, and the timeline to
restore the fishery to full health is long. We are fishing
under a plan with a target rebuild date of 2032--the longest
anywhere in the country--but some are already seeking to push
that date back even further.
We are the victims of endemic seafood fraud, and more
must be done to combat instances of our catch being undermined
in restaurants and on supermarket shelves by cheap and inferior
product. The Gulf Coast Professional Fishermen support
introduction of a binding traceability system for seafood
bought and sold in the United States, and urge committee
members to examine both legislative proposals and regulatory
hooks that could help address this troubling phenomenon, which
costs jobs in our fishery every single day.
Ongoing investments in the `information
infrastructure' upon which science-based fishery management
depends are essential. I encourage committee members to do what
they can to provide adequate appropriations for fisheries
science; and to consider supporting pending legislative
proposals that would dedicate Saltonstall-Kennedy funds to
those purposes.
Mr. Chairman, difficult changes in fisheries management over the
last two decades have only been possible because of the presence of
strong and visionary leaders in the United States Congress. Senators
Ted Stevens of Alaska and Trent Lott of Mississippi were among the most
impressive principals I worked with on the 2006 MSA reauthorization,
and their absence from Capitol Hill is sorely felt. My sincere hope is
that the enthusiasm some members of this committee have shown for
engaging on questions of fisheries management may evolve into a
sustained commitment to forging policies in Congress that promote
healthy fisheries, support stable jobs, and secure prosperous coastal
communities. Those giants of the Senate have left big shoes to fill,
but their leadership, courage and foresight are qualities we need in
our elected representatives if we are to conserve our fisheries--for
the jobs we need today, and the jobs of our sons and daughters
tomorrow.
______
The Chairman. I would like to recognize Captain William
Kelly, Executive Director of the Florida Keys Commercial
Fishermen's Association.
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN WILLIAM E. KELLY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
FLORIDA KEYS COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member
Markey, Mr. Southerland and distinguished members of the
Committee.
The Chairman. A little closer.
Mr. Kelly. Fisheries management based on science is the
stated policy of NOAA; however, of the 528 fish stocks
currently managed by the agency, only 114 are considered
adequately assessed. Approximately 80 of those occur on
economically important stocks in Alaska and New England where
in some cases they occur on an annual basis. Assessments in the
Gulf and the Southeastern United States occur far less
frequently or not at all, resulting in data poor science on
commercially important species in those area, such as red
snapper and golden crab. So while science-based fisheries
management is the stated goal, NOAA's inability to provide it
at an acceptable level negatively impacts all of us.
Further frustrating fishermen is the absence of hard
scientific data due to a failure to acquire what is readily
available. Funds dedicated to scientific research are routinely
diverted to promote catch share programs addressing perceived
over-fishing when up-to-date science would in many cases negate
their need.
Catch shares and sector separation are causing enormous
economic harm in New England fisheries and trouble is brewing
in the Gulf of Mexico. These programs have two common elements
associated with them worldwide--fleet reduction and job loss.
They are an inappropriate management tool in multi-species
fisheries, which predominant in both the Gulf and the South
Atlantic and often result in high volumes of regulatory
discards.
Transactional analysis of catch shares in the Gulf red
snapper fishery, while still under study, indicates there is a
shift in ownership of catch shares. More and more allocation is
being accumulated, held onto and leased by non-fishermen. Known
as ``Slipper Skippers'' in the Gulf, these non-fishing entities
have found it far more profitable to lease their shares rather
than fish them.
A proper evaluation of these programs should be a top
priority before taking action to implement any new programs and
we fully support legislation introduced by Congressmen
Southerland and Grimm and passed by the House, calling for a
prohibition on CJS funding for any new NOAA catch shares
programs in Fiscal Year 2013.
Changes in the Magnuson-Stevens Act significantly altered
the way fisheries resources are managed. The new provisions
focused on ending over-fishing, rebuilding stocks, reducing
fishing capacity and developing limited access programs. All of
this was predicated on the need for and expectation of better
science. However, in this tight budgetary environment,
fisheries managers now find themselves struggling to meet the
demands of MSA. The fact that this Committee has recently
considered as many as eight new bills targeting MSA reform
sends a strong signal that serious problems exist with the 2006
reauthorization.
We support H.R. 6350 introduced by Congressman Runyan with
specific provisions for amending MSA, including greater
flexibility for fisheries managers in setting Annual Catch
Limits, transparency for fishermen, a referendum requirement
for catch shares, extension of time periods for rebuilding
fisheries and additional sources for fishery surveys funding.
In particular, we ask the Committee for a statutory
exemption for trans-boundary stocks and stocks whose life
history characteristics prevent us from being able to apply
control rules in an appropriate manner, especially with regard
to spiny lobster. Recruitment of juvenile lobster to the
Florida fishery occurs from sources totally outside of U.S.
waters. Thus, Florida fishermen are being held solely
accountable for conservative MSA derived catch levels for
trans-boundary or shared resource over which we have no
management control. Species such as Florida spiny lobster
should be exempt from the ACL provisions of the MSA.
The creation of a National Ocean Policy is an area of
concern for Florida fishing interests, especially in light of
its development by Executive Order, bypassing thorough review
and a vetting process by Congress. A basic component of the
plan will be nine regional planning bodies comprised of
Federal, State, and tribal representatives. Conspicuously
absent are any representational components from industry.
Florida will face double jeopardy dealing with two regional
planning bodies and little opportunity to engage in the
decision-making.
We ask the Committee and Congress to take any steps
necessary to protect Florida fishing interests and coastal
communities during the implementation of the NOP.
The Florida Keys are ranked by NOAA as the largest and most
valuable commercial seaport in the State of Florida and in the
Southeastern United States. We represent enormous economic
value to the State and the Nation. Next to tourism, we are the
second largest economic engine in our local economy and second
largest employer. Small coastal communities like ours cannot
assimilate job loss rapidly and will suffer irreparable
economic harm if we do not make every effort to maintain a
healthy and vibrant commercial fishing industry.
Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey, Committee
members, Mr. Southerland, thank you for this opportunity to
address you today.
[The prepared statement of Captain Kelly follows:]
Statement of Capt. William E. Kelly, Executive Director,
Florida Keys Commercial Fishermen's Association
Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey and distinguished members
of the Committee, it is my distinct pleasure and honor to speak to you
today regarding the importance of maintaining healthy fisheries in our
nation and by so doing, creating jobs and strengthening our economy. My
name is Bill Kelly and I am the Executive Director of the Florida Keys
Commercial Fishermen's Association (FKCFA) headquartered in Marathon,
Florida. FKCFA is the largest commercial fishing association in the
Florida Keys and represents hundreds of men and women actively engaged
in the spiny lobster, stone crab and finfish industries. In addition to
my present role with FKCFA, I have 35 years of charter/for hire and
recreational fishing experience in the waters of the Atlantic Ocean,
Gulf of Mexico and the Bahamas.
I have been involved in fisheries management for over thirty years
representing commercial and charter/for-hire fishermen and serve on
numerous advisory panels to both the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
Fisheries Management Councils and the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary including: Spiny Lobster, Stone Crab, Kingfish and Mackerel
and Ecosystem Based Management. I have also participated and assisted
in coordinating a number of cooperative research programs over the
years with the National Marine Fisheries Service, Florida Fish and
Wildlife Research Institute and The Billfish Foundation.
Chairman Hastings, for the record, my comments here today are
solely my own as an advocate for the commercial seafood/fishing
industry. My testimony reflects issues critical to fishermen on both
coasts of Florida and the Florida Keys.
(1) Is outdated scientific information available to fishery managers
limiting harvest levels and harming the economies of coastal
communities?
Of the 528 fish stocks currently managed by NOAA, approximately 114
are considered adequately assessed by the agency. Approximately 80 of
those 114 assessments occur on economically important stocks in Alaska
and New England where in some cases assessments occur on an annual
basis. Assessments in the Gulf of Mexico and the Southeastern United
States occur far less frequently resulting in data poor science on
commercially important species such as red snapper and golden crab.
Requirements to end over-fishing coupled with inadequate data and a
rush to set annual catch limits to ensure this measure have conceivably
brought about significant reductions in harvest capability. So while
science based fisheries management is the goal, our inability to
provide it at an acceptable level negatively impacts all of us. And the
old adage of utilizing the best available science is totally
inappropriate when that science is 10-15 years old or more. It is also
particularly troublesome when dollars dedicated to science are instead
diverted to catch shares and other programs addressing perceived over-
fishing when up-to-date science would in many cases negate the
necessity for such actions.
It appears to our industry members that NMFS, at times, is quite
comfortable using data that are flawed, out-of-date and not based on
actual measurements of fish stocks. This is disconcerting knowing the
stringent reporting requirements and harvesting rules placed on
commercial fishermen while efforts to improve reporting of recreational
landings such as MRFSS and the newly implemented MRIP program move at a
much slower pace. Accountability in the recreational sector should be
just as important. For example, in the Gulf of Mexico the recreational
allocation is as follows: Redfish--100%, Greater Amberjack--73%, King
Mackerel--70%, Gag Grouper--65%, Red Snapper--49%. Quota over-runs by
the recreational sector can be egregious as was the case in 2010 when
the red snapper quota was exceeded by more than one million pounds.
(2) Are governmental restrictions on harvest of fishery resources
unnecessarily harming the coastal economies?
Government restrictions based on inadequate or out-dated data have
significant and profound impacts on coastal economies. The Florida Keys
are a prime example. The commercial fishing industry in the island
chain is the second largest economic engine next to tourism and the
second largest employer. This is typical of many small coastal
communities throughout America where commercial fishing operations co-
exist with seasonal tourism activities. According to recent NOAA
rankings the Florida Keys are collectively the largest and most
valuable commercial seaport in the State of Florida and in the
Southeastern United States. We represent enormous economic value on a
local, state and federal level.
Inadequate data and the lack of more localized management measures
by the Regional Councils can and does harm coastal communities. We have
asked both the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Councils to consider a
joint regional management plan for South Florida and the Keys, which
they are presently evaluating. South Florida and the Keys represent a
unique demographic with the only living reef in North America literally
at our doorstep. In addition many of the species we fish for are sub-
tropical in nature as compared to temperate water species further to
the north.
The 240' closure in the South Atlantic extending out 200 miles to
the EEZ to bottom fishing in order to protect Speckled Hind and Warsaw
grouper was a good example. Fishermen were denied access to harvest of
other bottom species for more than a year until a regulatory amendment
was issued lifting the ban. This closure was enacted despite the fact
there are no stock assessments on Speckled Hind or Warsaw Grouper to
substantiate that either is undergoing overfishing or overfished. Now,
there seems to be some preliminary evidence that recruitment of both
Speckled Hind and Warsaw grouper located in the South Atlantic actually
comes from the Gulf of Mexico where harvest of both species is
ironically permitted. Yet, fishermen in the South Atlantic have been
made to pay the price of inadequate science.
(3) To what extent will governmental programs including catch shares,
annual catch limits and the National Oceans Policy affect how
fisheries are harvested in the future?
Catch shares programs are harming commercial fishermen and coastal
community infrastructure in New England and the Gulf of Mexico and
ENGO's, that have little or no history of fisheries management,
continue to press for implementation in the South Atlantic even though
the vast majority of fishermen in both the Gulf of Mexico and along the
Atlantic coastline continue to voice strong opposition to the expansion
of these programs.
Catch share programs are not conservation tools. They are business
plans and a type of social engineering most commonly associated with
cap and trade. They do nothing to protect the resource and have two
common elements associated with their development worldwide--fleet
reduction and job loss. In the words of one NOAA pitch-person
advocating for catch shares programs to the South Atlantic Council,
``There are winners and losers with catch shares.'' Now that might play
well in big cities like Washington, DC but that doesn't float in small
coastal communities like Key Largo or Marathon where even small numbers
of ``losers'' would have a significant impact on the local economies.
The majority of commercial fishermen in both the South Atlantic and
the Gulf of Mexico are engaged in multi-species fisheries with each
contributing in part to a wholesome, well-rounded business model based
on seasonal availability of particular species. Many of the existing
catch shares programs eliminate this component from smaller fishing
entities by initiating control dates and landings requirements that
preclude their participation. In order to fill these voids, many would
be forced to lease or buy shares to continue their generational
participation in the fishery.
As yet incomplete research on transactional analyses of catch
shares programs in the Gulf of Mexico indicates there is a shift in
ownership of catch shares and more and more allocation is being
accumulated, held onto and leased by non-fishermen. Known as ``Slipper
Skippers'' in the Gulf, these non-fishing entities have found it far
more profitable to lease their shares rather than fish them.
Additional trends show that costs associated with leasing shares
are actually serving to depress the average price paid to fishermen
rather than increase it as was expected. These costs, of course, are
ultimately passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices at
the check-out counter and creating the potential for decreased demand
for local seafood products.
Some supporters of catch shares programs are actually creating
derby fisheries by rushing to catch fish and establish quota in
anticipation of catch shares programs eventually being implemented.
This creates the potential for spill-over into healthy fisheries like
golden crab and king mackerel.
The Gulf Council has yet to complete an analysis of the efficacy of
the red snapper catch share program under its jurisdiction and there
was no discussion of the progress on this item at the Council meeting
held this past week in New Orleans. An evaluation of these programs is
of paramount importance and we salute Congressman Southerland and
Congressman Grimm for their sponsorship of the Southerland-Grimm
Amendment appropriately calling for a prohibition of CJS funding for
any new NOAA catch shares programs in FY2013.
Annual Catch Limits, implemented to eliminate or prevent
overfishing, serve a legitimate purpose provided they are based on
modern, up-to-date science and Southeast Data Assessment Review (SEDAR)
stock assessments. Unfortunately, many ACL's have been implemented
arbitrarily, in haste and based on inadequate or outdated science in
order to comply with provisions in Magnuson.
(4) Is current data generated by NOAA adequate for fishery managers to
comply with the current Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act and would proposed amendments to the act
improve the situation?
Changes to the MSA in 2006 significantly altered the way fisheries
resources are managed. The new provisions focused on ending
overfishing, rebuilding stocks, reducing fishing capacity and
developing limited access programs. All of this was predicated on the
need for and expectation of better science to substantiate these
changes. Requirements to immediately end overfishing added another
burdensome layer of management responsibility and caused increased
premiums for resources and increased dependence on short-term
monitoring of these programs. In this tight budgetary environment,
federal fisheries managers now find themselves struggling to meet the
demands of MSA. The fact that this Committee has recently considered as
many as eight bills targeting MSA reform sends a strong signal that
that serious problems exist with the 2006 re-authorization.
With regard to changes in Magnuson, we would ask the Committee for
a statutory exemption for trans-boundary stocks and stocks whose life
history characteristics prevent us from being able to apply control
rules in an appropriate manner especially with regard to spiny lobster
(Panulirus argus). Recruitment of juvenile lobster to the Florida
fishery occurs from sources totally outside of US waters. Thus, Florida
fishermen are being held solely accountable for conservative MSA
derived catch levels for a trans-boundary or shared resource over which
we have no management control. Species such as Florida spiny lobster
should be exempt from the ACL provisions of the MSA.
Genetic evidence indicates a near 100% level of external
recruitment in the Florida spiny lobster fishery from the Caribbean
Basin. Noteworthy is total harvest levels of spiny lobster in Florida
represent only 6% of the trans-boundary population.
An exemption from the ACL's for spiny lobster does not mean we
support the absence of a quota. Rather, we would prefer a long term
average yield approach compared to the overly precautionary ACL process
that resulted from the implementation of the 2006 re-authorization.
(5) Is the precautionary/risk averse approach in combination with
decreasing funding for fishery surveys and cooperative research
and the 2007 amendments to the Act resulting in unnecessarily
depressed harvest levels affecting coastal economies and
fishery related jobs.
A principle tenet of precautionary risk aversion is to act
prudently when there is sufficient scientific evidence and where action
can be justified to prevent irreversible harm to future generations.
Engaging a precautionary/risk averse approach in the absence of hard
scientific evidence, due to a failure of effort to acquire that which
is attainable, represents a failure of the responsibilities of the
management body charged with that mission.
