The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission plays a very
big role in East Coast fisheries issues.
It holds the primary management authority for many key
species. The most notable of those, at
least along the upper half of the coast, is striped bass, but ASMFC is also
responsible for such important inshore fisheries as red drum, weakfish, menhaden
and more. In addition, it has
significant say in how some federally-managed fisheries, including summer
flounder, black sea bass and bluefish, are prosecuted within, and sometimes
outside of, state waters.
ASMFC has a dismal record of restoring depleted stocks;
Atlantic striped bass, rebuilt in 1995, still stands as its one and only
success.
It often lacks the political will to keep overfished stocks
from declining further. Weakfish,
tautog, and the southern New England stock of American lobster are but a few examples.
Many of the people who sit on its various species management
boards have economic interests in the fish that they manage, or represent
people who do. As a result, ASMFC
decisions often elevate short-term economic concerns above scientific advice
and the long-term health of the resource.
Southern
New England lobster, and the American Lobster Management Board’s years-long
failure to take meaningful measures to address its collapse, provides
the perfect example.
Yet, despite ASMFC’s many and serious flaws, the fish and
fishermen of the Atlantic coast benefit from its existence. It forces the various state fisheries
managers to cooperate with one another and, thanks to the authority granted to
ASMFC in the Atlantic
Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, it imposes a sort of
discipline that keeps any one state from drifting too far out of line.
Without ASMFC, each state would be free to become another New
Jersey, always seeking and scheming to kill more and smaller fish than its
neighbors, and trying to account for the largest share of the catch. It was that truth, which initially prevented
the rebuilding of the striped bass stock, that led to Congress passing the Atlantic
Striped Bass Conservation Act in 1984, which first gave ASMFC the
authority to oversee state management actions, and ultimately led to the
greater authority that it holds today.
Given ASMFC’s important role in East Coast fisheries
management, it’s always helpful to have some insight into the collective
thoughts and goals of the people who sit on its management boards. Some of that insight can only be gained by
knowing a few of the commissioners personally, speaking with them, and watching
them interact with their colleagues over the course of contentious
meetings. Some can be gained by going
over the meeting transcripts, where the personalities and policies of each
board member will ultimately be revealed.
However, much can also be gained by perusing the results of
a survey of its commissioners that ASMFC makes public each year. In that survey, commissioners respond to a
number of uniform questions, but are also allowed to give free-form answers on
the problems and opportunities that they discern.
The results
of the most recent survey were released at the February 2016 ASMFC
meeting, and they provide a good look into the hearts and minds of the folks
who, collectively, dictate how many of our most important fisheries are managed.
Thirty-seven commissioners responded, and it seems that, by
and large, they’re happy with ASMFC’s work.
When asked whether they believe that the Commission has a clear plan for
achieving its vision of achieving sustainable fisheries on the East Coast, the
average response was a positive 8.08 points out of a possible 10, the third
highest in the seven-year time series, although down from the two years
before. A second question, asking
whether ASMFC is making progress toward achieving that vision, received an
identical response.
The commissioners feel that they work well with each other,
rating themselves an 8 on that score.
However, they don’t get along with others quite so well, rating
cooperation with federal managers at only 7.11 (which is still the
second-highest in the time series) and relations with constituents just a bit
better, at 7.57 (also a second-place high).
When the commissioners get to the important issue, the
effectiveness of ASMFC’s management, a dose of reality seems to set in. We’re not given a chance to compare responses
over a seven-year time series here, but rather just a comparison with
commissioners’ views in 2014.
Even so,
the results are somewhat revealing.
When asked whether the number of stocks subject to
overfishing is a good measure of management progress, the commissioners’
average response was a 7.47, down from 7.8 one year before, suggesting that
they didn’t view overfishing as a truly accurate measure of how well the
Commission performed.
At the same time,
they were not particularly satisfied with their progress in ending overfishing,
rating such progress a 7.44 (perhaps equivalent to a college frat boy’s
“gentleman’s C”?), down slightly from 7.66 in 2014.
There was even greater dissatisfaction with the Commission’s
ability to manage rebuilt stocks, with that metric rated a mere 6.97, again down
a bit from 7.17 a year before. On the
other hand, given that ASMFC hasn’t rebuilt a stock since 1995, that might not
be an important consideration…
However, the best look into the minds of the commissioners may
be found where they had an opportunity to verbally express their concerns.
There are clearly thoughtful, responsible people sitting on
management boards. When asked
“What is the biggest obstacle to the Commission’s success?”
such folks provided answers that included
“Incomplete information about the stocks coupled with
reluctance to make tough decisions without high level of certainty,”
“We sometimes don’t have a good grip on the long-term
socio-economic aspects of good management, and that a little pain now can yield
good fruit in the long run,”
and recognition of the fact that
“Once a species is depleted and overfishing is no longer
indicated, the Commission has had little to no success in rebuilding depleted
stocks.”
Perhaps explaining why that is so, others still try to avoid
the tough questions, arguing that the Commission’s lack of success is due to
“Non-fishing factors such as changing environment and coastal
development,”
and pulling out the old canard that some fish stocks aren’t
rebuilt because ASMFC is
“Allowing apex predation or a dominant species to be the fall
of other less aggressive fish species that are often as important to the
eco-system [sic] as the top of the chain feeders.”
There are also suggestions that cooperation among the
commissioners isn’t quite as good as earlier survey answers suggest. One commissioner complained that
“A growing obstacle is the factionalism I see on certain
Management Boards. The desire to have
other states make the sacrifices to rebuild stocks rather than one’s own state
seems to be getting stronger…”
Another blamed the Commission’s lack of success on
“Politics and self-preservation by states.”
A troubling trend, which emerged in response to other
questions, was some commissioners’ apparent desire to separate ASMFC actions
from that of federal managers. One
expressed a desire for
“Developing a purely Commission discussion/perspective/position
on species under joint management independent of the [Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council,”
while another said that the Commission should focus more
attention on
“Correcting the problems dealing with the [Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council’s Science and Statistics Committee].”
Both are clearly references to some commissioners' preference
for escaping the rebuilding and conservation provisions of federal law that
bind the National Marine Fisheries Service, but are not binding on ASMFC.
In short, the survey makes ASMFC look very much like the
federal fisheries management councils prior to passage of the Sustainable
Fisheries Act of 1996, when there was no requirement to rebuild overfished
stocks and council members could, and usually did, avoid making the tough
decisions needed to replenish depleted fish populations.
It provides a picture of a very flawed, and yet very fixable
and potentially very beneficial organization, that just needs a little outside
help to put its house in order.
As was the case with the federal management councils, that
help can only come from a concerned and informed Congress, that insists that
the Management Boards do their job right, that they end overfishing and rebuild
stocks within a time certain, and base their decisions solely on science, and
not on short-term cash flows.
With the right legislation to help it along, ASMFC could
easily become one of the most successful fishery management bodies anywhere in
this nation.
Without such help, it is likely to continue to flounder
along, forever lacking the will and the courage it needs to live up to its
promise.
No comments:
Post a Comment