Congressman Walter Jones Questions NOAA Catch Share Policy

Congressman Walter Jones Questions NOAA Catch Share Policy

WASHINGTON — Nov. 8, 2010 – Today U.S. Congressman Walter B. Jones (R-North Carolina) sent a letter to Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), opposing NOAA’s recently announced National Catch Share Policy and demanding answers regarding its development. Jones called the policy "totally unnecessary for species protection." He expressed outrage over NOAA’s announcement of a $2.2 million grant program to advance its catch shares agenda, which will put Americans out of work and is opposed by the vast majority of fishermen. Jones believes that "to the extent that solid science demonstrates that reductions in catch in any given fishery are necessary, there are far better options than catch shares for achieving those reductions." Jones has long opposed catch shares and is working in Congress to block funding for implementation of new catch share programs.

The Congressman asked Dr. Lubchenco to respond to the following questions:

1. What specific law does NOAA believe gives it the statutory authority to promulgate its National Catch Share policy?

2. Your staff has informed me that $1 million of the $2.2 million catch share grant program is being provided by NOAA. Exactly which account is that money coming from? The Asset Forfeiture Fund? Which specific law does NOAA believe gives it the statutory authority to spend money for this purpose? Is it the official policy of the agency to spend millions to put people out of work?

3. Is it NOAA’s policy to ignore the will of fishing communities – the vast majority of whom oppose catch shares – and to rig the council process to favor implementation of new catch shares programs?

The text of the letter sent to Administrator Lubchenco follows:

"Dear Administrator Lubchenco:

On behalf of the North Carolina fishing communities I am privileged to represent, I would like to express my strong opposition to the National Catch Share Policy and the $2.2 million catch share grant program which the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced last week. It is astonishing that at a time of near record unemployment and exploding federal deficits, NOAA stubbornly continues its agenda to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to advance a catch share policy that is totally unnecessary for species protection and that all acknowledge will put more Americans out of work.

As you know, the Magnuson-Stevens Act sets the framework for fisheries management in this country. Under the act, fisheries management councils are given the option to use a variety of measures to manage fish stocks, only one of which is catch shares. The act does not establish a preference for catch shares. The act does not authorize the agency to promulgate a policy to encourage fishermen and councils to select catch shares over other management options. The act does not authorize the agency to spend taxpayer money to support the efforts of special interest groups seeking to petition the councils and the agency to establish more catch share programs. But yet with last week’s announcement, this is exactly what NOAA is doing.

Furthermore, it appears that NOAA – through the Secretary of Commerce – is selecting fishery management council members based on their allegiance to catch shares. Collectively, these actions leave the impression that NOAA is attempting to hijack the council process in order to impose its catch shares agenda.

Therefore, I would appreciate answers to the following questions:

1. What specific law does NOAA believe gives it the statutory authority to promulgate its National Catch Share policy?

2. Your staff has informed me that $1 million of the $2.2 million catch share grant program is being provided by NOAA. Exactly which account is that money coming from? The Asset Forfeiture Fund? Which specific law does NOAA believe gives it the statutory authority to spend money for this purpose? Is it the official policy of the agency to spend millions to put people out of work?

3. Is it NOAA’s policy to ignore the will of fishing communities – the vast majority of whom oppose catch shares – and to rig the council process to favor implementation of new catch shares programs?

In closing, to the extent that solid science demonstrates that reductions in catch in any given fishery are necessary, there are far better options than catch shares for achieving those reductions. The last thing the federal government should be doing in these economic times is spending millions of taxpayer dollars to expand a policy that will put even more Americans out of work.

I hope you will take these words to heart, and I look forward to your response."
_________________

Congressman Walter Jones Questions NOAA Catch Share Policy

WASHINGTON — Nov. 8, 2010 – Today U.S. Congressman Walter B. Jones (R-North Carolina) sent a letter to Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), opposing NOAA’s recently announced National Catch Share Policy and demanding answers regarding its development. Jones called the policy "totally unnecessary for species protection." He expressed outrage over NOAA’s announcement of a $2.2 million grant program to advance its catch shares agenda, which will put Americans out of work and is opposed by the vast majority of fishermen. Jones believes that "to the extent that solid science demonstrates that reductions in catch in any given fishery are necessary, there are far better options than catch shares for achieving those reductions." Jones has long opposed catch shares and is working in Congress to block funding for implementation of new catch share programs.

The Congressman asked Dr. Lubchenco to respond to the following questions:

1. What specific law does NOAA believe gives it the statutory authority to promulgate its National Catch Share policy?

2. Your staff has informed me that $1 million of the $2.2 million catch share grant program is being provided by NOAA. Exactly which account is that money coming from? The Asset Forfeiture Fund? Which specific law does NOAA believe gives it the statutory authority to spend money for this purpose? Is it the official policy of the agency to spend millions to put people out of work?

3. Is it NOAA’s policy to ignore the will of fishing communities – the vast majority of whom oppose catch shares – and to rig the council process to favor implementation of new catch shares programs?