If indeed we are committed to fisheries management based on science
as our stated policy, then every effort should be made to acquire
appropriate science on all managed stocks to the highest levels
attainable, at regular, prescribed intervals, to guide, substantiate
and provide rationale for our decision making.
We are far removed from the initial concept of MSA, in which we
fished to Maximum Sustainable Yield. NMFS guidelines have instituted a
multi-tiered system of further reducing harvest levels beginning with
an Over Fishing Limit (OFL), Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC), Annual
Catch Target (ACT) and Annual Catch Limit (ACL). These steps may be
further reduced by accountability measures, scientific uncertainty and
a precautionary/risk averse approach.
(6) How will the National Ocean Policy affect your activities and will
the policy result in further restrictions and create more
uncertainty in the management of fishery resources in the Gulf
of Mexico.
Implementation of a National Ocean Policy is an area of concern for
Florida fishing constituencies especially in light of its development
by Executive Order . . . by-passing a thorough review and vetting
process by Congress. A basic component of the plan will be the
establishment of 9 regional planning bodies comprised of Federal, State
and Tribal representatives with broad authority over not only oceans
but extending well into the heartland of our nation via rivers, lakes
and streams. Conspicuously absent are any representational components
from industry.
Florida and our industry will face double jeopardy since we will
have to deal with two regional planning bodies complicated by little
input opportunity in future decision making in a cloud of uncertainty.
We ask the Committee and Congress to take any steps necessary to
protect Florida fishing interests and coastal communities during the
implementation of the National Ocean Policy and Coastal marine Spatial
Planning.
In Closing:
In closing, I would like to thank Congressman Runyan for
introducing H.R. 6350 with specific provisions for amending MSA and
providing for additional flexibility for fisheries managers in setting
Annual Catch Limits, transparency for fishermen, a referendum
requirement for catch shares, extension of time periods for rebuilding
certain overfished fisheries, and additional sources for fishery survey
funding.
I would also like to thank you Chairman Hastings and your staff for
your leadership and efforts to set the table for a substantive debate
on these issues and for recognizing the differences on some of these
issues from the Pacific Northwest.
Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey and Committee Members,
this concludes the written portion of my testimony. I thank you for the
opportunity to present this information to the Committee.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Captain Kelly, for your
testimony.
We will now have a round of questioning, maybe one or two
rounds, with this panel before we call the second panel. And I
will recognize myself now for 5 minutes for questioning.
Mr. Wright, you note that the Interjurisdictional Fisheries
Act grants have been used by the State of Florida to fund
research on important near-shore species. Yet, your State has
not done these surveys. Will we soon be facing a crisis for
these species because we do not have adequate data to manage
these species? And if you do not conduct these surveys, who
will?
Mr. Wright. Where is Gill? Gill or Jessica.
Chairman----
The Chairman. Why do you not give me your verbal response
and then if you want to submit a written response----
Mr. Wright. I can certainly provide you a written response,
Mr. Chairman. But we are providing the lion's share of research
now through our research institute, which is one of the finest
in the world. I think the problem that we have is the
interjurisdictional issues between Federal water and State
waters. Regardless of what our data may indicate in terms of
near-shore limits and stock assessments, we are constantly at
regulatory odds with our Federal partners trying to meet
mandates of Magnuson-Stevens in a short duration of recovery.
So that we are constantly pitting fishermen against Federal
regulations and State regulations.
The Chairman. Let me follow up on that. You mentioned in
your testimony something that I have to say I am not all that
familiar with, is that NOAA has referred to some fisheries as
boutique fisheries. Give me your assessment of that term and
when does it stop being boutique?
Mr. Wright. I would not necessarily agree with the
connotation of boutique fishery when you consider the economic
impact of not only commercial fishing but recreational fishing
in our State, and the numbers that I gave you earlier will not
even count the multiplier. It is billions and tens of billions
of dollars.
No, we are not in a position to ship fish around the world
and around the country as some of the other fisheries in the
United States are. And I think that name has been given to
Florida because there is I think a misconception that fish are
caught in the Gulf, they are brought to the shoreline and they
are distributed among a local market.
Regardless of the market destination, the impact of not
having the attention to our fishery and having it be perceived
as a boutique fishery is the very problem that we have.
The Chairman. Let me just ask real quick, does boutique, to
your knowledge, apply to the other councils or just here?
Mr. Wright. I think just here.
The Chairman. OK. Mr. Waters, you mentioned in your
testimony going back. I do not think anybody is talking about
going back. But I mentioned in my opening statement that I
understand the uniqueness of commercial and recreational
fishing. I come from the Northwest. But let me just posit
something for you to consider and ask how this would affect
you.
Recently, the newly implemented West Coast ground fish IFQ
program required an observer on 100 percent of the trips for
commercial fishing. That works out to about $600 a day. How
would that affect commercial fishermen if that were applied to
you, $600 a day, 100 percent observer.
Mr. Waters. It would depend on who is paying the bill.
The Chairman. Well obviously the commercial fishermen. I am
asking because this is happening in other areas.
Mr. Waters. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I am asking you how would it affect you?
Mr. Waters. You are asking me a question about which I am
not fully aware, but I do understand observers, I do
understand, but at that time I would support some type of
monitoring system that would be a lot cheaper, such as cameras
or some other type of video monitoring that would not cost us
$600 a day. But it would affect anybody for $600 a day, I will
have to agree with that. But you give a fisherman a problem,
you let him ride around on a boat that only runs 6 miles an
hour, he will come up with some very innovative ideas to get
around that $600 a day. We would support cameras or something
like that, but at this time I am not advocating cameras, but I
do advocate----
The Chairman. Mr. Waters, I just point this out to say that
because there are differences, we are trying to figure out a
way to bridge that.
Mr. Waters. Right.
The Chairman. And my guess is, you know, the North Pacific
fishery is different and that is a mandate, 100 percent, and it
averages $600 a day.
My time has expired, so----
Mr. Waters. Can I ask a question, Mr. Hastings? What kind
of gross income are these folks producing? Are they small
vessels? I am running a 39-foot vessel. Are you talking $600 a
day for somebody to monitor a 39-foot vessel?
The Chairman. It is anybody that has a commercial vessel,
my understanding, has to have an observer and that is costing
$600 a day.
Congressman Southerland is recognized.
Mr. Southerland. Let me say, Doc Hastings, Chairman
Hastings, I know that if our commercial fishermen right now had
to pay $600 a day for a Federal bureaucrat to go out to sea
with them, they could not afford that, from everything that I
am hearing from our commercial fishermen. What they are doing
in the Pacific, the government does not provide that for free,
that is a charge to the boat. And I know that the commercial
fishermen that I meet with could not afford that, but the
government does not care.
Let me say this--let me ask Captain Kelly, implementation
of the red snapper IFQ plan has resulted in a consolidation of
the commercial fleet. Did all the fishermen who left the
fishery do so because they wanted to leave, or did they leave
because the amount of quota they received in the initial
allocation was not enough to keep them in business?
Mr. Kelly. This is a program that fishermen weighed in on
and did vote for. The issue that I tried to raise and wanted to
point out is that there are associated problems connected with
the development of these catch share programs. One of them in
particular is this consolidation where we are seeing more
individuals now leasing the shares rather than fishing them,
that is the trend. We are also seeing in this transactional
analysis, we are seeing that because of the cost of leasing the
shares, it is now starting to affect fishermen where it is
actually decreasing the amount of revenues going to fishermen
instead of increasing it. And that is exactly the opposite of
what was expected.
We have costs associated with this, as Mr. Hastings pointed
out, where there is the potential for observers on board and
the fees that are paid to the Federal Government to administer
the program. A lot of that is presently being absorbed by the
Federal Government in some catch shares programs, some of it is
being subsidized by environmental groups. But if these burdens
were all placed on the fishermen, then it would paint an
entirely different scenario of how effective these programs
are.
Mr. Southerland. When the permits were issued, there were
704, from what I understand, 704 permit holders. There are now
425. If you were someone that did not get enough allocation, if
you were someone who was not fortunate enough to receive those,
what happened to the value of your vessel when you did not
receive your quota?
Mr. Kelly. Well, Mr. Southerland, there are a couple of
ways to look at this. You can look at the value of the vessel,
which it may affect the climate, but more importantly, as I
mentioned in my comments, we have to take a look at what
constitutes a fishery here in the Gulf of Mexico and the South
Atlantic. Many of these are multi-species fisheries in small
communities where an individual like maybe a Donnie Waters or
someone else is fishing yellowtail snapper, they are fishing
grouper, they are fishing greater amberjack. They catch stone
crab, they catch spiny lobster. If you start chiseling away and
taking out these elements because you have set control days or
landing requirements and take away my yellowtail snapper now,
that is $15,000, $20,000 out of my pocket. You take away
greater amberjack for the same reasons, now I lose another
element of my fishery, only because I have been excluded
because I did not catch enough and did not get enough
allocation.
So now all of a sudden my little business that had a well-
rounded business model, suddenly I am in trouble because I am
getting nickeled and dimed out of the business.
Mr. Southerland. So you are forced out of the business
rather than choosing to exit the business.
Mr. Kelly. I am either forced out of the business or I am
forced to go and lease shares. And if I have to do that, with
the associated cost, especially if costs like observers and the
transactional fees were involved in this, now what is going to
happen? Those costs are going to get passed on to the
supermarket, folks at the checkout counter are going to pay a
higher price and it is going to decrease demand for fresh
Florida seafood.
Mr. Southerland. Let me mention, one of the things that I
have been told from several sources, is we talk about the vote,
you know, for the IFQs, we talk about the vote, the vote, the
vote. It was my understanding that there were 167 ballots
distributed before that vote and it excluded some 600 holders.
So, you know, I am worried--and I was not a part of that. I am
worried by what I hear that many people who are small
operators, operators who did not have a lot of say, they did
not have a lot of influence. I am bothered by that, smaller
boats, why should they not have had the right to vote for their
future and to be excluded. That is a huge concern of mine.
And I see I have the red light.
The Chairman. I just have one question and I will yield to
you.
Mr. Southerland. OK.
The Chairman. I just have one more question here on the
second round and this is to Captain Kelly and Commissioner
Wright. I mentioned in my opening statement about the National
Ocean Policy by Executive Order. Have you looked into that, do
you have a response to that National Ocean Policy by this
Administration?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, we are very concerned about the National
Ocean Policy. Under the primary plan here, this does not just
affect coastal communities or our oceans, but by the design of
the program, this will migrate its way into the very heartland
of our country, into our rivers, streams, the Great Lakes, et
cetera.
Of serious concern I think for industry is there is no
effort or plan to incorporate industry representatives into
this, whether it is commercial fishing, for-hire charter boats,
or the recreational component. We are going to have State,
Federal and tribal representatives in essence, I suppose,
formulating plans and dictating what we are going to do with
one of our most important natural resources.
The Chairman. Commissioner Wright, do you have a response
the National Ocean Policy?
Mr. Wright. My response, Mr. Chairman, is we need more data
and science and information that I made a plea for earlier than
we need another layer of regulatory infrastructure.
The Chairman. I will just say I have been very critical of
that. What we need is authorization from Congress, not this
being done by Executive Order.
Mr. Wright. Right.
The Chairman. I will yield my time to Mr. Southerland.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One of the things I have found as I have talked with
fishermen everywhere, no matter where you come down on certain
regulations, everyone seems to agree that we do need better
data. I do not think any fisherman I have ever talked to is
happy with the amount of data, the kind of data that we have.
Everyone says we need more. Let me be crystal clear on my
desire to get you more data. The current Administration has
instructed the Department of Commerce, thus NOAA--this past
year, the Director of NOAA transferred $300 million out of
research. Now we need research. You can imagine how upset I was
that they transferred $300 million out of research and yet
everyone agrees that we need better research. It was
transferred to put a $700 million satellite in space. Then they
come back and want more money for research.
Now you cannot run your businesses like that. I cannot run
my businesses like that. One of the things I am very proud of,
that no one seems to talk about, is that in the RESTORE Act
that was recently passed, in the RESTORE Act, bucket four of
those dollars that are going to be BP fine money--BP fine
money--next year, the fourth bucket of that money is
specifically set aside and mandated that NOAA must use those
dollars to gather more research, better data so that we can
make good decisions--not harmful decisions, good decisions.
So I am a huge advocate of better data. I am a huge
advocate that we have to make decisions--because the government
tends to make decisions like this--ready, shoot, aim. Well,
that is backwards--that is backwards. We have to make good
decisions with good data and I am proud of what the RESTORE Act
is going to do because it is going to put dollars there that
cannot be moved out of that research account and used to put
satellites into space.
I want to say this, last year I sponsored an amendment to
the CJS bill that was passed on the Floor, the appropriations
bill. I want to be crystal clear because you will not hear
this. That bill said that NOAA could not use any funds in 2013
for the development, the approval and the implementation of new
catch share programs. It did not say existing. Mr. Chairman--
this whole region has existing catch share programs. The point
is I have been crystal clear and apparently I'm not getting
through, my amendment does not affect those of you who have
IFQs. To tell the truth, it only dealt with new catch share
programs, going forward, because what Mr. Latinko really wants
is IFQs to spread to the recreational fishery and to the head
boats and I know they do not want that. So my amendment and my
efforts going forward, the bill we just brought, did not in any
way affect what you have, commercial fishermen, it did not. It
just guaranteed that the boats like Ms. Anderson rides, the
head boats, as well as the recreational fishermen, that we were
not going to feel the oppression of the government's boot on
our neck because we do not like what it looks like when they
start applying that pressure.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Well, my time has expired. You are starting
to see the red lights and how that works. Now I recognize you
for your 5 minutes of questioning and I will say that that
amendment that you did pass did say that there is a sense in
Congress, when we reauthorize Magnuson-Stevens, we have to take
those sectors into consideration. There is absolutely nothing
wrong with that.
With that, I will recognize the gentleman again for 5
minutes.
Mr. Southerland. Mr. Waters, let me ask you a question. I
know you are itching.
Mr. Waters. I am dying.
Mr. Southerland. I am going to scratch your itch. You are
dying, we do not want that to happen.
Mr. Waters. We all are, Captain, some of us just faster
than others.
Mr. Southerland. One of the things that I have been
bothered with since I came to Congress and learned about the
fisheries issues is the data, as we talked about. And proper
assessments, and the lack thereof. Why would NOAA continually
over and over and over again refuse to count the fish that are
making their home on artificial reefs?
Mr. Waters. Mr. Southerland, you are asking the right man.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Southerland. Scratch that itch.
Mr. Waters. I sat on the stock assessment, red snapper
stock assessment, I have sat on red snapper stock assessment
panels. I was in Pensacola this week for 2 days watching the
red snapper stock, then I had to rush for public testimony in
New Orleans. The overlapping of these two meetings was
devastating again to my life. then I went to LSU to do some
research with Dr. Jim Calvin on red snapper, then back to FSC
in Pensacola to do the follow-ups and look for data. This is a
very, very open process. You know how many people were in the
audience of this very open process? Zero, not one person.
Mr. Southerland. Why would that be? Why would men and
women----
Mr. Waters. I cannot----
Mr. Southerland. I am sure there are some commercial
fishermen here today that are working.
Mr. Waters. I am trying to say that there are more
fishermen in this audience, all I have ever heard was how bad
the data, how bad the data, how bad the data. The red snapper
started in 1988 when we first did a stock assessment. We have
set that rebuilding date back down to 2032, over 40 years to
rebuild this fishery. Now the data we are----
Mr. Southerland. But why----
Mr. Waters. I will answer the question.
Mr. Southerland. I am just asking a question.
Mr. Waters. The lack of fishery people that can do stock
assessments in the United States, the qualified people who can
do it, is overloaded. We do not have the people that are
qualified for fishery dynamics in the United States to do a
stock assessment on every stock of fish in this ocean that we
have today. That is something that maybe you should fund some
college graduates for, send them through LSU, send them through
and let us get some----
Mr. Southerland. OK, why would NOAA refuse to count the
fish that are there on the reef. They do not count those fish.
