About 175 years ago, in an essay entitled “Self-Reliance”,
Ralph Waldo Emerson noted that
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”
Maybe that’s so.
But anyone involved with fisheries management issues in
the Mid-Atlantic region, where statesmen, philosophers and divines are not easily found, might instead note that a foolish inconsistency is a
hobgoblin of some other folks' minds, minds belonging mostly to folks trying to undercut the
fisheries management process.
Yet the fact that their statements are not only
inconsistent, but actually contradictory, seems completely lost on the
speakers, even though they’re dealing with species included in the same
fisheries management plan.
One of the species is black sea bass, a stock that’s
considered fully restored. Here in the
northeast, sea bass seem to be pretty abundant, and anglers are taking plenty
of them home—so many, in fact, that this year’s recreational landings in thestates between New Jersey and Massachusetts had to be cut by about one-third,
when compared to last year’s, in order to keep them below what biologists
believe to be prudent and sustainable levels.
That didn’t go over very well with many representatives of
the commercial and recreational fishing industries, who emphasized the species’
apparent abundance and argued that harvest should be increased. The summary of the Mid-Atlantic FisheryManagement Council’s Advisory Panel conference call of July 29, 2015 pretty
much tells the story.
Commercial fisherman James Lovegren of New Jersey noted that
“I’ve been fishing for over 40 years and this is the
healthiest I’ve ever seen the sea bass fishery…I think the quota should be at
7.5 or 8 million pounds…”
Others argued that the black sea bass population was growing
so large that it had to be thinned to protect other species.
Marc Hoffman, a recreational advisor from New York, advanced
that dubious premise, saying
“The biomass for sea bass is so much higher than what we have
recorded. They’re wiping out other
species. If we don’t act soon you’re
going to lose the lobster fishery throughout the northeast. We need an emergency opening of both the
commercial and recreational black sea bass fishery. We need to allow 100 pounds of black sea bass
bycatch per day…”
His views were echoed by Michael Ireland, a commercial
fisherman from North Carolina, who argued that
“Sea bass are eating scallops, lobsters, everything…”
So, OK, we get it.
There seems to be a lot of black sea bass before out there, so many
that, in the views of some folks (who have no scientific training at all), they
are becoming a scourge to the ecosystem that must be eliminated before they
start snatching small children from the shallows at coastal beaches and earn
their own series of movies on the SyFy Channel…
And even if there aren’t quite that many around, their apparent
abundance justifies a little larger harvest.
Fair enough.
Fisheries biologists may not agree, for various reasons, but
the basic premise is logical. When there
are more fish around, limits could be a little more generous.
But now, let’s consider summer flounder.
They’re managed under the same management plan as black sea
bass. They have the same set of
advisors. And biologists have solid
evidence that recruitment was well below average for for consecutive years,
from 2010 through 2013.
Even Marc Hoffman, one of the advisors warning us all to
arm, gird our loins and wade out to do battle against the black sea bass “soon”
lest great environmental damage be done, recognizes that some year classes are
largely missing from the summer flounder population, noting that
“All the party boats I’m talking to are seeing plenty of
fish, but not a lot of keepers. There
are plenty of fish just under 18 inches..”
And that’s just about what the science is reporting.
The 2010 year class was the smallest in
recent years, 2011 was only a little better, and those are the year classes
that would be providing us with most of our just-legal fish this season. Recruitment improved steadily after that, with
the 2014 year class of roughly average size, which explains why there are quite
a few “shorts,” including a bunch that measure in the 12- to 14-inch range that
were spawned in 2014.
So one would think that Hoffman, who was certainly gung-ho
to raise the black sea bass kill due to a seeming abundance of fish, would
embrace the science that reflects his own observations, and readily agree to
cuts in the summer flounder harvest.
But it didn’t work that way.
Instead, Hoffman opposed the proposed cuts, saying
“I think this is a very drastic action. It’s too drastic based on what we’re seeing.”
Does anyone else notice the inconsistency here?
Although, to be fair, Hoffman wasn’t alone.
Michael Ireland, the commercial fisherman from North
Carolina, declared
“I think we’re going at this way too fast. I think we may have gotten an inaccurate
assessment, and we need another assessment as soon as possible.”
Even Jim Lovegren, who I know as a reasonable and
level-headed fishermen from the days when we both sat on the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council, was very critical of the science, and said
“They need to take this whole thing back to the drawing
board. These cuts will have enormous
impacts. We have a failure of
management.”
Thus, we seem to be confronted with an inconsistency.
When a stock is at a high level of abundance, as black sea
bass appears to be, the Advisory Panel--and we can assume many fisherman as
well--want to see harvests increased.
That seems to make sense.
So when a stock declines in abundance, as is the case with
summer flounder—an observation confirmed by at least some of the Advisory Panel
members—one would expect the Advisory Panel and fishermen as a whole to follow
the same logic, and call for landings reductions.
But that’s not the case.
In the face of four years of documented sub-par recruitment—and a stock
assessment model that, if anything, makes recruitment appear higher than it
actually was—the Advisory Panel and those whom the panel represents are
adamantly opposed to landings reductions.
That’s inconsistent.
But it’s foolish as well, for if too many summer flounder
are harvested now, when fewer fish are being recruited into the population,
managers will be forced to make even greater cuts in the future, just to repair the
damage.
Wisdom would dictate that fishermen accept a painful cut
today, to avoid even greater and more painful cuts tomorrow,
No comments:
Post a Comment