Last year, we learned to our dismay that the Gulf of Maine
cod stock was in even worse condition than previously believed, and had fallen
to just 3 or 4 percent of the target level.
Fishermen,
predictably, opposed measures needed to stop the collapse and rebuild the
population.
Last week, we learned that the Georges Bank stock is probably
in even worse shape, with the population at just 1 to 3 percent of the
abundance target.
Those numbers have yet to pass the peer review process, so
there is always the chance that they will not be accepted. They also came out late in the week, and
fishermen haven’t yet had time to react.
However, assuming that the data holds up to scientific review, we can be
pretty sure that New England fishermen will be gearing up for a fight that puts
past management battles to shame.
For this could be the year when their decades of
intransigent battle against needed harvest reductions finally puts them out of
business.
They can deny their role in the cod’s final collapse. They can blame the politicians, they can
blame the conservation community and they can blame the ocean for getting warmer. But there is one thing that, as businessmen,
they can’t deny:
If they want to have a codfishing industry, they have to have
codfish to sell.
And right now, the fish just don’t seem to be there.
According to the draft 2015
Assessment Update Report, the total biomass of the Georges Bank stock
is, at
best, 5,853 metric tons. When
all of the likely errors in the calculation are considered, that biomass
estimate is reduced by about two-thirds, to a mere 1,906 metric tons.
To put that number in context, National
Marine Fisheries Service data show that Atlantic cod landings peaked in
1980, when fishermen landed over 53,000 metric tons of cod. NMFS
recreational landings data doesn’t include information for 1980, but in
1981, recreational landings were estimated at over 8,000 metric tons, so it’s
probably safe to assume that they were about the same in 1980.
That’s more than 61,000 metric tons of cod landed in just
one year--ten times the best-case estimate for the entire Georges Bank stock,
and more than 30 times current size of the stock under the worst-case, and more
likely, scenario.
Yes, a lot of those 1980 fish came from the Gulf of Maine, not
Georges Bank, but even so, no one is going to catch many fish when the Georges
Bank biomass is less than 2,000 metric tons.
Yet, fishermen still try.
They don’t have much desire to cut back their efforts. In 2014, the total landings from the Georges
Bank stock alone were estimated to be slightly in excess of 2,000 metric tons—very
possibly more than the total biomass that remains in the ocean.
Furthermore, last
June the New England Fishery Management Council voted to reopen about 5,000
square miles of Georges Bank to commercial cod fishing. Industry spokesmen hailed the decision,
saying things such as
“We think that this should have a positive impact on the
future of the fishing industry, protecting valuable habitat while allowing for
reasonable fishing opportunities.”
However, those areas were closed in the first place because
they were seen as critical habitat, and in particular spawning habitat, for the
cod. A few fishermen on the Council
understand their worth. Reacting to the
vote to reopen formerly closed areas, Council member Dave Preble, from Rhode
Island, said
“This council has purposely ignored the science and produced
an amendment that is indefensible. If
you want to have big fish, you have to feed and protect the small fish.”
The conservation community was even more emphatic about
keeping the areas closed. Gib Brogan, ho
works on New England fisheries issues for Oceana, declared that
“The council put short-term profits ahead of the needs of
depleted ground fish,”
while Peter Shelley of the Conservation Law Foundation said
“The council wrote off the future of critical fish habitat
areas that needed additional, not future, protections.”
Now NMFS, and its regional administrator, John Bullard, hold
the future of the Georges Bank cod fishery, and the Georges Bank cod stock
itself, in its hands.
There is no more time to kick the can down the road, no room
for a “compromise” that will keep fisheries open while the cod stock continues
downhill. With stock abundance, at best,
just 3 percent of target, whatever margin of error that once may have existed
is gone.
The current level of fishing mortality, whether caused by
fish landed or by dead discards, is far too high. At best, it is nearly three times the
overfishing threshold; accounting for all likely error, cod were removed from
the stock at nearly ten times the permissible level.
Managers must finally accept the unpalatable truth that at
current levels, it is probably not possible to allow any directed cod fishery
and still reduce fishing mortality to just one-tenth of what it was in
2014.
The tougher question for managers
to decide—because it is so likely that the answer will be no—is whether it will
be possible to allow ground-tending gear targeting other species in the Georges
Bank region, and still keep fishing mortality for Georges Bank cod below the threshold.
Bycatch is real, and with the cod stock so badly overfished,
it’s easy to imagine trawlers targeting haddock, redfish or flounder
accidentally killing and dumping far too many cod.
If NMFS is to fulfill its legal
responsibility to prevent overfishing the Georges Bank stock, and have any hope
of beginning that stock’s recovery, it may find itself not only rejecting the
New England Council’s advice to open closed areas, but closing additional areas
as well.
NMFS must realize that doing so could be the final nail in
the coffin for much of the New England groundfishing fleet. At the same time, failing to do so might well
be the final nail in the coffin of Georges Bank cod.
NMFS may have to make the decision of whether the fleet, or
the cod stock, is going to die.
If the time for that decision does come, NMFS should be
guided by a simple reality. If the fleet
ultimately destroys the last of the Georges Bank cod, the fleet’s demise won’t
trail the fish’s by very much time.
On the other hand, if the fleet must be sacrificed to
protect the cod stock, there is a chance that with time and the stock’s
recovery, both could thrive again.
No comments:
Post a Comment