Mr. Waters. They do count those fish with larvae and krill
samples and they do it with ground fish. If they spawn, they
survey for ground fish. If those fish produce a fish, they
count the larvae that is floating. So if that fish populates,
those larvae float freely into the ocean and they are accounted
for in two different surveys in two different ways. Just
because they were on the reef when they made it, you cannot
tell if that larvae came from a natural reef or an oil platform
reef. So they are accounted for. It is a spin that you have
been told that they do not account for them. You cannot go
around a reef and sit there and count each one of them, but
they do have monitoring systems at LSU that have counters on
the reef and they do track fish that come and go from those
reefs and, yes, they do go there and eat lunch and then go
someplace else for desert.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Waters. I will tell you if those fish produce a larvae,
they are counted through by larvae surveys and ground fish
surveys. So you have been given totally--not totally
misinformation, but you have been led away from the solid
truth.
Mr. Southerland. Well, I have asked this in Congressional
hearings--I will reclaim my time.
Mr. Waters. But----
Mr. Southerland. I will reclaim my time. In Congressional
hearings, I have asked specifically that question with no
satisfactory answer. Now they will not count those fish while
they are on that reef or on that artificially created reef, but
they certainly catch it when you bring that fish over the
transom. OK, so the point is, it seems to me like, you know, we
are picking and choosing what we want to recognize and we are
picking and choosing what we want to ignore. I know that Ms.
Anderson mentioned earlier that perhaps there is as much as 100
million pounds of red snapper out there and you have Texas, for
example, that has fishing year-round. It seem to be incredibly
inconsistent and what I am worried about is that this
inconsistency of acknowledging truth is crushing you, crushing
you. Be consistent.
I yield back.
Mr. Waters. Can I say one thing, Mr. Southerland?
The Chairman. I thank you very much for that exchange. I
want to thank very much the first panel for your testimony. As
sometimes happens, not all the time, there are questions that
come up because of an answer that one of you may have and there
may be a letter sent to you asking you to clarify, and we would
certainly look forward to that.
So with that, I want to thank all of you very, very much
for being here on a Saturday, and I will dismiss the first
panel. We will take a very brief 5-minute break while the
second panel comes up.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. The Committee will reconvene and we are
pleased to welcome our second panel here, or at least three-
fourths of the second panel.
We have Ms. Candace Hansard, who is Vice President and Reef
Development Director for the Emerald Coast Reef Association;
Captain Tom Adams, Mexico Beach Charters; Captain Michael
Jennings, who is President of the Charter Fishermen's
Association; and Captain Robert Zales, National Association of
Charterboat Operators. And here she comes right now, I think.
You have a way of getting attention.
Ms. Hansard. Hey everybody.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. We are very pleased to welcome the second
panel and you heard what I mentioned to the first panel as to
how the lights work. Apparently the special seats we installed
did not work, so that is why we took the 5-minute break. But if
you could hold your oral testimony to the 5 minutes, I would
appreciate it. Your full testimony, of course, will appear in
the record.
So, Ms. Hansard, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CANDACE HANSARD, VICE PRESIDENT AND REEF
DEPLOYMENT DIRECTOR, EMERALD COAST REEF ASSOCIATION
Ms. Hansard. Hello, I am----
The Chairman. Pull the microphone close to your face.
Ms. Hansard. OK. I am the Vice President and Reef
Deployment Director of the Emerald Coast Reef Association. Our
mission is to improve the fishery in the Gulf of Mexico by
providing habitat and evaluating the effectiveness of
artificial reefs. Our mission is accomplished 100 percent with
volunteer effort and private contributions. The majority of our
members are private recreational fishermen and divers.
Florida is known as the fishing capital of the world. The
importance of free and open access to the fisheries to
Floridians is tremendous. Fishing is not simply a hobby for
many fishermen and women in Florida, it is an important part of
our cultural identity. It is part of our unique heritage.
Denying millions of Americans free and open access to the
fishery is denying them their heritage.
For years, our government agencies have attempted to
maintain the health of the fishery by restricting access. Catch
Shares, Sector Separation and Marine Protected Areas are all
proposed plans to manage the problems of our fishery. While
well intentioned, access limiting plans, manage but do not
solve fishery problems. These plans hurt our economy and deny
millions of people their right to access our Nation's natural
resource.
Recreational fishing, including the charter industry,
support a wide range of jobs. In Florida alone, there are
nearly 1 million registered boats. All these boats need
insurance, maintenance, storage, fuel, et cetera. These
services support a wide range of jobs. Even people who do not
fish are economically affected when the fishing activities are
reduced, because jobs are created by fishing activities. When
fishing access is restricted, the side effect is fewer jobs.
The economic importance of free and open access to the
fishery in the State of Florida is enormous. In Florida,
saltwater fishing alone is a $5.7 billion industry that
supports over 150,000 jobs. In 2011, the boating industry in
Florida was $32.3 billion. In 2003, the FWC stated that for
every one dollar spent building artificial reefs, it created
$131.00 in recreational value. In 2008, the Director of the FWC
stated that, and I quote, ``Recreational saltwater fishing
generates a staggering amount of consumer spending in this
State's economy--roughly $14.3 million per day. That is close
to $10,000 per minute.''
Artificial reefs provide solutions to many of the problems
facing our fishery and our economy. Imagine what the return on
investment would be in 2012 dollars and all the jobs that could
be created, if more money was spent building artificial reefs
that sustain a healthy and sustainable fishery.
In the Florida panhandle, 95 percent of our sea floor is
sandy bottom, so artificial reef building is critical to
building and maintaining a healthy and sustainable fishery. One
of the biggest obstacles to reef building in the Florida
panhandle is the one-size-fits-all permitting by the
Jacksonville District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The
Florida panhandle underwater topography is identical to
Alabama, whose underwater permits are granted by the Mobile
District of the Army Corps of Engineers. Generous permitting in
Alabama has provided them the opportunity to create the largest
artificial reef building program in the United States, even
though they have less than 60 miles of coastline on the Gulf of
Mexico.
I stand before you today and respectfully request that our
government agencies that are charged with managing our fishery
please weigh the economic and cultural importance of free and
open access to our natural resource when they are forming
management plans. Please use our tax dollars to create real
solutions (artificial reefs) that will build a healthy and
sustainable fishery, and a thriving economy, and restore our
birthright, access to our fishery.
I would also like to bring up the fact that we need to stop
destroying oil platforms that are in the Gulf of Mexico. They
have become artificial reefs, and when we destroy all the
platforms, we are killing millions of red snapper. It is taking
those red snapper out of our catch limit and I think that is
not very wise management.
Thank you so much for listening and for your consideration,
and I appreciate you having me here today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hansard follows:]
Statement of Candy Hansard, Vice President and Reef Deployment
Director, Emerald Coast Reef Association Inc.
I am the Vice President and Reef Deployment Director for the
Emerald Coast Reef Association. Our Mission is to improve the fishery
in the Gulf of Mexico by providing habitat and evaluating the
effectiveness of artificial reefs. Our mission is accomplished 100%
with volunteer effort and private contributions. The majority of our
members are private recreational fishermen and divers.
Florida is known as the Fishing Capital of the World. The
importance of free and open access to the fishery to Floridians is
tremendous. Fishing is not simply a hobby for many fishermen and women
in Florida; it is an important part of our cultural identity. It is
part of our unique heritage. Denying millions of Americans free and
open access to the fishery is denying them their heritage
For years, our government agencies have attempted to maintain the
health of the fishery by restricting access. Catch Shares, Sector
Separation and Marine Protected Areas are all proposed plans to manage
the problems of our fishery. While well intentioned, access limiting
plans, manage but do not solve fishery problems. These plans hurt our
economy and deny millions of people their right to access our Nations'
Natural Resource.
Recreational fishing, including the charter industry support a wide
range of jobs. In Florida alone, there are nearly 1 million registered
boats. All these boats need insurance, maintenance, storage, fuel etc.
These services support a wide range of jobs. Even people who do not
fish are economically affected when the fishing activities are reduced
because; jobs are created by fishing activities. When fishing access is
restricted, the side effect is . . . fewer jobs.
The Economic importance of free and open access to the fishery, in
the State of Florida, is enormous. In Florida, Saltwater fishing alone
is a $5.7 Billion dollar industry that supports over 150 thousand jobs.
In 2011, the Boating industry in Florida was $32.3 Billion dollars. In
2003, the FWC stated that for every One dollar spent building
artificial reefs; it created $131.00 in recreational value. In 2008,
the Director of the FFWCC stated that ``Recreational Saltwater fishing
generates a staggering amount of consumer spending in this state's
economy--roughly $14.3 million per day . . .'' ``That's close to
$10,000 per minute.''
Artificial Reefs provide solutions to many of the problems facing
our fishery and our economy. Imagine what the return on investment
would be in 2012 dollars and, all the jobs that could be created, if
more money was spent building artificial reefs that support a healthy
and sustainable fishery!
In the Florida Panhandle, 95% of our seafloor is sandy bottom so,
artificial reef building is critical to building and maintaining a
healthy a sustainable fishery. One of the biggest obstacles to reef
building in the Florida Panhandle is the one-size-fits-all permitting
by the Jacksonville District of the USACOE. The Florida Panhandles
underwater topography is identical to Alabama, whose underwater permits
are granted by the Mobile District of the USACOE. Generous permitting
in Alabama has provided them the opportunity to create the largest
Artificial Reef Building program in the United States, even though they
have less than 60 miles of coastline on the Gulf of Mexico.
I stand before you today and respectfully request that our
Government Agencies that are charged with managing our fishery please
weigh the economic and cultural importance of free and open access to
our natural resource when they are forming management plans. Please use
our tax dollars to create real solutions (Artificial Reefs) that will
build a healthy and sustainable fishery, a thriving economy and restore
our birthright . . . access to our fishery.
Thank you so much for listening and for your consideration.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony. I now
recognize Captain Adams from Mexico Beach Charters, who is the
Chair of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, Forgotten Coast
Chapter. Captain Adams, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN TOM ADAMS, MEXICO BEACH CHARTERS, CHAIR,
RECREATIONAL FISHING ALLIANCE, FORGOTTEN COAST CHAPTER
Mr. Adams. Thank you, Chairman Hastings, Representative
Southerland and members of the House Natural Resources
Committee for the opportunity to speak before all of Congress
today from at home within my own district on behalf of fishing
and jobs.
I am Captain Tom Adams, owner and operator of Mexico Beach
Charters and Chairman of the Forgotten Coast Chapter of the
Recreational Fishing Alliance, or RFA. I have been fishing both
coasts of Florida since 1959, moved to Mexico Beach about a
decade ago and have been operating a charter business here for
the last several years.
I am sure when a lot of people from Washington think of
Florida fishing, they think of fancy gamefish like bonefish,
sailfish or tarpon. Florida is a world class destination for
these types of ``catch and release'' targets, but here in this
region on the Gulf, red snapper is critical to the health and
prosperity of our coastal fishing businesses and our economies
in general. People love to book charters to catch a couple of
red snapper, but the majority of these folks who spend their
hard-earned money at the hotels and in gift shops, they like to
eat a couple of the snapper as well.
I do not know how it was 100 years ago, but I do know what
it was like 30 or 40 years ago. I can also tell you that just
in the past 6 years, I have seen more red snapper out there in
the Gulf than any time in my memory. When I first started
fishing for red snapper out of Mexico Beach, we fished for them
deep, you always had to drop down to the bottom to hook up a
fish or two. Now these fish are so plentiful they are so spread
out throughout the water column, from surface to bottom, that
you cannot get the bait down to catch a grouper.
I am sure this is good news for the fish. A lot of folks
who do not fish and who really do not care what happens to our
local fishermen in Mexico Beach and Panama City will tell you
this is good news for everyone. I can tell you that if you want
fish populations to explode, all you have to do is stop people
from fishing. What is harder is coming up with a way that we
can sensibly fish on these populations as they continue to
grow, and that is what the same non-fishing people do not want
to talk about honestly with the American people.
All the captains I talk to have seen a great number of red
snapper, a growing population. As the population increased and
during a time of an 8-month red snapper season in the Gulf,
something happened which forced us to suddenly cut back to a
40-day season. Everyone at this hearing knows what changed, it
was Federal fisheries law, which was originally created to help
American fishermen, but reauthorized by Congress in 2006 and it
is now destroying our Gulf fishing communities.
During the past two seasons alone, my business as a charter
boat captain has been cut in half. Red snapper season was cut
by 70 percent, triggerfish have been shut down, gag grouper
days cut in half. Now I hear the same rumors about vermillion
snapper as well. What has ended up happening to our community
is that our tourist season for visiting anglers has also shrunk
with the decreasing opportunities to fish, and that means lost
jobs.
Instead of having a longer, more sensible season, local
captains now are pushing themselves to extremes, fishing every
single day during the 40-day season, rain or shine. This is
what they call derby fishing where you have to fish every
possible chance during that 40-day window to make up for lost
revenues from the other 325 days of the year, where our anglers
could reasonably fish sustainably for red snapper.
Of course, the same groups who pushed us into this corner
by supporting the reauthorization of Magnuson back in 2006 with
all the new rigid definitions and deadlines, are dangling
another carrot in front of us today to help stop the derby. The
new sector separation schemes and individual catch shares for
the Gulf of Mexico is not the answer, it is an agenda. It will
forever change the face of our local community in a way that is
not good for all Florida fishermen.
Instead, here is what we do need--we need some flexibility
in our Federal fisheries law. There are no deadlines in nature.
The last thing we need to do is mandate unnatural timelines for
rebuilding fisheries.
We need better science and data collection. These shortened
seasons and sudden closures based on recreational data
collection was called ``fatally flawed,'' by the National
Research Council back in 2006 which is when Congress mandated
that these recreational harvest surveys be replaced by 2009.
Earlier this year, NOAA Fisheries said they had accomplished
their mission. Well, if that is true, let us let the National
Research Council decide through another comprehensive analysis
of NOAA's work to ensure that it is truly the best available
science. No scientific effort should be considered the best
without peer review.
We all need the Commerce Department's help in untangling
the bureaucracy created by the new annual catch limits and
accountability measures like catch shares and recreational
harvest payment. It all sounds good, but if the best available
science is still ``fatally flawed'' and research stock
assessments do not use sound data, then what are we left with?
Congress needs to step in on this one. If the government is not
going to meet their commitment to fishermen, then Congress
needs to help draw a line in Magnuson-Stevens to protect the
fishermen.
We are not an industry that is looking for handouts, we are
only looking for a hand to protect our coastal heritage and
traditions while fostering sustainable Gulf fisheries for
generations to come.
[The prepared statement of Captain Adams follows:]
Statement of Capt. Tom Adams, Mexico Beach Charters, and Chair,
Recreational Fishing Alliance ``Forgotten Coast'' Chapter
Introduction:
Thank you Chairman Hastings, Representative Southerland and members
of the House Natural Resources Committee for the opportunity to speak
before all of Congress today from at home within my own district on
behalf of `fishing and jobs.'
I'm Capt. Tom Adams, owner and operator of Mexico Beach Charters
and chairman of the Forgotten Coast chapter of the Recreational Fishing
Alliance \1\ (RFA). I've been fishing both coasts of Florida since
1959, moved to Mexico Beach about a decade ago, and have been operating
a charter business here for the last several years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ RFA is a national 501(c)(4) non-profit political action
organization whose mission is to safeguard the rights of saltwater
anglers, protect marine industry jobs, and ensure the long-term
sustainability of our Nation's marine fisheries. The RFA represents
individual recreational fishermen, recreational fishing boat
manufacturers, party and charter boat owners and operators, bait and
tackle businesses, marina operators, and other businesses dependent on
recreational fishing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure when a lot of people in Washington DC think of Florida
fishing they think of fancy gamefish like bonefish, sailfish or tarpon.
Florida is a world class destination for these types of `catch and
release' targets I'll give you that--but here in this region, on the
Gulf of Mexico, red snapper is critical to the health and prosperity of
our coastal fishing businesses and our coastal economies in general.
