FISHERMEN FEEL IMPACTS OF FEDERAL BUDGET CUTS

 

Not quite one month ago, I speculated about the current administration’s impacts on the federal fisheries management system, focusing on both cuts to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s budget and workforce, and on recent curbs on the agency’s regulatory powers.

Now, some of those impacts are beginning to emerge, and many fishermen are unhappy about what they’re starting to see.

Most of their concerns are related to the reductions in scientific staff at NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service.  The first such reduction took place on February 27, and saw 23 jobs terminated at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center alone; far more jobs were abolished at NMFS' other science centers and across the agency as a whole.  And although such terminations supposedly only affected “probationary employees,” that category is far broader than it might at first appear; although it certainly includes people newly employed by the agency, it also includes long-time NMFS employees who were recently promoted or assigned to new duties, who had a deep understanding of the science and the fisheries management process.  As one recently discharged employee of NMFS Greater Atlantic Region Fisheries Office noted,

“A lot of institutional knowledge has been lost.  It’s going to severely impact the way fisheries are managed.”

Worse, the loss of such valuable employees’ services hasn’t even accomplished the administration’s supposed goal of reducing government spending.  Although a federal district court judge has stayed the NMFS employees’ termination, and reinstated them to their previous positions, a letter they received from the Department of Commerce, NOAA’s parent agency, noted that they were reinstated

“retroactive to the effective date of your termination, and placed in a paid, non-duty status until such time as this litigation is resolved or the Department of Commerce determines to take other administrative action with respect to your employment.”

In other words, they still have a job, and will receive both back pay from the date of their termination and a salary going forward, but they won’t be allowed to do their jobs, or perform any other duties that might benefit the public.  They will be paid for just sitting around. 

It also appears that some of the work done by the terminated-and-reinstated NMFS employees immediately prior to their initial termination may have been lost.  One employee of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, who helped determine fishery observers’ assignments to various vessels, said that she lost access to her computer files soon after termination, and observed that

“Everything I collaborated on, all my [computer] codes, I had no opportunity to transfer it to anyone…data that could be used by colleagues to further the mission of NOAA.  It’s not a professional way to treat individuals or the folks that are remaining.”

She went on to state something that should be obvious to those making the cuts.

“It’s very unfortunate to think about the rebuilding that we’re going to have to do after this.  If there is some kind of regulations freeze, it can end up where people can’t fish”

due to a lack of the data needed to manage regulated fisheries.

While that’s hardly a model of government efficiency, it does seem to be the administration’s preferred—or, at least, the administration’s default—approach to running things.

And that approach has many people in the fishing industry, or closely related to it, concerned.

Daniel McKiernan, the Director of Massachusetts’ Division of Marine Fisheries, pointed to the contributions NMFS makes to his state’s efforts to manage marine resources, noting that the cuts to NMFS funding and personnel

“may harm our state’s ability to conduct research and assess fish populations.  This would negatively affect our commercial fishers, seafood dealers, aquaculture operators, and seafood processers who work tirelessly to provide healthy seafood, support our coastal communities, and provide for their families.”

In Alaska, a state that has long hosted important commercial fisheries, fishermen are also expressing concerns about the cuts in NMFS science staff.  Linda Behnken, the executive director of the Alaska Longline Fisheries Association, expressed her worries that

“The indiscriminate firing of NOAA personnel could cripple our fisheries.  The impact to resources and the seafood industry will be substantial unless the administration corrects course.”

A letter signed by 170 fishing businesses and related entities located throughout the coastal United States, to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick earlier this month, noted that

“U.S. fisheries are heavily dependent on the regulatory process to open the fishing season and implement reasonable management measures, and any delays or inconsistencies can have immediate and severe consequences for our fishermen’s livelihoods.”

Those concerns were echoed by a scallop fisherman in New Bedford, Massachusetts, who commented anonymously out of fear of possible consequences should his name become known.  That scalloper stated his view that

“If people are aware of impacts, they are concerned.  Some aren’t aware and think government and regulations are bad and have ruined the fishery, and are welcoming the cuts.  But that’s not going to solve the issue that they have a problem with.

“If we don’t have the data, we can’t process the data or don’t have enough people, everything gets delayed.  It’s fair to say the loss of the one federal survey could impact quota.”

