Remarks presented on 9/6/97 at the Tulane Law School Conference, entitled:

The Magnuson-Stevens Act: Sustainable Fisheries for the 21st Century?
by Robert P. Jones, Executive Director Southeastern Fisheries Association Inc.

My invitation to be a presenter said, "the purpose of this conference is to examine what implementation of the amended Magnuson-Stevens Act will mean for fishing..." and that I would be part of a Panel to discuss " Bycatch: How Serious and What Solutions?"

I am going to speak primarily about shrimp by-catch in the southeast.

The by-catch issues are many and complex affecting, both commercial and recreational fishermen. They occur locally, regionally, nationally and internationally . Some receive more media attention than others. Many people in the world think that by-catch is only a problem for the commercial fishermen. The competent, professional fisheries managers know better.

Sea bird by-catch for instance, receives a lot of ink as net fishermen are routinely accused of indiscriminately killing sea birds. During the Florida net ban fight, the commercial fishermen were branded as bird killers, among other things. In an attempt to find out if there were any statistics on who was doing what to whom, I contacted the Department of Environmental Regulation and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services who put me in touch with several sea bird rescue organizations.

According to published literature from the Florida Suncoast Sea Bird Sanctuary group, over 85% of all the sea birds they try to save are either killed or wounded by monofilament fishing line. Very few sea birds are killed by US fishermen in the southeast. It may be the same in other parts of the country. Perception is the commercial fishermen are killing the sea birds in Florida. In reality, the biggest cause of death to sea birds is the monofilament fishing line used by millions of recreational fishermen.

Sea bird bycatch by shrimp trawlers is not even a minor occurrence. Actually it's just the opposite if consideration is given for all the seabirds being fed by the bycatch from shrimp trawling. Numerous pelagic species are fed by shrimp bycatch and there is some scientific discussion that such feeding has enhanced the population of many pelagic species. And of course, the number of bottlenose and other type dolphins fed from shrimp bycatch is astounding. In the latest underwater video testing a particular BRD, porpoises can be seen picking their lunch directly from the net as the fish leave through the BRD.

Another area of concern which makes the bycatch issue serious is what we consider to be a well coordinated and heavily funded campaign of misinformation against the shrimp industry by regional and national "environmental" organizations.

For instance, the Natural Resources Defense Council's (NRDC) web site has an article entitled, "What Should We Do About Shrimp?" They ask which of the following options would work best.

1. Boycott
2. Consumer Labeling
3. Improved National Measures
4. The Turtle Excluder Device
5. An eco-tax

On page 2, the NRDC says "An estimated 124,000 endangered Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtles died in 1995 by drowning in shrimpers nets, the largest slaughter of endangered animals in the world." Does anyone who knows anything about the turtle/ted issue really believe that the shrimpers "slaughtered" 124,000 Kemp Ridley turtles in 1995. The Chief of the Protected Species office in St. Petersburg, Florida states the actual number of Kemp Ridley strandings from all causes in 1995 was 289. Because the shrimp industry is always blamed for strandings by some environmental groups it has often wondered what is causing the turtle strandings in Chesapeake Bay. It's surely not the shrimpers for there is no shrimping in the Bay. If strandings are occurring because of degradation of the water from pollution or natural causes in the Chesapeake Bay, shouldn't some of the strandings in the southeast being blamed on shrimping be put into some other cause of death category?

The point is, misinformation campaigns and articles that make average citizens think the ocean is doomed or create animosity toward commercial fishermen are counterproductive for solving real problems. We invite NRDC and other similar groups to establish an honest and open dialogue with the shrimp industry.

Shrimp trawling results in a bycatch of non-target species. Shrimp trawling will always result in a bycatch of non-target species. The domestic shrimp industry agrees bycatch should be reduced to the extent practicable according to the will of Congress but not according to the will of National Marine Fisheries Service. The domestic shrimp industry knows NMFS headquarters has a stated desire in their Strategic Plan allowing them to "use all available tools, including vessel and permit reduction programs where needed to reduce fishing capacity in overcapitalized fisheries" . The NMFS guideline and authority to remove commercial fishing vessels is couched in terms of "overcapitalized fisheries" which is an undefined term and can be whatever NMFS wants it to be. This is unacceptable.