The text of the letter sent to Administrator Lubchenco follows:

"Dear Administrator Lubchenco:

On behalf of the North Carolina fishing communities I am privileged to represent, I would like to express my strong opposition to the National Catch Share Policy and the $2.2 million catch share grant program which the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced last week. It is astonishing that at a time of near record unemployment and exploding federal deficits, NOAA stubbornly continues its agenda to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to advance a catch share policy that is totally unnecessary for species protection and that all acknowledge will put more Americans out of work.

As you know, the Magnuson-Stevens Act sets the framework for fisheries management in this country. Under the act, fisheries management councils are given the option to use a variety of measures to manage fish stocks, only one of which is catch shares. The act does not establish a preference for catch shares. The act does not authorize the agency to promulgate a policy to encourage fishermen and councils to select catch shares over other management options. The act does not authorize the agency to spend taxpayer money to support the efforts of special interest groups seeking to petition the councils and the agency to establish more catch share programs. But yet with last week’s announcement, this is exactly what NOAA is doing.

Furthermore, it appears that NOAA – through the Secretary of Commerce – is selecting fishery management council members based on their allegiance to catch shares. Collectively, these actions leave the impression that NOAA is attempting to hijack the council process in order to impose its catch shares agenda.

Therefore, I would appreciate answers to the following questions:

1. What specific law does NOAA believe gives it the statutory authority to promulgate its National Catch Share policy?

2. Your staff has informed me that $1 million of the $2.2 million catch share grant program is being provided by NOAA. Exactly which account is that money coming from? The Asset Forfeiture Fund? Which specific law does NOAA believe gives it the statutory authority to spend money for this purpose? Is it the official policy of the agency to spend millions to put people out of work?

3. Is it NOAA’s policy to ignore the will of fishing communities – the vast majority of whom oppose catch shares – and to rig the council process to favor implementation of new catch shares programs?

In closing, to the extent that solid science demonstrates that reductions in catch in any given fishery are necessary, there are far better options than catch shares for achieving those reductions. The last thing the federal government should be doing in these economic times is spending millions of taxpayer dollars to expand a policy that will put even more Americans out of work.

I hope you will take these words to heart, and I look forward to your response."

_________________

Share this article

What is the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC)?

The global conveyor belt, shown here, circulates cool subsurface water and warm surface water throughout the world. The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation is part of this complex system of global ocean currents.)

The ocean’s water is constantly circulated by currents. Tidal currents occur close to shore and are influenced by the sun and moon. Surface currents are influenced by the wind. However, other, much slower currents that occur from the surface to the seafloor are driven by changes in the saltiness and ocean temperature, a process called thermohaline circulation. These currents are carried in a large “global conveyor belt,” which includes the AMOC.

AMOC stands for Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. The AMOC circulates water from north to south and back in a long cycle within the Atlantic Ocean. This circulation brings warmth to various parts of the globe and also carries nutrients necessary to sustain ocean life.

Continue reading →

Read More

What is latitude?

Latitude lines start at the equator (0 degrees latitude) and run east and west, parallel to the equator. Lines of latitude are measured in degrees north or south of the equator to 90 degrees at the North or South poles.

Lines of latitude, also called parallels, are imaginary lines that divide the Earth. They run east to west, but measure your distance north or south. The equator is the most well known parallel. At 0 degrees latitude, it equally divides the Earth into the Northern and Southern hemispheres. From the equator, latitude increases as you travel north or south, reaching 90 degrees at each pole.

Continue reading →

Read More

What is longitude?

Lines of longitude, also called meridians, are imaginary lines that divide the Earth. They run north to south from pole to pole, but they measure the distance east or west. Longitude is measured in degrees, minutes, and seconds. Although latitude lines are alway equally spaced, longitude lines are furthest from each other at the equator and meet at the poles. A transcript is available that describes this infographic content in plain text. (Image credit: iStock)

Lines of longitude, also called meridians, are imaginary lines that divide the Earth. They run north to south from pole to pole, but they measure the distance east or west.

The prime meridian, which runs through Greenwich, England, has a longitude of 0 degrees. It divides the Earth into the eastern and western hemispheres. The antimeridian is on the opposite side of the Earth, at 180 degrees longitude. Though the antimeridian is the basis for the international date line, actual date and time zone boundaries are dependent on local laws. The international date line zigzags around borders near the antimeridian.

Continue reading →

Read More

What is a barrier island?

Satellite image of Cape Hatteras National Seashore on the Outer Banks of North Carolina. Credit: NASA’s Earth Observatory.

Barrier islands form as waves repeatedly deposit sediment parallel to the shoreline. As wind and waves shift according to weather patterns and local geographic features, these islands constantly move, erode, and grow. They can even disappear entirely.

They are generally separated from the mainland by tidal creeks, bays, and lagoons. Beaches and sand dune systems form on the side of the island facing the ocean; the side facing the shore often contains marshes, tidal flats, and maritime forests. These areas are important habitat for seabirds, fish and shellfish, and and nesting sea turtles.

Continue reading →

Read More
Keep Reading