The black sea bass is an unassuming little fish that can be
found along most of the Atlantic seaboard.
It tends to hang around wrecks, reefs and similar
structure. One of my friends, who is an
enthusiastic diver, says that he never sees one more than five feet away from
some sort of rock or debris, even if it’s as small as an old tire. On the other hand, on good wooden wrecks,
they can be extremely abundant; he tells of seeing them so packed into such
pieces so tightly that they resemble sardines in a can.
And all of us who engage in wreck fishing can tell of clouds
of sea bass that nearly blanked out the fishfinder screen and rose twenty or
thirty feet off the bottom.
Such propensity to bunch up around wrecks, along with an
extremely large 2011 year class, means that fishermen are seeing, and catching,
a lot of black sea bass these days.
However, annual catch limits remain very conservative, due to a benchmark stock
assessment, released in early 2012, that failed to pass scientific peer
review.
The assessment failed for a number of reasons, including its
inability to adequately address the species’ stock structure—although all black
sea bass north of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina are managed as a single stock,
in reality there are probably three different stocks of fish in that region,
each of which may vary in terms of health and fishing activity—and life history
as a protogynous hermaphrodite that begins life as a female and may—or may
not—later transition into a male.
As a result of the failed peer review, black
sea bass are considered a “data-poor species” and cannot be managed in
accordance with biomass and fishing mortality targets.
Instead, managers at the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council have adopted what is known as a “constant catch” strategy
which sets a very conservative annual catch limit that does not fluctuate from
year to year.
At the Mid-Atlantic Council’s August meeting, a
representative of the Council’s Science and Statistics Committee admitted that
such strategy was a “blunt instrument” that required annual catch limits to be
set lower than would otherwise be the case, since a constant catch approach is
slow to react to the onset of overfishing.
However, low catch limits at a time of seeming stock
abundance doesn’t go over too well with some sea bass fishermen, or with the
for-hire boats that take such fishermen out onto the water.
The result have been attacks on fisheries managers, as well
as on the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which was responsible for rebuilding
the black sea bass stock in the first place.
The attacks differ in vehemence and, at times, in rationality, but the
following comment
made a few years ago by the Recreational Fishing Alliance, which typically speaks for
the fishing industry, is typical.
“According to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
(MAFMC) there are simply too many black sea bass along the East Coast which has
led to too much angler success. Because
the stock is so healthy, NOAA Fisheries will have no choice but to shut the
fishery down for the next four months while considering how to take a huge
chunk of the allowable catch away from anglers in 2013.”
Ignoring for the moment that the statement was
inaccurate—NOAA Fisheries had no intention of reducing the “allowable catch”,
but merely was seeking ways to keep anglers from killing more sea bass than was
deemed to be prudently “allowable”—it exemplifies the sort of overblown rhetoric
that has characterized the debate, as partisans of greater harvest ignore the
critical details of the situation while trying to elicit the sort of knee-jerk
emotional response most likely to turn them against the current fishery
management system.
The goal of such language becomes readily apparent a little
farther along in the RFA’s comments, where the organization argues that
“credit for this fisheries fiasco can be given to the 109th
Congress which convened from 2005-2007.
“’Congress reauthorized the federal fisheries law in 2006 by
incorporating ridiculous, empty-headed logic pushed by environmental
organizations, and for the past 5 years our legislators have refused to accept
their responsibility for destroying the original intent of Magnuson,’ said RFA
executive director Jim Donofrio, who called the federal fisheries law a ‘jobs
killer’ as reauthorized…
“RFA has been pushing legislation in Congress to reintroduce
some sensibility in fisheries management by incorporating some limited
management flexibility into the federal fisheries law. Specifically, Rep. Frank Pallone’s (D-NJ)
Flexibility and Access in Rebuilding America’s Fisheries Act would effectively
deal with rebuilding timelines, rigidly enforced [Annual Catch Limits] and
accountability measures, while requiring a full review of the NOAA’s
recreational data collection by the National Research Council…”
Pallone’s bill never made it through committee, much less
through Congress, and it has since been replaced by Rep. Don Young’s (R-AK)
arguably worse Strengthening
Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act
(H.R. 1335), which was passed by the House last May.
However, while the bills' names and sponsors might
change over the years, the basic motivation behind the legislation remains the same—a desire
to give fisheries managers the “flexibility” to ignore the best available
science (or replace it with fishermen’s anecdotal and self-serving tales),
delay the rebuilding of overfished stocks, tolerate overfishing and not hold
fishermen responsible when they overharvest fish stocks.
It is an effort to replace current law’s disciplined and
generally successful approach to rebuilding and conserving fish stocks with
something very close to the sort of lassiez-faire management that caused many stocks
to collapse in the first place.
Based on past experience, we can be just about certain that
if folks such as the RFA got their way, there wouldn’t be “too many black sea
bass along the East Coast” for more than a season or two.
However, the fact that folks such as the RFA are taking a
wrongheaded approach to the “flexibility” issue doesn’t mean that the current
approach to black sea bass management can’t use a few tweaks that would allow
anglers to take home a couple more fish.
A new benchmark stock assessment will be developed next year
and, if it makes it through the peer review process, should affect regulations
in 2017 or 2018. However, managers have
also been seeking a better way to manage the species in the interim.
Now, it appears that they may have found it.
Just yesterday, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
received a
report from Council staff, reporting on a new modeling approach to black
sea bass management that was proposed by a team of biologists comprised of Jason
McNamee of the Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife and Gavin Fay and
Steven Cadrin, both of the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth.
Using the new approach, which utilized a software suite
designed for assessing data limited species, the
team not only determined that the Allowable Biological Catch for black sea bass
could be increased from 5.50 to 6.67 million pounds, but also that there
was a better than 70% chance that such higher level of harvest would not result
in overfishing.
Ultimately, the Council voted to adopt and implement the
team’s new approach, and it is a near-certainty that the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission’s Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass Management
Board will adopt it, too, when they meet in November.
It’s not the final answer to the problems that plague black
sea bass management. The researchers
freely acknowledge that there are still plenty of uncertainties in the
available data, and note that the new approach
“is only offered as a potential interim solution for
specification setting, as a full analytical assessment process is underway for
this stock…these data limited approaches should not be considered to the
exclusion of a full analytical assessment.”
Still, the approach increases the Allowable Biological Catch
by roughly 20%, while also providing adequate protection for the black sea bass
stock.
But perhaps more importantly, it demonstrates that both the
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and the procedures adopted by the NOAA
Fisheries and the regional fishery management councils to implement such
provisions, are flexible enough to allow innovative solutions to management
problems caused by poor or perplexing data.
It’s not the kind of chaotic flexibility championed by the
RFA and some of the other industry groups, which would allow managers to allow
overfishing, ignore scientific advice and risk driving fish stocks over the
brink of collapse.
Instead, it’s a disciplined flexibility that doesn’t lock
managers into a single, restrictive approach to regulating fishing mortality,
but instead allows them to consider and implement new strategies that offer
fishermen larger harvests in the short term, while still assuring that the
long-term health of the stock will not be compromised.
And unlike the irresponsible approaches promoted by groups
such as RFA, a disciplined flexibility, which benefits fish and fisherman alike, is a
very good thing for us all.
No comments:
Post a Comment