Conversely, there is no program to cap or reduce the number of recreational fishing vessels or limit saltwater anglers, which in my home state of Florida is approaching 1,000,000 recreational saltwater licenses being sold annually. I got to thinking that there are probably more hooks in Florida waters from July 1 to July 5th each year than are fished in the offshore waters by our longliners during an entire year. I wish I could quantify that thought and I wish there were better scientific data on recreational fishing bycatch.

The bycatch from these 1,000,000+ recreational hooks deserves serious attention if the goal of NMFS is to reduce bycatch and reduce overfishing wherever it occurs.

Getting back to the shrimp bycatch issue, a picture painted for the public by some environmental groups is that all shrimp trawls destroy coral and scoop up tons of gamefish while operating in all the waters of the ocean collapsing all these fisheries. Not true.

The present commercially utilized shrimp grounds have been fished for decades and according to many of the fishermen, as well as the Louisiana Department of Fish & Wildlife (LDFW). The LDFW has a 20 year database indicating no changes in the stocks of fish and invertebrates in Louisiana estuaries and even shows some species are increasing. Shrimp trawling in federal waters does not occur primarily over coral and other important outcroppings of fauna and flora. On the contrary, shrimp trawling in the Federal zone in the Atlantic Ocean off Florida is done almost exclusively on smooth ocean bottoms.

As far as reducing bycatch, the shrimp industry believes it has already reduced bycatch over 50% from historical levels with the implementation of the Ted regulations, the decrease in number of shrimp vessels and the loss of shrimp grounds formerly open.

Shrimp trawling in the Gulf of Mexico is mostly on bottoms that are smooth or muddy but not full of coral. Shrimp trawlers in the Gulf and South Atlantic catch tons of debris, trash and discarded equipment dumped overboard by onshore and marine users which is brought back to their shoreside facilities for proper disposal by the shrimp companies.

The latest and most accurate information available on shrimp bycatch is the Final Report of the Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation (GASAFDI) entitled, "Bycatch and Its Reduction in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Shrimp Fisheries". A copy of this report is available from the GASAFDI headquarters in Tampa. It is posted on the web at www.southeasternfish.org for anyone interested in studying or copying the document.

According to the Executive Summary of that report, "two separate NMFS analyses show the bycatch to shrimp ratio as 5 1/4:1 for the Gulf of Mexico and 4 1/2:1 in the South Atlantic. More importantly, the generalization of a 10:1 bycatch ratio has been misquoted to represent the finfish to shrimp ratio when in fact, in the Gulf of Mexico the finfish to shrimp ratio was 4.2:1 and in the South Atlantic the ratio was 2.8:1". The 10:1 number was just one of many characterization values generated during the 70's and 80's which ranged from less than 1:1 to larger than 50:1 This makes us think that NMFS's claim that reduced ratio is from overfished and declined finfish stocks isn't so realistic, especially when one considers that changes in nets (out with the old high rise single trawls and in with low-profile quad rigs) and the addition of TED's in the nets.

There has been a significant bycatch of red snapper reported associated with the harvest of brown shrimp (Paneaus aztecus) , though many shrimp fishermen question the numbers being used by NMFS. Adding credibility to the doubts expressed by the shrimp industry, it is my understanding that a recent, "independent red snapper stock assessment" has been completed and its conclusions indicate that the stock may be in much better shape than proposed by NMFS. Its conclusion is that the stock appears to be recovering even under status quo so why go to additional lengths until better data are available. It is my understanding that the estimates of SPR for red snapper generated by the independent assessment are near the target goal of 20% but I haven't red the report as yet.