People love to book charters to catch a couple of red snapper--but the
majority of those customers in this area, who spend hard-earned money
at the hotels and in the gift shops and local stores, they like to eat
a couple of red snapper too!
I don't know how it was 100 years ago, but I do know what it was
like 30 or 40 years ago. I can also tell you that in just the past six
years alone, I've seen more red snapper out there in the Gulf of Mexico
that any time in this captain's memory. When I first started fishing
for red snapper, here out of Mexico Beach, we fished for them deep--you
always had to drop lines down to the bottom to hook up with a fish or
two. These fish are so plentiful today that they're spread out
throughout the water column, from surface to bottom--red snapper are so
thick at times that you can't get a bait down to the bottom for
grouper.
Sure, this is good news for the fish. A lot of folks who don't fish
and who don't really care about what happens to our local fishermen in
Mexico Beach and Panama City will tell you this is good news for
everyone; I can tell you that if you want fish populations to explode,
all you have to do is stop people from fishing, that's easy. What's
harder is coming up with a way that we can sensibly fish on these
populations as they continue to grow--and that's what those same `non-
fishing' people don't want to talk about honestly with the American
people.
All the captains I talk to have seen a great number of red snapper,
a growing population. As the population increased and during a time of
an eight-month red snapper season in the Gulf, something happened which
has forced us to suddenly cut back to a 40-day season. Everyone at this
hearing knows what changed--it was a federal fisheries law which was
originally created to help American fishermen, but as reauthorized by
Congress in 2006 is now destroying our Gulf fishing communities and our
economies.
During the past 2 seasons alone, my business as a charter boat
captain has been cut in half. Red snapper season was cut by 70%,
triggerfish have been shutdown, gag grouper days cut in half, now I
hear the same rumors about vermillion snapper as well. What's ended up
happening to our community is that our tourist season for visiting
anglers has also shrunk with the decreasing opportunities to fish, and
that means lost jobs.
Instead of having a longer, more sensible season, local captains
are now pushing themselves to extremes, fishing every single day during
a 40-day season, rain or shine. This is what they call `derby fishing'
where you have to fish every possible chance during that 40-day window
to make up for lost revenues from the other 325 days of the year where
our anglers could reasonably be fishing sustainably for red snapper.
Of course, the same groups who pushed us into this corner by
supporting the reauthorization of Magnuson back in 2006 with all the
rigid new definitions, requirements and arbitrary deadlines, are
dangling another carrot in front of us today to help stop the derby--
the new sector separation schemes and `individual catch shares' for
Gulf of Mexico fisheries is not an answer, it's an agenda, and it will
forever change the face of our local community in a way that is not at
all what's good for Florida fishermen.
The Need for Deadline Flexibility
We need some `flexibility' in our federal fisheries law . . . there
are no deadlines in nature; the last thing we need is to mandate
unnatural timelines for rebuilding fisheries. If fish stocks are
growing on a positive trend, why should we be shutting down seasons and
denying fishermen the opportunity to fish the Gulf of Mexico? All for
the sake of building stocks faster? Fisheries management should be more
reasonable, and fisheries managers should be given the ability to
manage within reason, for the sake of both fish and the fishermen.
To better explain our current situation here in the Gulf with
regard to the inflexibility of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, it's important
to look to other regions where similar issues occurred in the past.
During the reauthorization debate in the House back in 2006, Congress
approved a three-year deadline extension on the summer flounder
rebuilding period to help fishermen in the Mid Atlantic region deal
with a looming crisis there. By giving the fishing community three
additional years to fish towards the final rebuilding target without
threat of complete closure or a 75% cutback in season, the stock was
still allowed to rebuild.
There were no negative biological consequences resultant of this
extension, yet the fishermen and industry were given the opportunity to
modestly continue fishing on the stock, which had increased to the
highest level in recorded history after this flexibility extension was
granted by Congress. Fishermen on all coasts of the U.S. and all
fisheries under federal jurisdiction should have the option of
rebuilding timeframe extensions when the certain criteria are met to
ensure the continued health of the stock. In the summer flounder
fishery, the extension proved to be a successful use of common sense in
fisheries management. All fisheries should be afforded this common
sense.
The Need For Improved Science and Data Collection
We also need better science and data collection. These shortened
seasons and sudden closures are based on recreational data collection
called ``fatally flawed'' by the National Research Council back in
2006, which is when Congress mandated that these recreational harvest
surveys be replaced by 2009. Earlier this year, NOAA Fisheries said
they'd accomplished their mission--well, if that's true, let's let the
National Research Council decide through another comprehensive analysis
of NOAA's work, to ensure that it's truly the best available science.
No scientific effort should be considered the ``best'' without ``peer
review.''
Responsible, efficient fishery management can only be achieved when
the information used by decision makers is of the highest quality. The
Magnuson-Stevens Act contains a national standard which mandates that
management measures be based on the best available science. All too
often, the information contains gaps and deficiencies which ultimately
lessens the confidence in the data and negatively impacts fishermen
through lower quotas. This information can only be called the best
available science because it is only available science due to a close
door culture at NOAA which prevents any outside information that
challenges `their' science.
Amendments included during the reauthorization debate in 2006
placed even greater demands that the quality of data be exceedingly
high. The implementation of annual catch limits and accountability
measures directly hurts fishermen when the data is less than perfect.
Achieving such high quality data requires significant investment in
both money and resources. NOAA has failed to make that investment and
fishermen suffer.
When fishery information is poor, managers assign a specific level
of uncertainty to the information under the widely adopted
precautionary approach. Specific to the recreational fisheries, fish
available to anglers are limited by both scientific uncertainty and
management uncertainty. When combined, this uncertainty lowers the
overall recreational harvest limit producing shorter seasons and more
restrictive regulations. Of additional concern, when such regulations
are imposed, mortality associated with harvest is simply converted to
mortality associated with discards resulting in a wasteful management
approach that serves no benefit.
In recent years, NOAA has allocated millions of dollars towards the
implementation of catch shares programs at the expense of efforts which
would improve stock assessments, lower uncertainty and provide more
fish to anglers. Catch shares do not improve stock assessments or
reduce uncertainty; they are a management tool with the primary
objective of reducing capacity in a fishery. High quality stock
assessments are expensive and demand significant commitment from this
administration. NOAA needs to stop diverting money to catch shares and
restore funding to cooperative research and other programs that
directly improve and contribute to fishery stock assessments.
The Need to Protect Both Fish & Fishermen
Finally, we do need the Commerce Department's help in untangling
this bureaucracy created by Magnuson. New annual catch limits and
accountability measures like `catch shares' and recreational harvest
payback--it all sounds good, but if the best available science is still
``fatally flawed'' and research stock assessments don't use sound data,
then what are we left with? Congress needs to step in on this one . . .
if the government isn't going to meet their commitment to fishermen,
then Congress needs to draw a line in Magnuson to allow the Department
of Commerce to help protect the fishermen.
Magnuson was originally intended to support a robust domestic
fishing industry in the United States. What it lacks today is a proper
balance between commerce and conservation. I'm grateful that leaders
from the House Natural Resources Committee have taken considerable time
and effort to hold this field hearing today, it's a great opportunity
for our Gulf fishing community.
We're not an industry that's looking for handouts--we're only
asking for a hand, to protect our coastal heritage and traditions while
fostering sustainable Gulf fisheries for generations to come.
Conclusion
In closing, I would like to express my appreciation for the
opportunity to discuss the importance of recreational fishing in
Florida, and especially the Gulf of Mexico here along our Forgotten
Coast. It's an honor to have key Members of Congress and the
distinguished Chairman of this Committee in our district today. I would
be happy to work with Committee members and sponsors of various
fisheries legislation on any follow-up questions you may today or at
any other time.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Captain Adams.
I will recognize Captain Jennings, who is the President of
the National Association of Charterboat Operators. Captain
Jennings, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN MICHAEL JENNINGS, PRESIDENT, CHARTER
FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION
Mr. Jennings. Thank you, Chairman Hastings, Representative
Southerland, I am the President of the Charter Fishermen's
Association.
Given the gravity and the contentiousness of some of these
issues, sitting here looking out that window, I would rather be
sitting out there on that dock that I am looking at with all
this fishing than I would be sitting here talking to you all.
And this is my first time in this part of the coast,
Representative Southerland, and it is beautiful and the
hospitality has been fantastic.
I do appreciate the opportunity to testify today. I own and
operate two permitted charter boats in the Gulf and I make my
living providing access to recreational anglers. In fact, the
for-hire industry in the Gulf of Mexico provides access to
millions of fishermen every year. Our customers come from all
over the country and are a large part of the economic machine
that supports thousands of businesses just like mine.
Recreational fishing seasons have gotten shorter and bag
limits have gotten smaller. The service we provide to our
clients is open access to ocean fisheries and this has become
more and more difficult. These increasingly stringent managers
are blocking public access to our fisheries and in the process
hurting our local economies.
One thing we cannot do though is go back to the days when
unrestricted fishing crushed important stocks, but we cannot
just sit here and watch our seasons continue to get shorter and
shorter either. Fortunately, there are solutions that can do
both and provide for increased access to our fishery while also
providing a long-term sustainability of these resources. There
is some flexibility in the existing Magnuson-Stevens Act, or
MSA, that can move us toward this and maintain the integrity of
the MSA as we go forward. Congress needs, in our opinion, to
leave the MSA alone. And rather than amend it, we would like to
see Congress ensure that sufficient funding is given for
fisheries science rather than creating loopholes. And allow
fisheries managers to use all management tools that might
benefit this fishery.
Legislation was recently introduced that would exempt or
limit the use of basic management practices, including the
setting of annual catch limits and extending the rebuilding
timelines. In 2012, NMFS reviewed more stocks than ever,
including several stocks in the Gulf, and we strongly support
more funding for stock assessments and more for fishery
independent surveys. But similar to other regions with large
numbers of managed species, traditional population assessments
are not always available.
In those cases, management is based on other information
that can be obtained without complex and resource-intensive
models, such as fishery catches, species life span, discard
mortality just to name a few. These are all essential pieces of
information needed for population assessments, along with other
information about the biology and population trends of a
species in question. To us, we see it as a myth that a fishery
can only be managed by simply using a complex stock assessment.
There continues to be a push to sacrifice long-term
sustainability for short-term gain. Healthy and rebuilt fish
stocks are a critical component of healthy coastal economies.
In fact, according to NMFS, fully restored or fully rebuilt
U.S. fish stocks would generate $31 billion in revenues and
create almost 500,000 in jobs.
The law offers ample flexibility to determine rebuilding
timelines and setting catch limits, but we need additional
flexibility to try different management approaches that the
industry and the user groups feel is necessary. Traditional
methods simply are not working. We see no reason to limit any
options provided to the charter industry or any other user
group that is currently allowed in the law.
There have been numerous attempts, and some successes, to
prohibit our right to work on options in our industry in the
Gulf of Mexico. Today's current management system is failing
our industry and is failing the fishermen who seek to access
it. Alternative management systems can be useful in some
fisheries. For example, the red snapper ITQ program may not be
appropriate for recreational anglers. Regardless, we need to
let the fishermen determine that and determine what tools work
best for them. The MSA was set upon a manner that allows local
issues to be dealt with in the local user groups and we need to
continue to let that happen.
Sustainable fisheries provide public access to sportfishing
and long-term economic health for our coastal communities.
Congress is pushing to take steps, encouraged by a few who are
willing to trade long-term sustainability for short-sighted
personal and political gain. Current fishing rules hurt anglers
and fishing businesses due to outdated management practices.
But this is solved by giving fishermen management flexibility
and not through rolling back conservation successes and
creating management loopholes.
Now should be the time when Congress is giving us more
tools to manage our fisheries, not less. We need all the
options at our disposal and we need to allow the user groups to
work within the guidelines of the MSA to work on what seems to
be best for them. It is an issue that we feel needs to be dealt
with on a local level when it comes to working within our
fishery management system.
I thank you all.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Captain Jennings.
Now I will recognize Captain Zales who is the President of
the National Association of Charterboat Operators. Captain
Zales.
[The prepared statement of Captain Jennings follows:]
Statement of Capt. Mike Jennings, For-Hire Recreational Fisherman and
Owner of Cowboy Charters, Freeport, Texas; President, Charter
Fishermen's Association
My name is Captain Mike Jennings and I am the President of the
Charter Fishermen's Association, representing Charter Captains and
Private Recreational Members throughout the Gulf States. I appreciate
the opportunity to testify today in support of achieving sustainable
and accountable fisheries in a way that will increase all user groups'
access to our nation's natural resources. The most effective way to
reach these goals is to ensure that congressionally-created Regional
Fishery Management Councils have the flexibility to explore all
management options available. Restrictions from Washington, D.C. on
what management options we can and cannot try could devastate our
industry.
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 fishermen every year who cannot afford their own
boats, live far away or who want to fish with an experienced captain.
This year my boats took more than 1500 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 and is a primary driver of our coastal communities.
Several species of fish that are critical to the recreational
fishing industry in the Gulf have suffered from fishing effort in years
past that has put a strain on the overall populations and are subject
to increasingly restrictive management measures. 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 clients is access to ocean
fisheries, but in recent years government regulations have prevented us
from providing this access. Either the seasons are closed, in which
case going fishing is not even an option, or the size and bag limits
are so restrictive that clients cannot justify the expense of going
fishing. These increasingly stringent measures are blocking public
access to fishery resources, and in the process hurting our businesses
and local economies.
We can't go back to the days when unrestricted fishing crashed
important stocks, but we can't watch our seasons get shorter and
shorter while bag limits get smaller and smaller. Fortunately, there
are solutions that can simultaneously provide increased access to our
fishery while also providing for the long-term conservation of those
resources. There is flexibility in the existing Magnuson-Stevens Act
that can move us towards that increased access as these fish stocks
rebound. In fact, we believe that it is critically important to
maintain the integrity of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) to enable
continued, long-term access to this valuable resource. Congress needs
to leave the MSA alone. Rather than amend the MSA Congress should:
Ensure there is sufficient funding for fisheries
science rather than creating loopholes
Allow fisheries managers to use all management tools
that might benefit the fishery, and
Protect valuable habitat that is now in place in the
Gulf of Mexico.
Legislation was recently introduced that would exempt or limit
fisheries from the use of basic fisheries management practices,
including the setting of annual catch limits (ACLS) and extending
rebuilding timelines. In 2012 NMFS reviewed more stocks than ever
before, including numerous stocks in the Gulf of Mexico and we strongly
support funding for stock assessments and fishery independent surveys.
But similar to other regions with a large number of managed species,
traditional population assessments are not always available to inform
the setting of ACLs in the Gulf.
In those cases, management is based on information that can be
obtained without complex and resource-intense models, such as fishery
catches, species life span and discard mortality just to name a few.
These are all essential pieces of information needed for population
assessments, along with other information about the biology and
population trends of a species in question. It is a myth that a fishery
can only be managed with complex population assessments. Good
management systems are adaptable and are designed to accommodate a
range of uncertainties.
There continues to be a push for fishery managers to sacrifice
long-term sustainability for short term gain. There have been numerous
legislative attempts to extend rebuilding time frames for US fish
stocks. In some cases these efforts could extend rebuilding almost
indefinitely. Currently, the law requires stocks to be rebuilt in ten
years but includes sufficient flexibility and takes into account the
biology of the stocks. In fact, over half of rebuilding plans extend
past the 10 year time line. Some Pacific Rockfish species have
rebuilding timelines that exceed 70 years. Healthy and rebuilt fish
stocks are a critical component of healthy coastal economics. In fact,
according to NMFS, fully rebuilding US fish stocks would generate $31
billion in revenue and create 500,000 new jobs.
The law offers ample flexibility in determining rebuilding time
lines and setting catch limits, but we need additional flexibility to
try different management approaches. Traditional methods simply aren't
working. We would like to explore the possibility of alternative
management approaches on the local level as afforded us by the MSA. We
see no reason to limit any option provided to the Charter Industry or
any other user group that is currently allowed under law. Those
alternatives may include sector allocations or even Limited Access
Privilege Programs, (LAPP) if the user group feels this is in their
best interest.
