AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE SAVE THE SUMMER FLOUNDER FISHERY FUND TO THE AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION

To the Board of Directors of ASA:

We were disappointed to read, through a press release, the American Sportfishing Association’s response to our request to support Rep. Frank Pallone’s bill, HR 5425, the Flexibility in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act of 2008.

This legislation addresses more than summer flounder. There are many fisheries in dire straits at this time that could be helped by that legislation. Take for example the red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. While it may not get the attention or publicity that summer flounder does, the recreational red snapper fishing community finds itself in a similar crisis because of a lack of management flexibility and arbitrary time frames imposed by Magnuson-Stevens. There are other important recreational fisheries throughout the United States that also suffer from the same problem.

We do not know what was discussed at the ASA Board Meeting, but we do know what is being discussed on docks and in tackle shops throughout the East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico – that the arbitrary deadlines and timeframes imposed by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act threaten to destroy the infrastructure of the recreational fishing community. Environmental groups have demonstrated a willingness to support that destruction. The vast majority of recreational fishing groups have not. Certainly, an industry advocacy group cannot support these arbitrary deadlines in the face of the sacrifices made by recreational fishermen and progress made in rebuilding these stocks.

We read Gordon Robertson’s letter to ASA members as well as your press release and were disappointed and concerned. Gordon’s letter states, “The bill does not solve the problem facing summer flounder.”

We disagree. The problem with summer flounder is not the stock size, which has grown by 400 percent under the management plan, but rather an inflexible management system driven by arbitrary rebuilding schedules. But if ASA believes the bill isn’t the solution, why doesn’t ASA make an effort to recommend language that it believes will solve the problem and work to see that the necessary legislative fix is implemented? It will help with various fisheries throughout the United States.

Gordon’s letter also states: “It will take a collaborative and coordinated effort[s] among industry members and individual angler organizations to solve the problems relating to summer flounder.” At the present time, there are at least 93 recreational fishing and industry advocacy groups supporting the legislation.

Perhaps as troubling to us as ASA’s decision not to support the flexibility legislation is the “Six Action Items” Bill Shedd and Ben Moore say will help the industry. We will address those six items in the hope that ASA will reconsider its position and instead join with others in the recreational fishing community to correct the major problem impacting management of summer flounder and many other species.

Item 1: Encourage states to use management measures that will keep them within the recreational allocation. The states have taken action to do so every year. Each year, scientists involved in the management process set state-specific quotas. Each state is tasked to adjust its management measures so its landings will stay within that state-specific allocation. These measures are submitted to a technical review committee for approval. Many states, such as Delaware, New Jersey and Massachusetts, have set their management measures so that landings would fall below the allowable landings for their state. Summer flounder have been more widely available than was statistically projected almost every year of the plan. As a result, their projected landings were incorrect, and various states have exceeded their allocation. The much touted “retrospective analysis,” otherwise known as the repeated mistake of underestimating mortality of summer flounder, has resulted in scientists retrospectively determining that summer flounder mortality was greater than expected. This, of course, is then coupled with the flawed MRFSS data to say anglers are “overfishing.”

Item 2: An economic impact study and reallocation of the quota shares. We welcome an economic impact study. As for reallocation of the quota, a petition for rulemaking was filed in 2003 by the United Boatmen and Recreational Fishing Alliance to reallocate summer flounder quotas. As we understand it, ASA joined in that reallocation petition shortly after it was filed. Unfortunately, the ASA did not engage in the administrative process necessary to effect that change. Worse yet, CCA Board Member Charlie Witek cast one of the deciding votes against reallocation. More importantly, under the MSA, when formulating conservation and management measures, “Such measure shall not have economic allocation as its sole purpose”. (National Standard 5). A scientific or statistical basis is needed to change the allocation through the administrative process. In addition, reallocation would have minimal impact because the total allowable landings have become so small.

Item 3: Improving angler data. As you may know, NMFS (at the insistence of many recreational fishing groups), has already begun implementation of a program to improve the angler participation data. Everyone wants better data. But even if we have improved recreational participation data, without flexibility in the law, the recreational fishermen in the summer flounder and red snapper fisheries, for example, will continue to be crushed by arbitrary and inflexible time frames.

Item 4: Accurately determining the target biomass and improving the science. We agree that measures need to be taken to accurately determine the target biomass and improve the science. That is SSFFF’s primary goal, but few of us believe that measure alone is enough to assure the viability of the recreational fishery, and it will not happen overnight.

Item 5: Urge the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council to follow the advice provided by the Science and Statistical Committee. This is an accurate statement of the present law but will not help recreational summer flounder fishermen without flexibility in the management process. The well-being of the recreational fishing community needs to be considered as well.

Item 6: Seek a buyout of the commercial industry. We think it would be prudent to determine whether or not commercial fishermen actually want to leave the summer flounder fishery. They may want to continue their livelihood, in which case this item will be a major challenge during difficult economic times. If this item is pursued, however, and ASA and the environmental community insist on enforcement of the arbitrary time constraints, then we would also want to see similar buyout programs for the for-hire industry and domestic tackle industry. We are being hurt as much as, if not more than the commercial fishermen by these provisions in Magnuson. It would be unfair to look to help one sector while the other withers on the vine.

Gordon Robertson is quoted as saying, “The government affairs committee had a thoughtful and thorough discussion concerning this issue.” Respectfully, we cannot imagine that the reallocation petition was discussed in detail when it is proposed in your action items as a new way to address summer flounder management problems. The same is true of the other action items, which are already under way. Gordon further states: “We must continue to review the implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act and identify problem areas. As these areas are identified, we must work cooperatively for effective solutions.” This may be the most alarming and disheartening part of ASA’s press release. Anyone involved in the day-to-day fisheries management process can identify the problem areas for summer flounder and other species. They have been clearly identified by East Coast (and Gulf Coast) recreational fishermen. Indeed, Bill Hogarth, former head of NMFS, warned of the impending “train wreck” that would come about as a result of having to comply with these arbitrary time frames, and various council and government personnel have warned that implementation of these arbitrary measures will be disastrous for the fishing communities.

The recreational community does not need additional reviews or studies – it needs definitive and corrective action. A fix is needed before it is too late. Other than those items that have already been started, the ASA plan would take at least 3 to 4 years to implement.

We ask you to revisit this issue with the ASA Government Affairs Committee. Please consider the comments we have made regarding the action items. We can provide much more detail if the ASA thinks it would be helpful to evaluate its position. Finally, and most importantly, we ask that the ASA reconsider its position with regard to HR 5425, the Flexibility in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act of 2008, sponsored already by 16 congressmen. If you do not feel that those congressmen have adequately addressed summer flounder — which is not the only focus of the bill — then please work with the many groups supporting it to help formulate language that will address this severe problem.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

The Board of Directors
Save the Summer Flounder Fishery Fund

Posted: 05|28|08 at 9:06 am. Filed under: Press Release.