There was also a significant bycatch of weakfish associated with the harvest of white shrimp (Paneus setiferus) and brown shrimp (Paneus aztecus) in the South Atlantic shrimping areas. The red snapper bycatch has driven the Gulf Council shrimp management plan and weakfish bycatch has driven the South Atlantic shrimp management plan. It was these two fish bycatch species that were a major reason for placing a bycatch standard (Section 301, National Standard 9) in the recently amended Magnuson-Stevens Act.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act creates several new standards. The one germane to this conference of course is the new National Standard 9 which says, "Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize bycatch and (B) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch." This new National Standard contains 25 words. The proposed NMFS Guideline for National Standard 9 has about 900 words and the complete package of National Standards guidelines from NMFS takes 36 pages of singled spaced text. And believe it or not but all comments pertaining to these proposed guidelines must be sent to Dr. Gary C. Matlock by September 18, 1997.

We saw the guidelines that are being proposed to manage our lives and industry for the first time on August 4 and have to have all comments in by September 18 is not a very good way to create a cooperative situation for this program as contemplated by Congress. NMFS should workshop these guidelines throughout the shrimp areas impacted prior to etching them in stone.

Public hearings on guidelines such as these by NMFS are generally useless. Written comments made by the shrimp industry are usually sloughed off as meaningless as was seen in the recent Gulf Shrimp FMP Amendment 9. NMFS noted in the transferal letter to Rolland Schmitten , that the membership of the several environmental groups that supported the BRD amendment totaled over 1,000,000 which seems enough to justify any kind of regulations NMFS writes. If we are wrong in this perception we need to be shown.

This attitude of the fishing industry towards NMFS is further exacerbated as long as NMFS is allowed to write any kind of regulations or guidelines they wish with hardly ever a chance of affected interests changing them except through costly litigation. It is not good governance when any governmental agency can write, interpret, enforce and have judicial oversight over their own rules.

I will move on to some important provisions affecting the shrimp industry contained in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In the Policy section it says," It is further declared to the policy of Congress in this Act-- (3) to assure that the national fishery organizations and management programs....considers the effects of fishing on immature fish and encourages development of practical measures that minimize bycatch and avoid unnecessary waste of fish; and is workable and effective."

This tells us that Congress wants to minimize bycatch and avoid unnecessary waste of fish but they expect NMFS and others to develop practical measures and create devices that are workable and effective. We can certainly live with this Congressional Policy.

Section 405 (d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act mandates that the Secretary of Commerce, in cooperation with affected interests and based on the best scientific information available, complete a program to-- (1) develop technological devices and other changes in fishing operations necessary and appropriate to minimize the incidental mortality of bycatch in the course of shrimp trawl activity to the extent practicable, taking into account the level of bycatch mortality in the fishery on November 28, 1990; (2) evaluate the ecological impacts and the benefits and costs of such devices and changes in fishing operations; and (3) assess whether it is practicable to utilize bycatch which is not avoidable. We can live with this because what Congress says is that all 3 items are to be carried out in cooperation with affected interests. Congress has mandated that NMFS not develop this program in a vacuum. Congress has mandated that the shrimp industry be included. Congress is to be congratulated for this action.

Section (e) concerns the Report to Congress and Section (f) is the Implementation Criteria which seems to leave a lot of leeway for NMFS to use to accomplish a hidden agenda if they are so inclined.

How these Congressional mandates are translated through NMFS Guidelines will determine the success or failure of this endeavor. If the guidelines are unresponsive to Congress and include statements not backed up by scientific facts, then another major confrontation will occur and the bycatch situation will not be appropriately addressed by the agency nor the affected interests.

For example, 16 Congressmen from all Gulf states except Florida, wrote Secretary of Commerce Daley expressing their serious concern about the adoption of Amendment 9 of the Gulf Shrimp FMP which mandates the use of BRD's. This letter questions whether the provisions of the new Magnuson-Stevens Act were followed. They doubt that Amendment 9 meets the required standards. So do we.

In closing, we have been told that a 6% loss of shrimp can be expected with the use of BRD's that have been approved. According to one fleet owner who has 11 shrimp vessels, this 6% loss in shrimp harvest equates to a 58% loss in profit for his business. A 6% loss is far more than it sounds and a 58% loss to the bottom line of a reputable business is not what Congress intended in our opinion.

Thanks for the opportunity to share some thoughts with you today.