Limited Access Privilege Programs, (LAPP) may not be appropriate
for all fisheries and all fishermen. For example, we do not believe
they should be used to manage private anglers. But the Charter Industry
should have the option to explore them if they see fit. Under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, 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, and some successes, to prohibit
our right to work on options for our industry in the Gulf of Mexico.
Today's current management system is failing our industry and failing
the Fisherman who seeks to access it. Alternative Management Systems
can be useful in some fisheries. For example, the Gulf of Mexico Red
Snapper Commercial ITQ program may not be appropriate for others, such
as private anglers. Regardless, it is not up to Congress to decide what
tools fisheries managers and fishermen can and cannot use in their
fisheries. We need to let fishermen determine what tools work best for
them. The Magnuson-Stevens Act was set up in a manner that allows local
issues to be managed at the local level. Congress should allow that
process to take place.
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. However these structures have
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
beneficial habitat to be destroyed at a huge cost to our communities
and the Gulf ecosystem. The Department of Interior announced on
September 15, 2010 that it would begin enforcing a long-dormant rule
requiring rigs to be removed within five years from the time they cease
production. This 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 is also expressed
concern about the method and rate of oil and gas platform removal. The
Council has 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 seafood to America's dinner plate,
public access for sportfishing enthusiasts, and long-term economic
health for fishermen, and our coastal communities. Congress is pushing
to take steps, encouraged by antiquated thinking by a few ``leave us
alone'' fishermen of old, who are willing to trade the long-term
sustainability of our coastal communities for shortsighted personal and
political gain. Current fishing rules hurt anglers, fishing businesses,
and our nation's fisheries by severely limiting fishing with short or
even closed seasons and promoting wasteful discards due to outdated
management practices, but this is solved by giving fishermen management
flexibility and not through rolling back conservation provisions and
creating management loopholes.
The CFA sees our role in this fishery as a position of providing
more 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. We also
pledge to work to meet the mandates set by Congress through the
promotion of fishery management practices that are beneficial to the
American public, the fishery in general as well as the fishing
industry. Now should be the time when Congress is giving us more tools
to manage our fisheries, not less. The Charter Fisherman's Association
looks forward to working with Regional Councils, Congress and the
Administration towards long-term solutions, including any and all
options that may increase fishing time, improve 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 council level to best manage our fisheries.
______
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN ROBERT F. ZALES, II, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERBOAT OPERATORS
Mr. Zales. Thank you, Chairman Hastings, Representative
Southerland, my name is Robert Zales, II, and I am appearing
today on behalf of the National Association of Charterboat
Operators. NACO thanks you and the members of the Committee for
your kind invitation to present testimony on this issue today.
NACO is a non-profit 501(c)(6) association representing
charter boat owners and operators across the United States,
including the Great Lakes. I also serve on the board of other
recreational fishing associations and work with a national
coalition of recreational for hire, private recreational, and
commercial fishing associations as well as the National Ocean
Policy Coalition. I have been involved in fishing for over 47
years with over 21 years of that time involved with local,
State, and Federal fishery management, providing expert
testimony, serving on a host of advisory panels, and working to
ensure that reason and common sense are applied to the
management of our natural resources.
On July 19, 2010, President Obama signed and executed
Presidential Executive Order 13547, creating the National Ocean
Policy. Two years later, this one stroke of a pen has led to
the creation of the National Ocean Council and we are awaiting
the announcement of the National Ocean Policy Implementation
Plan. This plan will provide for the creation of nine Regional
Planning Bodies whose membership will be limited to Federal,
State, and tribal representatives only. Regional Planning
Bodies will adopt a comprehensive national ecosystem-based
management principle, implement comprehensive, integrated
ecosystem-based coastal and marine spatial planning and
management, and a host of other management objectives. As
bureaucrats gather to draw lines on maps and determine the fate
of significant contributors to the economy and social fabric of
the Nation, the fishing and boating communities simply will not
have a seat at the table.
Here in the Gulf of Mexico region, 19 officials from 14
Federal entities have been identified to participate on a
government-only Regional Planning Body--Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife, National Park Service, U.S. Geological Survey,
Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Commerce,
Department of Homeland Security (the Coast Guard), Department
of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Department of Transportation, U.S. Air Force and
U.S. Navy. Apparently, Mr. Chairman, you and your colleagues
are not necessary to the proper management and care of our
natural marine and land-based resources as Congress has been
left totally out of this process.
Charter, commercial, and saltwater recreational fishing is
extremely important to the United States, both economically and
socially. According to the NOAA publication ``Fisheries
Economics of the United States for 2009,'' recreational
saltwater fishing produced sales impact from angling and
durable expenditures totaling $50 billion and value-added
impacts of $23 billion, while providing over 327,000 jobs in
2009. In addition, the commercial fishing industry provided
over 1 million jobs, $116 billion in sales and $32 billion in
income impacts. Seafood retailers added another 484,000 jobs
and contributed another $10 billion to the Nation's economy.
This impact is derived on less than 20 percent of the seafood
provided locally as over 80 percent of our Nation's seafood is
imported. According to the local Tourist Development Council,
15 percent of tourism dollars comes from saltwater recreational
fishing off Panama City. All of these industries depend on our
healthy and resilient resources and must have flexibility in
management in order to survive.
Recreational and commercial fishermen are already over-
regulated and subjected to restricted fishing seasons, over-
restrictive bag limits and quotas, closed areas to boating and
fishing, the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and
Marine Mammal Protection Act, engine emission regulations,
marine protected areas, gear restrictions, U.S. Coast Guard
regulations, manning requirements, life-saving requirements,
licensing, medical review processes, navigation restrictions,
and FCC radio licensing and requirements, among others.
In addition to the coastal impact of the NOP, according to
the American Farm Bureau Federation, instead of being
restricted to just the oceans and coasts, the National Ocean
Policy ``could extend to the regulation of every farm and ranch
in the United States.'' The NOP national priority objective for
Water Quality and Sustainable Practices on Land is to ``enhance
water quality in the ocean, along our coasts, and in the Great
Lakes by promoting and implementing sustainable practices on
land,'' with the draft implementation plan proposing an action
to ``reduce rural sources of excessive nutrients, sediments,
toxins and pathogens.''
Under the Regional Ecosystem Protection & Restoration
national priority objective, the NOC has proposed in part to
``support the development and implementation of statewide
nitrogen and phosphorus reduction strategies in the Mississippi
River Basin and Gulf region'' and the ``development of State
regulatory certainty programs for reducing nutrient and
sediment loads. Will support of States translate to coercion,
as is taking place in the Chesapeake Bay watershed? The
Mississippi River Basin spans from Montana to New York,
draining water from parts or all of 31 States. The new overlay
of Federal requirements could negatively affect home builders,
private landowners, and other businesses. Furthermore, the
significant financial and human resources that will be required
to implement this massive new program that has not been
authorized by Congress, stands to harm all economic sectors,
including those that operate solely on land, that are dependent
in some part on already squeezed Federal programs and
resources.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes this portion of my testimony.
Again, I truly appreciate the invitation and opportunity to
provide you and the Committee with this information. I will be
pleased to respond to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Captain Zales follows:]
Statement of Capt. Robert F. Zales, II, President,
National Association of Charterboat Operators
Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey, Representative
Southerland and members of the committee, my name is Robert F. Zales,
II and I am appearing today on behalf of the National Association of
Charterboat Operators (NACO). NACO thanks you and the Members of the
Committee for your kind invitation to present testimony on this issue
today.
NACO is a non-profit 501 (c) (6) association representing charter
boat owners and operators across the United States including the Great
Lakes. I also serve on the Board of other recreational fishing
associations and work with a national coalition of recreational for
hire, private recreational, and commercial fishing associations as well
as the National Ocean Policy Coalition. I have been involved in fishing
for over 47 years with over 21 years of that time involved with local,
state, and federal fishery management providing expert testimony,
serving on a host of advisory panels, and working to ensure that reason
and common sense are applied to the management of our natural
resources.
On July 19, 2010 President Obama signed and executed Presidential
Executive Order 13547 creating the National Ocean Policy (NOP). Two
years later, this one stroke of a pen has led to the creation of the
National Ocean Council (NOC) and we are awaiting the announcement of
the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan. This plan will provide
for the creation of 9 Regional Planning Bodies whose membership will be
limited to Federal, State, and Tribal Representatives only. Regional
Planning Bodies will adopt a comprehensive National ecosystem based
management principal, implement comprehensive, integrated, ecosystem
based coastal and marine spatial planning and management, and a host of
other management objectives. As bureaucrats gather to draw lines on
maps and determine the fate of significant contributors to the economy
and social fabric of the nation, the fishing and boating communities
simply will not have a seat at the table.
Here in the Gulf of Mexico region, 19 officials from fourteen
federal entities have been identified to participate on a government-
only ``Regional Planning Body'' (Department of Interior, Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park
Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Environmental Protection Agency,
Department of Commerce (NOAA), Department of Homeland Security (Coast
Guard), Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Department of Transportation, US Air Force, and
US Navy). Apparently, Mr. Chairman, you and your colleagues are not
necessary to the proper management and care of our natural marine and
land based resources as Congress has been left totally out of the
process.
Charter, commercial, and saltwater recreational fishing is
extremely important to the United States, both economically and
socially. According to the NOAA publication Fisheries Economics of the
United States for 2009 Recreational Saltwater Fishing produced sales
impacts from angling and durable expenditures totaling $50 BILLION and
value added impacts of $23 BILLION while providing over 327,000 JOBS in
2009. In addition the Commercial Fishing industry provided over 1
MILLION JOBS, $116 BILLION in sales and $32 BILLION in income impacts.
Seafood Retailers added another 484,000 JOBS and contributed another
$10 BILLION to the nations' economy. This impact is derived on less
than 20% of the seafood provided locally as over 80% of our Nation's
seafood is imported. According to the local Tourist Development
Council, 15% of Tourism Dollars comes from saltwater recreational
fishing off Panama City. All of these industries depend on our healthy
and resilient resources and must have flexibility in management in
order to survive.
Recreational and commercial fishermen are already over-regulated
and subjected to restricted fishing seasons, overly-restrictive bag
limits and quotas, closed areas to boating and fishing, the Endangered
Species Act, Clean Water Act, and Marine Mammal Protection Act, engine
emission regulations, marine protected areas, gear restrictions, U.S.
Coast Guard regulations, manning requirements, life-saving
requirements, licensing, medical review processes, navigation
restrictions, and FCC radio licensing and requirements, among others.
In addition to the coastal impacts of the NOP, according to the
American Farm Bureau Federation, instead of being restricted to just
the oceans and coasts, the National Ocean Policy ``could extend to the
regulation of every farm and ranch in the United States.'' The NOP
national priority objective for Water Quality and Sustainable Practices
on Land is to ``enhance water quality in the ocean, along our coasts,
and in the Great Lakes by promoting and implementing sustainable
practices on land,'' with the draft implementation plan proposing an
action to ``reduce rural sources of excessive nutrients, sediments,
toxins and pathogens.''
Under the Regional Ecosystem Protection & Restoration national
priority objective, the NOC has proposed in part to ``support the
development and implementation of State-wide nitrogen and phosphorus
reduction strategies in the Mississippi River Basin and Gulf region''
and the ``development of State regulatory certainty programs for
reducing nutrient and sediment loads'': will ``support'' of states
translate to coercion, as is taking place in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed? The Mississippi River Basin spans from Montana to New York,
draining water from parts or all of 31 states. The new overlay of
federal requirements could negatively affect home builders, private
landowners, and other businesses. Furthermore, the significant
financial and human resources that will be required to implement this
massive new program, that has not been authorized by Congress, stands
to harm all economic sectors--including those that operate solely on
land--that are dependent in some part on already-squeezed federal
programs and resources.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes this portion of my testimony. Again, I
truly appreciate the invitation and opportunity to provide you and the
committee with this information. I will be pleased to respond to any
questions.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Captain Zales, and I thank all of
you for your testimony.
And Captain Zales, I want to thank you for your testimony
regarding the National Ocean Policy. That is a big concern of
mine, because while Washington is a coastal State, my
particular district is in central Washington and two rivers go
through--two principal rivers, there are more than just those
two--but the Columbia River and Snake River. And that policy
would have a huge, huge effect, as you alluded to in your
testimony.
My understanding is that you have been involved in the
Marine Protected Area Advisory Committee for some time now. In
your opinion, and the discussions that are going on within that
committee, is there much science or is it more about some
policy objectives that they want to address?
Mr. Zales. Mr. Hastings, I was one of the initial
appointees to that panel, and ended up my last few years
serving on that panel about 3 years ago as vice chairman of
that panel. It had 30 members from all varieties of
stakeholders on there from fishermen to environmentalists to
government people.
In my opinion, on that panel, there is a true agenda to
pretty much put fishermen and boaters off the water. It started
out--initially it was a pretty clear balance of representation
on there. We had the oil industry involved with it, like I
said, commercial and recreational fishermen, the environmental
community, there are academics on there, there are--you know,
all the agencies from the Federal Government are represented.
We were able to get, in the first 2 years--and it was tough--we
came up with an initial plan and there was a lot of negotiation
that went back and forth. And it was only within the last few
hours of the last day of the meeting that we finally came
together on that.
But since that time, it is my understanding it has drifted
away from that initial work, it has just become more--the
membership has become more academic and environmental oriented
and there is a continued push--and they continually use, to
this day, the Marine Protected Act off of California. And if
you follow that Act, you see that there has been a host of
problems. I mean there are court cases out there today with
that Act where there were a lot of things done behind the
scenes outside of public view that created these large areas of
marine protected areas off of California that should not have
been done if they had been done properly. And that has been
used as the epitome of how you do it.
Now if that is how you do things, we have serious problems.
And hopefully in the Federal system, you will look at it a lot
better.
The Chairman. Well, I will just simply say that is my view
in a variety of areas and I intend to.
I will yield the balance of my time to Congressman
Southerland.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Great testimony, thank you very much for being here today.
Ms. Hansard, let me ask you a question. Your organization
has been effective in building and placing artificial reefs in
the Gulf, yet it appears that NOAA does not use those sites to
survey fish. Why do you think they ignore these areas in
surveys?
Ms. Hansard. I could not begin to tell you why they do it
because it does not make any sense to me whatsoever. If you
look at the Florida panhandle, according to FWC, 95 percent of
our sea floor is sandy bottom. If we did not build artificial
reefs in the Florida panhandle, we would not have a fishery in
the Florida panhandle to support all the different people that
want to go out there and fish.
So the fact that they are not surveying those reefs just
means that they are not looking at the majority of the fish in
our area.
Mr. Southerland. I have heard this--can you confirm this? I
have heard that some 40 percent of the landings out of the Gulf
of Mexico, red snapper landings, occur in Alabama. And I have
not actually been there to see their rebuilding program, but I
heard it is very robust. So is it a true statement that the
reason that they have such a large percentage of landings is
directly related to the fact of their very aggressive
rebuilding program?
Ms. Hansard. I have this which I will show you, a picture.
Now this map is a little outdated, Escambia County and Bay
County have gotten a few more permitted zones, this is from a
few years ago. You can see the green areas is Alabama's
permitted areas and you can see the other colored areas, those
are the permitted area that we had in the Florida panhandle.
They have permitted almost every square inch of their sea floor
and they allow people to go in there, even private people go in
there and drop anywhere in those permitted areas. And one of
the wonderful things about the private artificial reef building
is that private artificial reefs do not have the pressure put
on them that the public artificial reefs have. And they help
the fishery at absolutely no cost to the taxpayers.
If the Federal Government were to remove some of the
restrictions and encourage private reef building, then we could
help our fishery. I think we could rebuild our fishery in 5
years if they would get out of the way, let the private
industries build up our fishery. Even these people that are
sitting out in this room today, I am sure a lot of these people
would build reefs at no cost to the taxpayers. And every single
reef that goes into the water, whether you have the coordinates
to it or not, helps our fishery because it gives fish habitat.
The Chairman. My time has now expired and I will now
recognize you for your time. This is the way we do it back in
Washington, D.C. It may be convoluted to some of you that are
watching this here, but we have 5 minutes, if we do not use it,
we will yield to somebody that wants to utilize that time.