Yet that doesn’t seem to matter to the budget-cutters.  They cut the spending limit on all government-issued credit cards to $1, making it difficult, if not impossible, for many NMFS employees to do their jobs.  The Alaska Beacon reported that

“The first round of NOAA Fisheries staffing cuts have been accompanied by a freeze on most credit card spending.  One Alaska Fisheries Science Center biologist, who requested anonymity to avoid retaliation, said she would typically use her credit card to buy gloves, life vests, extension cords and other gear needed for upcoming survey cruises off Alaska.

“’I am trying to figure out how to supply our surveys with the gear we really need.  It’s really frustrating,” the biologist said.  “We’re going to do our best.”

Many fishermen fear that NMFS’ biologists “best,” in the current budget environment, may not be good enough.  As noted in a recent edition of The New Bedford Light, fishermen fear that

“In the absence of sufficient data or analysis (which could happen if a federal survey gets defunded or cancelled, or analysts have been fired), stock managers will take a precautionary approach and err on the conservative side to avoid overfishing.  This means setting a lower fishing quota, which means fishermen may not catch as much.”

Fishermen are also concerned that their voice is going unheard, particularly after NOAA leadership terminated the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee, which saw fishermen, other members of the seafood industry, academics, and representatives of environmental organizations volunteer to provide advice to and share their concerns with NMFS.  Sarah Schumann, a Rhode Island commercial fisherman who sat on the Committee, lamented that

“We’ve been robbed of a voice.  It felt like a real place to collaboratively, honestly evaluate the larger scale trajectories of fisheries management in the U.S.  And now that’s gone.”

But, once again, the administration budget cutters don’t seem to care.  Instead, they merely posted a notice on the Committee web page that

“The Secretary of Commerce has determined that the purposes for which the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee was established have been fulfilled, and the committee has been terminated effective February 28, 2025.”

But Ms. Schumann questions both the rationale for and the wisdom of the Committee’s termination.

“I don’t think the Trump administration’s decision to cut committees like that has anything to do with saving money.  It’s consistent with a larger emphasis within this administration to bring everything under the control of the White House and to remove any source of independence that our public agencies might have.

“The ocean is getting more complicated.  I really fear reducing our scientific capacity at a time like this is a huge mistake.”

And the cutting isn’t limited to future expenses.  Under the current administration, agencies including the United States Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency are reneging on past commitments to fishermen and the fishing industry, cancelling grants and abandoning contractual obligations.  Such actions are causing real economic harm to fishermen and fish processing companies.

Much of the hardship arises out of an ongoing program to replace old, inefficient diesel engines and obsolescent refrigeration systems, which would both cut fishermen’s costs and reduce the industry’s carbon footprint; not surprisingly, the program’s carbon-reduction goals, and so its connection to the climate change debate, made it a natural target of the climate change deniers at the top of the Trump administration.

That put fishermen and fish processers in a bind because, trusting that the government’s word was good and that they would receive the grant money that the government was contractually obliged to pay, they began to upgrade their vessels, only to learn, after work was done and expenses incurred, that the Trump administration had apparently decided to dishonor its obligations to reimburse program participants.

Thus, fishermen are finding themselves in the same situation as Seattle salmon fisherman Robert Buchmayr, who replaced the refrigeration unit on his boat, relying on a $45,000 grant from the government to pay for much of the work.  However, the grant payment is now on indefinite hold, leading the fisherman to comment that

“I’m scrambling, where does the money come from.  I was counting on the grant.  I was under the impression that if you got a grant from the United States, it was a commitment.  Nothing in the letter was saying, ‘Yes, we’ll guarantee you the funds depending on who is elected.’”

But even if the $45,000 is never paid, it represents a relatively small financial burden, at least when compared to the hundreds of thousands of dollars now being denied to Alaska vessel owner Lacey Velsko, after she relied on a government promise to replace the large refrigeration unit on one of her trawlers.  She admitted that

“Of course we think it was unfair that we signed a contract and were told we would be funded and now we’re not funded.”

While many of the grants have not been officially cancelled, but instead are on “indefinite hold” and supposedly being reviewed, Ms. Velsko acknowledges that

“If six months down the road we’re still not funded I don’t know what avenue to take.”

Togue Brawn, a Maine seafood distributor, did not mince words.

“The uncertainty.  This is not a business-friendly environment.  If they want to make America great again, then honor your word and tell people what’s going on.”

It’s not at all clear that will happen.

In the meantime, America’s commercial fishing fleet, as well as millions of recreational fishermen, will be forced to stand by, and hope that the arbitrary attack on fisheries science will end, and that the Trump administration will eventually give the nation’s fishermen, commercial and recreational, the recognition, and the respect, that their multi-billion dollar industries deserve.