The Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act is, without question, the most
comprehensive and most successful fishery management law in the world.
Under its aegis, at least since the Sustainable Fisheries
Act of 1996 became law, overfishing has been sharply reduced and many
overfished stocks have been restored to health.
However, like anything crafted by man, Magnuson isn’t
perfect. Its biggest flaw may be that it
manages dead fish, rather than live ones.
This is what I mean.
Under Magnuson, management parameters are ultimately defined
in terms of yield. Overfishing is
“a rate or level
of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to produce the
maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis,”
while National Standard One says that stocks should be managed for “optimum” yield, which is
“the amount of fish which—
(A)
will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with
respect to food production and recreational opportunities, and taking into
account the protection of marine ecosystems;
(B)
is prescribed as such on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield from the
fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or ecological factor; and
(C)
in the case of an overfished fishery, provides for rebuilding to a level
consistent with producing the maximum sustainable yield in such fishery.”
It’s all about “yield”—how many fish may be safely killed,
rather than how many fish ought to be kept alive.
Yes, I know that an overfished stock is generally defined in
terms of biomass—live fish in the water—but even there, an overfished stock is
one that is too small to produce maximum sustainable yield.
Despite the references to “marine ecosystems” and “ecological
factor” in the definition of “optimum” yield, when you get right down to it,
the effectiveness of management actions is measured in terms of dead fish, not
live ones.
Think what management would look like if we took the other
tack, and managed for life instead.
I’m writing as an angler, so let’s consider a popular
angling species—it might be bluefish, king mackerel or perhaps Pacific rockfish—and
think about what the populations should look like.
First, as I and others have written before, anglers want
fish in abundance. That means keeping
enough fish in the water that anglers, throughout the species’ range, have a
good chance of encountering some at any time during the season. What constitutes “some” fish will differ from
species to species—you would expect to catch a lot more Spanish mackerel than,
say, cobia—but whatever the species, the chances of an encounter would be pretty
high.
But mere abundance is just not
enough. We’d also want to give some of
those fish a chance to live long enough to get big.
That’s inefficient from a commercial
perspective, where any fish that dies of old age is deemed wasted and a
population that quickly produces big numbers of little fish may be more
profitable than one in which harvest is delayed to produce larger individuals. However, anglers have always been intrigued
by big fish, and the sort of management that produces big fish is also the kind
of management that leads to the healthiest stocks.
That’s because a population that
includes a good number of larger individuals, the sort that fisheries
scientists sometimes affectionately refer to as “BOFFs”—Big, Old, Fat Fish—usually
has a spawning stock made up of fish of many different sizes belonging to many
different year classes. Such a stock,
which is not dependent on just one or two year classes for its spawning
success, is inherently more resilient and better able to shrug off transient
environmental conditions that lead to a few years of poor recruitment.
Thus, rather than managing for
“optimum yield,” which pegs harvest at or near the highest sustainable levels
without regard for the structure of the stock, managers should instead be
seeking “optimum” abundance and an “optimum” stock structure, by setting a
“permissible harvest level” which assures that such an optimized stock can be
created and maintained.
And no, that is not some sort of
radical dream. It’s more or less how whitetail
deer are managed today, with tools such as doe permits to manage abundance and recruitment,
minimum antler requirements to allow some bucks to grow old, etc.
“Quality deer management” has been
around for a long time, and maybe it’s past time for “quality fish management”
to make its appearance.
Once we accept the fact that fish
are wildlife, it all makes perfect sense.
A different approach is needed for
creatures near the base of the food web, which provide the food that other
fish, as well as birds and marine mammals, need to survive. They’re lumped together in the broad category
of “forage fish,” although some are not fish—squid and many crustaceans come to
mind—and some are not simply forage.
Atlantic mackerel feed people as well as bluefin tuna, while Pacific
pollock are critically important to both commercial fishermen and Steller sea
lions.
In such cases, managers first need
to ensure that there are enough fish around to fulfill their role in the marine
food web. Then, there needs to be enough
left over to provide a sustainable and well-structured breeding
population. After that, once again, the
“permissible harvest level” kicks in.
It’s trendy to call such approach
“ecosystem management,” but that’s probably a misnomer. Ocean ecosystems are vast, complex systems
that encompass everything from viruses to blue whales, and no one is capable of
managing all of that.
And calling for “ecosystem
management” always brings out the clowns who pretend to go along, then follow
up by claiming that the red snapper—or the cod, or striped bass or red drum—are
getting too numerous, and throwing the ecosystem out of whack, and that in the
name of “ecosystem management” they should be allowed to go out and kill a
bunch to bring things back into balance, forgetting that fish got along just
fine, without that kind of “help,” for something like 450 million years.
No, I think it’s better to just
refer to it as “live fish management,” or maybe more simply, “managing for
life.”
Because life, in all its diversity
and its abundance, is the ultimate good.
No comments:
Post a Comment