Obviously, Congressman Southerland, this being his district,
knows the area much better than I, so I am going to yield to
him. I will now recognize him for his own time.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Captain Jennings, you stated in your testimony that it is
not up to Congress to decide what tools fishery managers can
and cannot use. But who do you think wrote the Magnuson-Stevens
Act?
Mr. Jennings. Congress wrote the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Mr. Southerland. Well, OK, if we wrote the Magnuson-Stevens
Act and we also authorized the Magnuson-Stevens Act, then--I
mean just by its very nature, we have to get involved in
understanding the process. And why would we want Congress to
pass, you know, laws that have to be reauthorized every several
years without the knowledge that we are seeking?
Mr. Jennings. Without the knowledge that you are seeing as
far as the problems with the data? I am not really following
your question.
Mr. Southerland. Well, I think you are kind of picking and
choosing, I mean when you want Congress to be involved and when
you do not. I mean, for example, you said that the removal of
rigs is hurting the business. And if that is the case--and then
you say if Congress does not act, the Department of the
Interior will require that all inactive rigs be removed
immediately. So is this a case where you would like Congress to
step in? Because we hold the Department of the Interior's feet
to the fire, we serve as accountability to President Obama and
his agencies. So I mean, I hear push back when we are asking
questions and we are trying to be--again, this is my home, this
is the only place I have ever known, and I think my motives
here of trying to be involved and trying to get data and
information so we can make really good decisions and hold these
departments' feet to the fire, I think is a pure motive.
So, you know, the criticism that we need to approve more
funding, as you also state in your testimony, and then when you
say stay away from the Magnuson-Stevens Act, it seems to be
inconsistent.
Mr. Jennings. No, I think the message we are getting from
Congress has been inconsistent. We were given Magnuson-Stevens
and then it was reauthorized and now when we start to work
within that process of Magnuson-Stevens as local constituents
and local fishermen, we are faced with things like the Jones
bill, which is slipped in from the back door to shut down
something that Magnuson-Stevens gave us the opportunity to work
on in the first place.
And when it comes to the Rigs-to-Reefs Program, the problem
that we have with removal of the Rigs-to-Reefs Program goes
back 20, 30, 40, sometimes 50 years and comes down to the lease
agreements. They are bound under lease agreements to remove
those rigs. That was the problem, it was not Congress that is
causing them to remove those rigs. We need some kind of
injunction or some kind of help along those lines, whether it
be a Federal judge or Congress or anything. I was trying to
bring that to light more to how the removal of those fish----
Mr. Southerland. OK.
Mr. Jennings. You talked today about how these artificial
reefs hold these fish and how they are beneficial to our
fishermen and to our economies and to this resource. And that
is the reason I have that in my written testimony. I removed it
from my oral testimony today because it was kind of a sidebar
issue.
Mr. Southerland. Yes. Well, I know that, you know, you talk
about the Magnuson-Stevens Act and there are a lot of good
things in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, I do not question that.
Mr. Jennings. Yes.
Mr. Southerland. But one of the standards, and I want
everyone to understand that one of the standards that is
clearly inside the Magnuson-Stevens Act that is often
overlooked--and I am reading from Section 301 of the National
Standards for Fisheries, directly out of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, it says that ``Conservation and management measures shall,
consistent with the conservation requirements of this Act, take
into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing
communities to the extent practical, minimize adverse economic
impacts on communities.'' And I want you to know that when I
push NOAA, give me the facts of an economic impact of your
rules, they will not do it. And I think it is only fair,
representing you, that I fight and demand that every part of
Magnuson-Stevens is adhered to, not just the part that they
like, ignoring the part that they do not like. And I think to
ask what the economic impacts are before we push these
regulations over on someone, I think that is a fair
expectation.
And I think you and I would agree on the rigs that look, if
the rigs are good for the fishermen, why in the world, if you
have a rig that is good for the sustainability of the fishery,
why would they remove that rig, if it is proven to not harm the
environment.
I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. I will recognize
myself for a final round here of questioning.
I want to make an observation and one of the reasons why I
was looking forward to coming down here--I did not mention it,
but I will mention it now, the Natural Resources Committee has
jurisdiction over most Federal lands and offshore waters and
obviously you, here on the coast. Now Federal lands, from my
point of view, unless otherwise designated, were designed to be
for multiple purposes--as recreation and commercial activity.
I come from the Northwest where unfortunately there is a
lot of Federal land. You are lucky, you do not have a lot of
Federal land except--it is all water here, but land/water,
believe me. I have some counties that have 75 percent of their
county owned by the Federal Government, and the activities are
greatly restricted because of that.
Now there has been a movement going on for generations in
this country to restrict commercial and recreation activities
on Federal lands. I suspect that that same activity has
extended to the fisheries, whether you are talking about the
coast of California or talking the Atlantic coast and probably
in the Gulf. You should be aware of that, because the
consequences of that will be harmful in the long term to the
economy and the way of life you all know. Captain Zales alluded
to that in his testimony. And especially with this National
Oceanic Policy.
But I want to give you just a couple of take-aways that I
got from testimony here, as it relates to my area in the
Northwest. The issue here--and I did not sense that there is
any disagreement about artificial reefs being beneficial to the
fishery--but one of the big debates in the Northwest is the
issue of salmon, and particularly the issue of wild salmon. Now
we have had fisheries on the Columbia River for well over 100
years. Nobody marked the hatchery fish over 100 years ago,
which would be probably 25 generations ago, but all of a sudden
now, there is a movement saying that you cannot harvest wild
salmon when they could be progeny of hatchery salmon several
generations ago. And there are advocates that are using that
argument to even advocate taking out dams, which of course
provide the electricity in the Northwest.
The reason I am giving you this background is because I
think in the long term--and by the way, when I hear that debate
about hatchery fish, it sounds to me strangely similar to not
counting artificial reefs. The similarity there to me is true.
And all I am suggesting to you, you all had better be aware of
it, I understand there is tension between commercial and
recreation, that is one of the reasons we are here--I recognize
that. But what you want is a viable fishery, that is what you
really want, is a viable fishery.
There is and has been a political agenda in this country
that wants to cause that to end. And so to the extent that all
of you can get together--yes, Magnuson-Stevens is a national
act, there is no question about it. But yes, it was designed
with regional jurisdiction, if you will, as best can be done.
Now just because you have regional jurisdiction does not make
it easy. For goodness sakes, it is hard, there is no question
about that. But the alternative to having some sort of regional
decision-making is national, one size fits all. That, to me, is
not acceptable, I think that is a horrible way to go and I
simply ignore that.
So what I want to say, and one of the take-aways I got
coming down here is there are other agendas out there, and do
not be caught up in the other agendas that will destroy your
livelihood, whether you are recreational or whether you are
commercial. But you had better be aware of that. And the
National Ocean Policy that was alluded to by Captain Zales and
alluded to in others' testimony, will in fact potentially have
precisely that outcome.
So I just want you to know, this will be worked on, we will
have more open debate on Magnuson-Stevens, no question about
that. But I am a firm believer that government that's closest
to the people governs best. But there is no guarantee that it
is easier, it is hard. We live in a country where we have had
liberty and freedom for over 200 years. A lot of countries
would like to be like us and we should never lose sight of
that.
So I want to thank all of you for being here, I want to
thank the panel and I will yield to Mr. Southerland.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to say that I am--first of all, thank you for being
here and thank you for your remarks. Currently, in the Gulf of
Mexico, we currently have--and I am referring to recreational--
currently 3.9 annual catch limits or 619, 620,000 pounds of
fish caught--so 620,000 pounds of fish caught equals 3.9. As I
am looking at these numbers and I look back at 2006 and we had
1.3 million fish caught at 9.1 tag. Based on that increase, it
seems that the fish for the recreational sector should be in an
ACL of 7.6 million pounds, if you do the numbers, the size of
the fish and the increase in the poundage.
I am going to ask you this, Captain, because you do this
for a living and I do not, why--why has that adjustment not
been made when all of the data that oftentimes the Council
seems to trust and NOAA seems to trust, why has that not been
adjusted?
Mr. Jennings. The information that we had gotten from NOAA,
Congressman, is that the size of the fish has increased. I know
that we are missing some size classes in the fish and we see
that when we are on the water.
Mr. Southerland. And by the way, that was referring to the
snapper.
Mr. Jennings. Yes, sir, I followed you, I followed the
numbers. We are seeing some issues with some age classes on the
water, we are seeing some very large fish and some--for our
part of the Gulf anyway, I cannot speak for the entire Gulf of
Mexico, but I am just talking about being on the water. We are
seeing some very large fish and we are seeing a lot of very
small fish. We are seeing some issues with some age classes
that may be missing and seeing some issues with some bottom
that may not be holding some fish as well as it did. I know I
am hearing a lot of issues from the North Central coast about
there's missing fish after the oil spill and things along those
lines.
But why those numbers have not been adjusted, I am guessing
here, from the information I have received, it has got to do
with some missing age classes, some areas that are still not
holding fish, some areas that are holding fish that haven't
held them historically. And there is still some uncertainty in
the numbers themselves, but one of the things we do is we see,
as these numbers get thrown around, the math gets more and more
and more fuzzy about where we should be and where we can go and
cannot go and things along those lines. I think we are sitting
on a position where the stock assessment that we are looking at
for 2013 is probably going to be one of the bigger issues and
things may be able to be adjusted after that. The shame of the
matter is that----
Mr. Southerland. But we are hearing rumors that some in the
Administration believe that we have exceeded that once again
and in spite of having lost so many days to weather and we did
have the additional 6 days, but they are already saying, guess
what, you are over.
Mr. Jennings. I think the number was anywhere from 400 to
800,000 pounds.
Mr. Southerland. I guess my point is they never seem to be
satisfied in being willing to take away from us, is my point.
They will not recognize the good data that we do have, they
will not make adjustments when we have increases and there is
strong evidence that the fisheries are healthy. As a matter of
fact, in the South Atlantic, red snapper has been closed for
over 900 days--900 days. And guess what, no assessment is even
scheduled.
So if they said to you, we are just going to close you down
for 900 days and, you know what, we are going to move $300
million out of research and data and we are going to put
another satellite in space, does that seem like the kind of
bureaucrats we want to trust with our livelihood?
Look, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks
like a duck, it is a duck. At some point in time, I have to ask
these individuals that are 1,000 miles from here and have never
put bait on a hook, what are you doing--what are you doing.
That is not fair.
Captain Adams, it seems to be common sense--that is missing
a lot in Washington, D.C., but----
Mr. Adams. They seem to be missing quite a bit actually in
Washington, D.C. about the health of our fisheries. I do not
think that is really an issue to them. I mean every time we
count the fish, we have gone over our limits, they will not
count the fish on the artificial reefs, then they destroy our
reefs and take out a million more pounds here and there. It
just does not make any sense.
Mr. Southerland. Two things that bother me, and in
closing--I know I have the red light--I am bothered, number
one, that there are people from the commercial sector, there
are people that can buy catch shares, they can live in Kansas,
they can live in Kansas, never, again, put bait on a hook and
they are taking away from you. I want you to know, I have a
problem with that. You are struggling. As a matter of fact, I
asked in the last hearing we had, the last hearing before we
came, when they seize a foreign vessel, or any vessel, that is
illegally harvesting, I asked them what do you do with all the
fish that you seize. Do you know what they said? They auction
them off. And I said well, that fish that you auction off, what
is that poundage credited to. The commercial IFQ. Well, why
should you be OK with them seizing fish caught illegally and
then them hammering you and taking away from your IFQ. That is
not right, it is unfair. That is unacceptable. Look, we can
stand to raise the annual catch limits. We can stand to--all
the data says there is a lot more fish out there and we have
heard numbers like 90 million, 100 million. We deserve more,
you deserve more. You have been sold out for decades. It breaks
my heart. I am not here to hurt you, I am here to get to the
truth. And every time I talk to NOAA, the Department of
Commerce, when I see them slide $300 million out to put
satellites in space and all the things that they are doing and
not doing, it angers me, because you deserve better.
I want to say to Doc Hastings, I want to say thank you for
coming. This is my home, those waters, I learned to swim in
those waters. All four of my children were baptized in that
water. It is home. I thank you for coming.
The Chairman. We have one more panel and we may----
Mr. Southerland. Oh, I was not aware of that, I thought we
just had two. Very good.
The Chairman. As I dismiss this panel, we will have Dr.
Richard Merrick, Director of Scientific Programs and Chief
Scientific Advisor for the National Marine Fisheries Service,
and I would ask him to come up as we dismiss this panel.
[Brief pause.]
The Chairman. The Committee will reconvene and we have our
third panel, Dr. Richard Merrick, Director of Scientific
Programs and Chief Scientific Advisor for the National Marine
Fisheries Service.
You heard the protocol as far as testimony is concerned. We
very much appreciate your coming here. You sat in on the first
two panels, and I hope that there was something that was
gleaned out of the discussion there.
So Dr. Merrick, with that, I will recognize you for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD MERRICK, DIRECTOR, SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMS
AND CHIEF SCIENCE ADVISOR, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE,
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Dr. Merrick. Thank you. Chairman Hastings, Representative
Southerland, thank you for the opportunity to testify before
you today. My name is Richard Merrick and I am the Director of
Scientific Programs and Chief Science Advisor for the National
Marine Fisheries Service at NOAA.
Like my fellow speakers, I also grew up on the coast of
Florida as well as New Jersey and I came from a charter boat
family. I have spent most of my 27 years with NOAA working on
the water in Alaska and New England to develop science-based
advice for NOAA managers. Today, I want to talk about how our
fishery science underpins and provides for good fisheries
management in the U.S. and here in the Gulf of Mexico.
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we have used this to advise
management councils in the States and fishermen to make great
strides in ending over-fishing, rebuilding stocks and building
a sustainable future for our fishing communities. Today, the
U.S. is the fisheries management model for the world.
Some 230 finfish and shellfish stocks comprise the bulk of
the landings and value for U.S. fisheries. To sustainably
manage these stocks, we need to know how big that stock is, and
what proportion of it can be harvested without impacting its
long-term productivity. Stock assessments are conducted for
this purpose, and in a typical year, we provide around 90 new
stock assessments to managers.
Because of the diverse fish stocks and habitat in the
Southeast, stock assessment efforts have lagged behind the rest
of the country here. However, in recent years NMFS, by
providing focused funding for the Southeast, has strengthened
our relationships with our partners and significantly improved
our stock assessment process and we are obtaining more and
better data.
There are a few examples of how this is happening. The
incorporation of recreational fisheries in the fish stock
assessments may be more important in the Gulf of Mexico and the
South Atlantic region than in any other part of the country. We
try to produce data as part of the NMFS Marine Recreation
Information Program, or MRIP. Under MRIP, NMFS is implementing
revised methodologies to substantially improve the accuracy of
the effort and catch estimates that are developed from our
angler surveys.
NMFS is also working on pilot projects to move toward
electronic reporting, including sampling head boats and logbook
reporting for charter boats.
Another example is because Gulf reef fish are so hard to
survey, NMFS is funding a multi-year research project with the
University of South Florida to explore to use of towed camera
arrays to assess the stocks in these hard to survey areas,
whether artificial or natural reefs.
Finally, in Fiscal Year 2010, recognizing that we needed
more stock testing scientists, the Southeast Fisheries Science
Center received funds to bring on five additional stock
assessment scientists to work in the Gulf of Mexico. This will
double our stock assessment output from an average of 5 stocks
per year to approximately 10 per year by 2015.
Now it is true that the Gulf of Mexico red snapper
management has posed one of our greatest challenges. However,
the difficult catch reductions that commercial and recreational
fishermen have endured to end over-fishing are now beginning to
pay off. Our most recent red snapper stock assessment indicated
over-fishing of red snapper had ended in 2009. Since then, we
have been able to provide commercial and recreational catch
increases each year, and fishermen on the west coast of Florida
have been afforded new fishing opportunities as red snapper has
expanded to its historic range.
