I was paging through the news feeds that I receive every
day, which provide information on everything from Gulf of Maine Cod to Gulf of
Mexico snapper, when a piece on black sea bass hit a sensitive nerve.
It came from the Brick
Shorebeat, a small media outlet on the New
Jersey shore, which declared “Sea Bass Insanity” and went on to
say
“The black sea bass fishery—yes, the one that is completely rebuilt, and not overfished—is having
its recreational quota cut by one-third.
I’ve opined on numerous occasions…on the gross mismanagement of this
species, led by a National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration that
has been curiously hell-bent on regulating the recreational sea bass fishing
out of existence...
“With sea bass, the insanity of modern management schemes raises
its ugly head. The fishery is doing so well that anglers exceed
their quota, and then face additional regulations that will cause them to
exceed it again the following year. The
actual size of the stock, the fact that it is healthy and thriving, and the
common-sense reasoning behind why quotas are being exceeded are (I would argue,
purposely) disregarded to provide excuses for some in the federal agency to
justify regulating recreational sea bass fishing out of existence.”
What struck me about the article, outside of the obvious
errors—for example, the recreational black sea bass “quota” is not being “cut
by one-third,” but remains the same as it was in 2014—is the belligerent and
accusatory tone that is clearly intended to rile up anglers and make them feel
aggrieved, rather than helping them to understand why regulators took the
actions that they did, and why black sea bass are such a difficult species to
manage.
The plain truth is that there are a lot of black sea bass in
the ocean right now. Warming ocean waters
are allowing the fish to move into more northerly regions, in greater numbers
than were previously the norm, and to colonize some northern New England areas
where they were seldom if ever seen before.
That increased abundance at the northern end of the species’
range is leading to much higher landings, particulary in the area between New
Jersey and Massachusetts.
However, it is also true that, while managers suspect that the
black sea bass population is healthy, nobody knows that for sure. There is no black sea bass stock assessment
that has been deemed adequate for managing the species; the last stockassessment failed to pass peer review about three years ago.
Instead, black sea bass abundance is
estimated with a very rough proxy, the three-year rolling average of fish
caught in the National Marine Fisheries Service’s annual trawl survey, a figure
that is affected not only by the number of fish actually available, but also by
the fact that black sea bass, which tend to hold close to rocks and other
structure, are not too amenable to trawl sampling methods, a fact that affects
the accuracy of the proxy figure.
In addition, a fairly recent tagging study conducted by theNortheast Fisheries Science Center suggests that there is not one unified black
sea bass stock, but rather three substocks that remain effectively isolated
during the summer, but mix, to greater or lesser degrees, during the
winter. There is no data to suggest
whether all three substocks are equally healthy and experience equivalent
levels of natural and fishing mortality, or whether both health and removal
rates differ substantially from stock to stock.
Thus, to say that the black sea bass population is “healthy
and thriving” isn’t really correct; managers think that it’s in pretty good
shape, but no one knows for sure.
In
fisheries-speak, that’s called “scientific uncertainty.” Managers are required
to consider the sources and extent of scientific uncertainty when annual catch
limits are set, with greater uncertainty leading to greater precaution.
If the Shorebeat author had even half-tried, he could have
easily explained such facts to his readers, rather than repeating—twice in just
two short paragraphs—the unproven and logically unlikely accusation that a
federal agency was intent—“hell-bent,” in his words—on “regulating recreational
sea bass fishing out of existence.”
But it’s pretty clear that rational exposition was never the
author’s intent. Like far too many
writers—local writers, for the most part, but influential nonetheless—the Shorebeat columnist seems more intent on overthrowing the federal fisheries management
system, and the rational and successful management that it has brought to every
coast in the nation, and replacing it with either the kind of ponderous and
generally ineffective management we have seen imposed by the states, working
either on their own or through the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission,
or perhaps the sort of freewheeling anarchy that we knew prior to 1996, when
the Sustainable Fisheries Act imposed some meaningful discipline on the federal
management system.
It’s too bad, because a lot of anglers trust what they read
in the papers and magazines, and writers who pander to those anglers’ emotions,
and to the short-term interests of their fishing industry friends, do a great
disservice to the fish, to the public and to the anglers themselves.
Yet such writing is dismayingly common.
Fisheries management is, in the end, a science, no
matter how much politics interferes, and in order to become effective advocates
within the fisheries management system, anglers need to receive complete and
accurate information.
Many trust the angling press to provide it.
Writers who omit and distort data, and engage in rabble-rousing rhetoric in order to promote
their individual goals, do their readers and followers a great disservice, and
show great disrespect.
It is nothing less than a complete betrayal of trust.
No comments:
Post a Comment