NMFS is working with the council on ways to adjust the
recreational red snapper season within the constraints of the
Magnuson Act to better meet the needs of fishermen. We provided
a supplemental recreational red snapper season in the fall of
2010 after the DWH oil spill resulted in closure and prevented
the recreational sector from taking its entire quota. Also, we
extended the length of the recreational red snapper season this
year by 6 days after it was determined that weather events
likely caused fishing efforts to be lower than expected. So we
continue to look for these types of opportunities to adapt and
improve our management approach.
Finally and perhaps most importantly, we are now in a
position to provide significantly improved assessment advice on
red snapper based on the enhanced sampling effort that was
begun in 2010 and the new stock assessment scientists in the
Southeast. Work has begun on the new benchmark assessment. This
assessment will be delivered to the Gulf Council in late spring
of 2013 for incorporation into the quota that we will set for
the next fishing year.
So in summary, NMFS is working hard to improve the science
that acts as a basis for management decisions in the Gulf. With
cooperation and support of Congress, our management partners,
industry, we are making great strides to having a more complete
understanding of these important fishing resources in the Gulf
of Mexico.
I would like to thank all of the preceding speakers that
have given me some new insights into the issues here. And
again, I want to thank you all for the opportunity to testify
before you today and I am happy to answer any questions you
have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Merrick follows:]
Statement of Dr. Richard Merrick, Director, Scientific Programs & Chief
Science Advisor for the National Marine Fisheries Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Introduction
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I
appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today about how
strengthening America's fisheries strengthens the economy. My name is
Dr. Richard Merrick and I am the Director of Scientific Programs and
Chief Science Advisor for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
within the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). Thank you very much for the opportunity to come
before you today.
NMFS' mission is stewardship of living marine resources for the
benefit of the nation through science-based conservation and
management, while simultaneously promoting the health of marine
ecosystems. Today, I will discuss how our fisheries science is
conducted and how this science underpins and provides for good
management here in the Gulf of Mexico. I will also describe some of the
recent advances we have made in our science.
Effective fisheries management is based on science. National
Standard 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) mandates that all fisheries conservation and
management measures must be based upon ``the best scientific
information available'' (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(2)). While there are
challenges in securing accurate, precise, and timely data for stock
assessments, on balance, science-based management has consistently
proven to provide better resource management than decisions made
without this advice.
Sustainability of our Nation's fisheries requires continual
monitoring of fisheries and fish stocks. NMFS continues to make
substantial progress toward improving the quality of the science
available to effectively manage commercial and recreational fisheries,
benefiting coastal communities and the U.S. economy both today and for
generations to come.
NMFS is an international leader in fishery science, rebuilding
overfished stocks, and preventing overfishing. 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.
Robust Science is the Foundation for Management
Some 230 finfish and shellfish stocks comprise the bulk of landings
and value for U.S. fisheries. NOAA monitors the status of these stocks
in several ways, with a key indicator being the quality of the stock
assessment advice provided to fisheries managers. To sustainably manage
these stocks, we need to know how big that stock is, and what
proportion of it can be harvested without impacting its long-term
productivity. Stock assessments are conducted for this purpose, and in
a typical year, we provide around 90 new stock assessments to managers.
NMFS supports the development of fish stock assessments through
several budget lines, including Expand Annual Stock Assessments, Survey
and Monitoring, Fisheries Statistics, Fishery Information Networks, and
Observer Programs. NMFS also utilizes NOAA's Office of Marine and
Aviation Operation's Fishery Survey Vessels as a primary platform for
many of its stock assessment data collection activities. The
President's FY 2013 request for NOAA includes robust funding to support
stock assessments. Specifically, NOAA's FY 2013 request would increase
the Expand Annual Stock Assessment budget by another $5 million,
increase the Survey and Monitoring budget line by $2.3 million (to
historical levels of $24.3 million), increase the Observer Programs
budget by $2.9 million, and maintain funding from other contributing
budget lines. This combined funding level would allow NMFS to continue
to increase the number of stocks with assessments which are of adequate
precision to identify the status of the stock and to set fishery
quotas.
The stock assessment process includes both data collection and the
analysis of that data by fishery scientists. Data for fishery science
is based generally on three sets of data:
1. Fishery catch from monitoring commercial and recreational
fisheries,
2. Fish abundance from scientific surveys, and
3. Fish biology from a variety of sources including
cooperative research.
By tracking these three data series over time and incorporating
these data into stock assessment models, scientists can estimate the
current range and abundance of stocks, calculate maximum sustainable
yield, determine whether overfishing has been occurring or whether the
stock has declined into an overfished state, and can project a
sustainable level of catch. The latter provides the foundation for
setting annual catch limits in accordance with law.
Fishery Catch
Commercial Fisheries
NMFS is continually striving to improve and augment its processes,
methods and programs for commercial fishery data collection and
analysis. For example, in the Gulf of Mexico, commercial landings data
are collected in cooperation with the five Gulf States and the Gulf
States Marine Fisheries Commission, and are used to track progress
toward reaching the Annual Catch Limits of managed stocks. By shifting
from paper dealer reports, submitted semimonthly, to electronic dealer
reporting, submitted weekly, more timely data are generated to more
accurately project when a fishery will reach the Annual Catch Limit.
This will enable commercial fishermen to more efficiently plan their
fishing activities, and reduce the risks of exceeding an Annual Catch
Limit.
In addition, NMFS has relied heavily on its partnerships with the
states and the interstate marine fisheries commissions to conduct
efficient and cost-effective monitoring of commercial landings and
recreational catches. The federally-funded Fisheries Information
Networks have provided a means through which NMFS has been able to work
collaboratively with its partners to design and implement well-
integrated data collection programs that meet the management needs of
both state and federally-managed fisheries. Cooperative regional
programs such as the Gulf Fisheries Information Network have worked
effectively to eliminate unnecessary overlaps, standardize data
elements and collection methods, and improve the timeliness of data
processing, statistical analysis, and dissemination of catch statistics
to all partners.
Recreational Fisheries
The Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic regions may be the most
important areas in the country for incorporation of recreational
fisheries into fish stock assessments. These data are collected as part
of NMFS' Marine Recreational Information Program. NMFS is developing
and testing new survey methodologies to improve the accuracy,
geographic resolution, and timeliness of recreational fishing catch and
effort data, which are based on the findings and recommendations of the
National Research Council's 2006 review of the Marine Recreational
Fishing Statistical Survey. NOAA's FY 2012 enacted budget includes $10
million to continue implementing improvements developed through the
Marine Recreational Information Program. The President's budget request
for FY 2013 is level with FY 2012 for this program.
NMFS previously developed recreational fishery catch estimates for
the Gulf and Atlantic coasts via three ongoing surveys. The coastal
household telephone survey generated information on angler trips. The
access point angler intercept survey provided data on catch per trip.
The results of these two surveys were combined to generate catch
estimates for shore and private boat angling modes. The for-hire survey
and the access point angler intercept survey were utilized to provide
estimates for the for-hire (charter and head boat) mode. Under the
Marine Recreational Information Program, revised methods were developed
that are being incorporated to substantially reduce sources of error
and improve the accuracy of effort and catch estimates based on a
combination of telephone, mail, and access point surveys.
The Marine Recreational Information Program has also been working
with our state partners, including Florida and Louisiana, to develop
and test new methods that utilize angler registries to survey anglers
for production of trip estimates. Following completion of major pilot
efforts under way in CY 2012 and CY 2013, a new survey design to
replace the coastal household telephone survey will be selected and
implemented for the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. The Marine Recreational
Information Program and our partners are also developing and testing a
number of other possible improvements to the current suite of surveys,
including:
Pilot projects to move toward electronic reporting
and improved sampling for validation of the Southeast Headboat
Survey;
Development of a sample design to subdivide Florida
into sub-state geographic regions;
Pilot testing of a logbook reporting with dockside
validation for the Gulf of Mexico Charterboat fishery;
Methods to produce preliminary estimates more
frequently than bi-monthly, and to evaluate the tradeoffs among
timeliness, precision of estimates and cost.
In addition to these improvements, NMFS also initiated expansion of
recreational data collection in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill. NMFS provided funds to our state partners to enable them to
significantly increase sampling via the for-hire survey in the Gulf of
Mexico from May 2010 to June 2011. The increased sampling effort, and
resultant improved precision of the charter boat trip estimates,
enabled NMFS and our partners to produce and publish weekly trip
estimates to be used for near real-time tracking of the fishery. Weekly
tracking of changes was useful for documenting and assessing economic
impacts associated with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. In addition,
weekly estimates of for hire fishing trips was compared to past fishing
rates based on past experience, and differences were used to evaluate
the potential for changes to fishery management actions.
Fish Abundance
Long-term monitoring of fish abundance provides an indicator of the
status of the stock over time, and as such are invaluable inputs to
stock assessments. The importance of such time series has been driven
home by recent environmental perturbations. Hurricane Katrina, the oil
spill in 2010, historic floods in the Mississippi River basin in 2011,
and the severe drought of this year all have influenced commercially
and recreationally important species and their habitats in the Gulf of
Mexico.
The Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-212, 124 Stat.
2338) provided $10 million to conduct additional fish surveys in the
Gulf of Mexico to help capture changes in living marine resource
populations relative to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. A majority of
those funds were used to contract commercial and recreational vessels
for use as research platforms to enhance fishery-independent data
collections. With these funds we were able to add a total of 846 days
at sea to our base level of effort of 60 days at sea. Nearly 1,200
additional bottom longline stations were added and comparisons of these
data to vertical long line samples were made possible. Over 5,000 red
snapper otoliths (ear bones used to age fish) were collected and
processed, compared to the more typical level of about 300 samples.
These data will be instrumental in the red snapper benchmark stock
assessment currently underway.
NMFS expects to develop new and innovative approaches to surveying
fish stocks in hard to survey areas, which are common in the Gulf of
Mexico. We are funding a multi-year research project with an academic
partner to explore the use of towed camera arrays for use in surveying
reef fishes in the Gulf of Mexico. If feasible, shifting to this
approach would dramatically increase the effectiveness and efficiency
of our reef fish surveys--meaning more science for the dollar. We are
also providing support for capitalizing on the advanced multibeam
hydroacoustic capabilities of the NOAA Ship Pisces, enabling us to
characterize fisheries habitat while simultaneously sampling the water
column.
Stock Assessments
All of the data discussed thus far provide the inputs for stock
assessments. Passage of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Reauthorization
Act in 2006 resulted in requirements for timely stock assessments, to
ensure overfishing has ended, set Annual Catch Limits and to track
progress toward rebuilding overfished stocks. In FY 2010, the NMFS'
Southeast Fisheries Science Center received funds to bring on seven
additional stock assessment scientists to help meet this need. Five of
the new scientists have been assigned to work primarily on Gulf of
Mexico species. With these new scientists, we expect to double our
stock assessment output in the Southeast from an average of about five
stocks per year to approximately ten Gulf of Mexico stocks per year by
2015.
The Southeast Data, Assessment and Review process is being
streamlined to increase throughput. Modifications to the process are
being made in a way that balances the desire for both speed and
transparency. Increases in our throughput of stock assessments will
better enable the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery
Management Councils to measure the effectiveness of their management
decisions and refine their strategies based on this feedback to the
economic benefit of the region.
Science-Based Management of Red Snapper
Fishery management in the Southeast Region is unique because of the
large number of species managed, the multispecies nature of fisheries,
the wide range of gear types used, and the variable objectives of user
groups. In recent years, NMFS has provided focused funding to build
stock assessment capacity in the Southeast. The goal of this effort is
to support the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery
Management Councils as they work to meet the new statutory requirements
of the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act. We have implemented annual
catch limits proposed by the three regional councils for all species,
where required, as well as rebuilding plans and management measures to
end overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks.
We recognize the impacts catch reductions required to end
overfishing are having, and we are working hard to minimize adverse
economic impacts on fishermen and fishing communities throughout this
recovery period. Gulf of Mexico red snapper management has posed one of
our greatest challenges. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that we
specify separate commercial and recreational quotas for red snapper and
that we close each fishery when it takes its quota. For many years, the
commercial red snapper fishery was subjected to increasingly shorter
seasons because the capacity of the fishery to catch the quota was much
larger than needed. Prior to 2007, the commercial red snapper season
had been reduced to about 88 days, on average, and we implemented the
first individual fishing quota program in the Gulf of Mexico at
industry's request to end the race for fish and improve fleet
profitability.
The difficult catch reductions that commercial and recreational
fishermen have endured to end overfishing are now beginning to pay off.
Our most recent red snapper stock assessment update (2009) indicated
overfishing of red snapper ended in 2009. Since then, we have been able
to provide commercial and recreational catch increases each year, and
fishermen on the west coast of Florida have been afforded new
opportunities to target this popular species as it has expanded to its
historic range. But we still have a great deal of work remaining to
effectively manage the recovery of this resource. While recreational
fishermen recognize and appreciate that higher catch rates and larger
fish are substantially improving the quality of their fishing
experience, they are frustrated and dissatisfied with the progressively
shorter fishing seasons required to constrain them to their quota.
NOAA Fisheries is actively working with the Council on ways to
adjust the recreational red snapper season within the legal constraints
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to better meet the needs of fishermen. We
provided a supplemental recreational red snapper season in the fall of
2010 after the large-scale closure we implemented in response to the
Deepwater Horizon event prevented the recreational sector from taking
its entire quota. Also, we extended the length of the recreational red
snapper fishing season this year after determining that a series of bad
weather events likely caused fishing effort to be lower than expected.
We continue to look for these types of opportunities to adapt and
improve our management approach.
We are now in a position to provide significantly improved
assessment advice on red snapper based on the enhanced sampling effort
that was begun in FY 2010 and the new cadre of stock assessment
scientists provided to the Southeast through supplemental NMFS funding.
This assessment will begin with a data workshop in August 2012 where
data collected by NOAA and our state and academic partners are reviewed
to formulate the strategy for the stock assessment. This will be
followed by a benchmark stock assessment model (January-February 2013),
and an independent peer review of the assessment's results (April-May
2013). The stock assessment is expected to be delivered to the Gulf of
Mexico Fishery Management Council in the late spring of 2013 for
incorporation into the quota setting process for the next fishing year.
General Views on Proposed Legislation
In previous hearings before this Committee, the Department of
Commerce has commented on proposed legislation that would amend the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. We would like to take this opportunity to
reiterate a couple of key concerns with respect to Annual Catch Limits
(ACLs) and stock assessments:
It is critical that we maintain progress towards meeting the
mandate of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to end overfishing and, as
necessary, rebuild stocks. ACLs are an effective tool in improving the
sustainability of fisheries around the Nation, and NOAA has concerns
with legislation that would create exemptions or otherwise weaken
provisions regarding ACLs. Uncertainty in the stock assessments upon
which ACLs are based should not be used as a basis for exempting
fisheries from ACLs. Such actions risk depleting fisheries and making
fishermen worse off than under the current, science-based management
system.
In an increasingly constrained fiscal environment, legislation
should 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 additional benefit. Moreover, legislation should be
cost-effective and consistent with the President's Budget. 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 and rebuild stocks.
Conclusion
Sound, science-based management is central to rebuilding the Gulf
of Mexico fishery resources to levels that support stable jobs and a
healthy economy in the region. We remain committed to improving the
quality and timeliness of the data and scientific advice used to
support management decisions here in the Gulf of Mexico, in
collaboration with our many partners in the fishing industry, states
agencies and academic institutions. Thank you again for the opportunity
to discuss NMFS's fishery science. We are available to answer any
questions you may have.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Merrick, we
appreciate your testimony.
It seems to me that one of the issues is getting good data
and then utilizing that good data. Now according to the
National Standard Guidelines, if a council and its SSC have old
information, they are required to use precaution and include
buffers when setting the over-fishing level, when setting the
allowable biological catch level and when setting the ACL. They
are then also required to include buffers for managing
uncertainty.
Now this could require councils to include as many as four
or five buffers in calculating harvest levels. Is this not a
serious problem when fisheries are not surveyed regularly or
frequently?
Dr. Merrick. It has potential to be. The way in practice--
--
The Chairman. It has potential to be?
Dr. Merrick. In practice, the way most councils have dealt
with this, is they have set the ABC equal to the ACL, so they
removed the management buffer basically. So most of the buffer
that exists is the buffer for scientific uncertainty. It's
basically one buffer and it is typically, as you may recognize,
about 25 percent.
The Chairman. But you could go up--I mean the point is,
what we are asking, we now have buffers, we have ACLs and you
say--I just heard you say that this has not been but
potentially could. My understanding of the way the guidelines
are, you could have up to four or five buffers, which would be
a problem; is that correct?
Dr. Merrick. Well, yes. There is potential for four or five
buffers. Whether that is a problem or not is not clear.
Basically these are the standards that have been applied.
The Chairman. But it is being based on data and you are
making decisions and the data is uncertain or old and you are
adding buffers, which presumably would lower harvest levels,
would that not be a problem?
Dr. Merrick. It would only be a problem in the sense that
we want to make sure that we do not over-fish. So that is why
the buffers are there, that uncertainty buffer.
The Chairman. OK. Well, let me ask it this way, because I
can see how potentially--because this is relatively new--I can
see potentially this being run out where in fact it has a great
restriction on harvest levels and I am wondering, taking your
answer that this could be a potential, is there anything that
we should be looking at in the reauthorization to address this
issue. If the potential is there to have buffers--now I will
draw this conclusion, maybe somebody will disagree with me, but
if you have more buffers, it seems to me you are going to have
a smaller harvest. And a smaller harvest is not going to be
based on good data. That is the potential that I see that is a
negative.
I would like to find a way to get around that in the
reauthorization. Can you help in that regard?
Dr. Merrick. It is generally considered that there are two
suites of buffers, the ones that go through the over-fishing
limits to the ABC and then the ABC and the ACL catch limit.
Those can be dealt with in two separate ways. We do see the
scientific uncertainty as how you--that is the buffer between
the OFL and the ABC. That can be produced by having better
quality data, more timely assessments. Again, with more stock
assessment scientists, for example, you have more assessments.
So that is directly amenable to having additional funding, and
that is one of the reasons we continue to ask for more funds
for the stock assessment scientists.
The management uncertainty one is in some ways a lot
tougher to get to because that basically says how well can you
manage the fishery, how well do you understand what the catch
is.
The Chairman. But that is what the council is for, the
council's report will ascertain that.
Dr. Merrick. Right. So when the council----
The Chairman. That is not easy, I acknowledge that is not
easy. It is always going to be hard, but I guess what I am
getting to in order to ask this question, is this having some
certainty. And I am just afraid--I will have to kind of digest
what you said as to your answer on this, but I see some
uncertainty as long as the potential is out there for those
buffers. And I would like you to think about where maybe some
flexibility in Magnuson-Stevens can, you know, maybe--these are
regulations, these are not written in Magnuson-Stevens, this is
authority given. That sometimes scares me because sometimes we
give too much authority to the agency to write regulations.
Dr. Merrick. I think it is a major issue as we move toward
management of fisheries, the process where we sort of jump
start the Gulf with the new version of Magnuson-Stevens. This
should be an issue that we talk about, uncertainly is an issue
with all the councils.
The Chairman. One last statement, is this shared up and
down the line?
Dr. Merrick. It is in NMFS from Eric and Sam down to me.
The Chairman. OK, very good.
My time has expired. I recognize the gentleman from
Florida.
Mr. Southerland. First of all, Doctor, thank you very much
for being here.
Dr. Merrick. I am here, I am the third panel.
Mr. Southerland. You are the third panel, thank you very
much.
A witness on an earlier panel discussed State-funded
surveys. As a matter of fact, during the break, I had someone
in an orange shirt come up and express to me the desire to
get--well, the unrest about giving NOAA all this money, because
they have proven to be able to waste a lot of money and that
they needed data and they did not want money to be wasted. And
I agreed with him, and he was referring to the RESTORE Act and
the money that goes toward that and I stated that there is
money that is going directly to the States for that as well, to
kind of serve as a little protector, that the States, the five
States around the Gulf, do a good job I think, oftentimes some
would say a better job. And so with that being said though, an
earlier witness on an earlier panel discussed State run
surveys. How does NOAA incorporate that information into its
stock assessments?
Dr. Merrick. Directly typically.
Mr. Southerland. Directly?
Dr. Merrick. Yes. Any stock assessment usually has a
significant number of lines of data that are coming into it.
There is no actual survey that goes out and counts every fish,
so the output is from bits and pieces.
Mr. Southerland. Sure.
Dr. Merrick. So we have surveys that are conducted by us,
we have State surveys and that is all around the country. Those
all become part of the data stream that goes into the stock
assessment.
Mr. Southerland. One of the concerns raised by Commissioner
Ryan was the lack of funding for the Interjurisdictional
Fisheries Act grants. In fact, it appears that NOAA is slowly
eliminating funding for all the grant programs that provide
funding for outside entities that really help and we depend on
these outside entities. And they are trying to keep all of the
funding in other areas of NOAA. So while we appear to need more
data, better data, more individuals, NOAA keeps eliminating
grant programs and saying we want to keep all the money here. I
guess they have this love affair with satellites.
Can you tell us why the very valuable Interjurisdictional
Fisheries Act grants are being zeroed out?
Dr. Merrick. It is largely because we have to reduce
funding somewhere and we are closing our own labs, for example.
The Interjurisdictional grants are one of the areas that have
been considered to be a lower priority. There are directed
surveys that we are funding.
Mr. Southerland. But Doctor, let me say this, being in
Washington, it is an amazing thing that I see. I mean, we are
$16 trillion in debt, OK, the CBO just came out this week and
said on our current pace we are going to hit $20 trillion in
debt by 2016. If you come to Washington, D.C., you see
construction cranes everywhere. I mean they are building
buildings, they are hiring employees, the Federal Government is
expanding, they are exploding. So I think it is about choices
that the President is--I think they are making choices that
maybe one department means more to them than another and so
therefore, they are saying we would rather grow in another area
and while we all agree--everyone agrees we need better data,
everyone. I have not had anyone disagree with that. We keep
listening to those in higher places move that money because
they are making a different choice. When we need something that
we all agree on, they are moving that money to other places,
and it is just aggravating as a new Congressman to see, and I
know that has got to be frustrating to you.
Dr. Merrick. I can understand why you are aggravated. I
happen to be a champion conceivably for science. We have been
fairly successful and if you look at the 2013 budget request,
the only place where the money is going up is fish stock
assessments--not a lot, but at least it is going up.
Mr. Southerland. Let me ask you another question. According
to testimony given earlier, the recreational season for gag
grouper was closed for approximately three quarters of the
year, including all summer. Amberjack was closed most of the
summer and red snapper was open for 40 days plus those
additional six that you alluded to earlier. With these
restrictions and with the fact that we are seeing that some of
these fisheries are rebounding and doing well, how do you
expect, how could we expect a charter boat operation to stay in
business?
Dr. Merrick. I recognize it is difficult.
Mr. Southerland. It is more than difficult.
Dr. Merrick. Part of the reason I am here goes back to the
story of why I am no longer in my family charter boat business.
I saw them going out of business because there were no fish,
this is in New Jersey in the 1950s. And the place for me where
I could make a contribution seemed to be by providing better
science and that is why I am here today.
Mr. Southerland. Well, let me say this. I think you are
needed, I think you should not have to compete with agendas
that seem to take the money necessary for good data, good
research, at a time when we need it like we have never needed
it before. And so I thank you.
I see I have my red light on, so I will yield back.
The Chairman. I just have one question, Dr. Merrick, and
that is you heard the discussion on the artificial reefs. Do
you have an opinion on that?
Dr. Merrick. Let us go back to what a stock assessment is.
It is not a census of populations. Basically a stock assessment
takes a stream of data series and incorporates that trying to
recreate a virtual population. We use the results of the
artificial reef in terms of the larval survey. We do not go and
count fish on the artificial reefs, but our partners do and as
part of this stock assessment, there will be data----
The Chairman. Who is your partner in this case?
Dr. Merrick. In this case, this current stock assessment,
there are a lot of partners but the ones who are dealing with
artificial reefs are Auburn University in the State of Alabama
and the University of South Florida.
The Chairman. Now I do not mean to interrupt, I will let
you finish your thought, but you say in this assessment.
Dr. Merrick. Yes.
The Chairman. Does that mean in prior assessments that was
not done?
Dr. Merrick. That is correct.
The Chairman. So it was not done. The testimony we heard--I
am glad you are going forward. I do not think they count
hatchery fish in the Northwest sometimes too, I think that
would be a plus. Why did they not do that prior, is my
question?
Dr. Merrick. At that point, it was not considered to be a
strong enough data stream to be used.
The Chairman. I mean this is maybe the advantage of not
living here but having experience going out in the Gulf and
seeing the fishery around an oil rig. That truly baffles me
that that would not be considered as a place that you should be
counting. I am glad you are doing that, that is good. I will
let you finish your thought.
Dr. Merrick. Two points here. One is that as we do a stock
assessment, it is not NOAA doing a stock assessment, it is not
NMFS doing a stock assessment, we have a community that does
that stock assessment. So if you go to a workshop, you will see
a variety of people there, there are a variety of scientists
there participating in that. Some are academic, some are State,
some are Federal. So if that group is deciding that there is a
data stream that is not ready to be used, it is not----
The Chairman. That bothers me when I hear the group decides
it is not a data stream.
Dr. Merrick. To be used, it is not ready at the current
time.
The Chairman. To be used. The fundamental issue is the
difference between artificial and natural reef. Who decides
that data should or should not be used and why?
Dr. Merrick. The scientific peer review body basically
decides.
The Chairman. On a case-by-case basis?
Dr. Merrick. Potentially, yes.
The Chairman. I guess we need more information on that.
Dr. Merrick. Sure, the point though is you should recognize
that those data sets have now reached the point where they are
going to be used in this next stock assessment.
The Chairman. And the Committee definitely will follow up
with you on that.
The concern that I certainly got from this testimony is
that it had not been used before. And of course, the big
question is how does that affect the overall fishery because it
has not been used before. Go ahead.
Dr. Merrick. My second point was that remember again, we
are not censusing population. We are not going out and counting
all the fish. We are using a series of indices. Even in Alaska,
when they are doing pollock surveys, they are using their
surveys as indices of the abundance of pollock. There are a
variety of indices you can use--larval indices are valid and
are actually used in the Gulf for stock assessments, and that
is one of the ways that if there is spawning going on on
artificial reefs, those fish will be counted. So if there is
more spawning going on, the larval count goes up.
The Chairman. I will yield my last minute and then the
extra five to you, Steve.
Mr. Southerland. First of all I am glad you are here today
because you are the one doing the surveys, you are the one
doing the research, and I think you are credible.
It bothers me that we have not been using that data in the
past. I have had several individuals tell me today that we
have. And you are saying that we have not in the past, but
going forward we are going to start because you have partners,
you have other people that are assisting, you have other people
that are coming in that is valuable. But it is also at a time
that NOAA is choosing--back to my original point--that NOAA is
choosing, making a choice to zero out Inteurisdictional
Fisheries Act grants that enabled those organizations to be
funded to come and partner with you to get down to the facts.
It is--you do need assistance, but you also need some common
sense at the top making better choices so that--we have to look
differently at this budget issue, we have to say OK, what is
critical, what is a necessity and what is a luxury. This
Administration is funding luxuries while the necessities--good
data, so you all can make a living--are being ignored.
So, look, I thank you for being here helping us, Doc and I.
We have not had testimony that shed light on this, and I just
thank you for being here.
I guess I have one other thing--do I roll over?
The Chairman. Yes, you roll over, it is your time now.
Mr. Southerland. Tell me about, I heard this from others
and this is just a question that I have heard from people that
make a living, OK, many are here. How do you factor in natural
disasters and how those natural disasters may affect--for
example, and I hear this, that after Katrina, that diesel
prices have gone through the roof and all these fishing boats
are fueled by diesel. And it shot up to over $4.00 a gallon and
just the price of taking your boat out has increased their
expense--not any increase in revenue, not any increase in being
able to make more money, but the expense side of their P&L has
increased. And diesel prices have really not come down, so
therefore, a lot of shrimpers have left. They have left the
United States, they have gone to China. As a matter of fact, I
heard some people say that the percentage has dropped down--100
percent of the shrimpers we had pre-Katrina are now down to 55
percent. So if you do not have shrimpers shrimping in these
bays and you have baby fish, juvenile fish in the nurseries
growing--and that is where they grow--would that not have an
impact on the increase that we see in red snapper? That is just
common sense. Would that not have something to do with perhaps
some of the onerous regulation that continue to harm our
fishermen--would it not make--I mean do you all take those kind
of things--back to my question, do you all take into
consideration some of those things that are real events that
really happen that harm real people? Do you consider that?
Dr. Merrick. In a couple of ways, yes. If, for example, an
event like that occurred, the fishing pressure was much reduced
and you wound up with an ecosystem effect since there was more
larval survival or more little fish, we would pick that up in
our larval surveys. So by having a continual series of surveys,
which is one thing that is important to have, you would see
that.
In terms of economic impact to the community, that is
something that we would pick up as we would go through the
analysis, the economic analysis that is required for any
fisheries management action.
Mr. Southerland. OK, OK. I know we have waning seconds and
this is the last minute and a half and I will not get any more
time. In Washington, everything is based on time. You see on C-
SPAN, us yielding time to partners, time is a precious
commodity there and I know your time is a precious commodity.
Many of you are struggling, I get that, for you to be here says
that you want to have a say in your business going forward. You
deserve that.
I want to say thank you to all of you, no matter where you
come down on the issues that we have discussed today, I want to
say thank you for being a part of your government going
forward. You deserve a say, that is why we brought this field
hearing here, because not everybody can afford to come to D.C.
and leave their families and their businesses. So I thank you.
I want to thank everyone who testified here today. Thank
you for coming to our home, this is a wonderful place and we
have some pretty good seafood restaurants by the way in close
proximity to here, I am sure they would love to feed you after
our hearing.
And to Doc, I want to say thank you very much. I know
Washington State is a long way and I know that you and I do not
agree on everything, but you know what, I will say we could not
have a better man serving as the Chairman of the Natural
Resources Committee. He has been fair to me and he has allowed
me to have this opportunity to have the Committee come here. So
I just want to say thank you to everyone that participated, all
of you who have been here for the last few hours. Doc, again,
thank you and God-speed in your travels. And I yield back.
The Chairman. Good, thank you very much. Thank you, Steve.
And Dr. Merrick, thank you very much.
And I want to thank the first two panels also for their
testimony. I do know that, Dr. Merrick, on this particular
issue, the Committee will follow up on trying to ascertain why
that was not done before and what was left on the table as far
as the artificial reef. We will give some thought to that and
follow up and we would like to have a response obviously as
soon as we possibly can.
Dr. Merrick. Not a problem.
The Chairman. And I too want to thank all of you for being
here. These issues obviously are not easy. For goodness, sake,
if they were easy, we would not be here, I think that is
probably self-evident. But I am a firm believer that we should
try to get the best data that we possibly can on whatever
issue, because after all, at the end of the day, Steve and I
have the privilege of representing you in the government and we
want to make sure that whatever decisions we make are made on
the best information that we possibly can have.
I will say when I flew in here last night, just on a
personal note, I saw all the thunder and lightning. The good
news is that you did not get any forest fires because of the
lightning. If you have heard about forest fires on the West
Coast, when we get thunderstorms like that, we typically do not
get the rain and as a result, as you saw, as you are reading
the papers, the forest fires in the western part of the United
States principally come from that activity you had last night.
So maybe you can be thankful you have all this rain. I think
sometimes you are not.
I will make a note, while this is a full Committee hearing
and yet there are only two of us here, that satisfies the
requirements, but all members of the Natural Resources
Committee were invited to attend and the information obviously
that is gleaned from here will be shared with all of our
members and their staff.
So once again, I want to thank all of you. You have been
very patient and we appreciate that very much. And if there is
no further business to come before the Committee, we stand
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]