Sunday, August 13, 2017

SOME MIGHT CALL IT HYPOCRISY


The closures were adopted as an important fishery conservation measure.  As noted in the Final Environmental Assessment issued in respect of the exempted fishing permit,  

“The closures were implemented to reduce bycatch and incidental catch of overfished and protected species by [pelagic longline] fishermen who target [highly migratory species].  At the time, Atlantic blue marlin, white marlin, sailfish, bluefin tuna, and swordfish were overfished, and bycatch reduction was a component of rebuilding efforts.  In particular, the U.S. was implementing a 1999 swordfish rebuilding plan, and the closure helped reduce bycatch of juvenile swordfish.  Several other laws required that NMFS address bycatch in [highly migratory species] fisheries, including the [Endangered Species Act], which required reductions in sea turtle take in the [pelagic longline] fishery.  National Standard 9 of Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that fishery management plans minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable.”
Pelagic longlines have a bad—and well-deserved—reputation as bycatch-prone gear, and it’s not surprising that the issuance of the exempted fishing permit met with strong opposition from the recreational fishing community, which will have to compete with the longliners both for the available swordfish and for the many other species that the longliners kill as bycatch.

In February, The Center for Sportfishing Policy sent NMFS a letter opposing the exempted fishing permit, which was co-signed by a number of other organizations, including the American Sportfishing Association, the National Marine Manufacturers Association and the Coastal Conservation Association.  The letter informed NMFS that

“…our organizations see no legitimate need for the proposal and have a great deal of concern on the potential impacts of the proposed research.  According to the Draft Environmental Assessment issued by NMFS, if the [exempted fishing permit] is approved and research is conducted for the three years requested, an additional 5,499 undersized swordfish, 759 billfish and 6.135 sharks that are prohibited from retention will be killed over and above what would take place in the [pelagic longline] fishery if the [exempted fishing permit] was not issued.  These estimates are a grim reminder of the threat that efficient, indiscriminate longlines pose to conservation gains not just in the [closed area], but in all of the world’s oceans…”

“We are also concerned with projected blue marlin and sailfish bycatch.  Blue marlin are currently overfished and experiencing overfishing and even a modest increase in bycatch mortality from the [exempted fishing permit] is not acceptable to IGFA and its members.  Sailfish represent the highest projected billfish bycatch (424 fish annually) from the proposed [exempted fishing permit].  IGFA would like to emphasize that the results of the 2016 western Atlantic sailfish stock assessment are equivocal.
“While the assessment reports that it is “not likely” that the stock is overfished or experiencing overfishing, the ICCAT Standing Committee on research and statistics has stated that:  ‘Both the eastern and western sailfish stocks may have been reduced to stock sizes below [the biomass that would produce maximum sustainable yield].’
“The IGFA is cognizant that the US continues to struggle to fully capture its ICCAT swordfish quota and that there are concerns the quota underage may be reallocated to other countries who’s [pelagic longline] fleets do not fish by the same conservation standards as ours.  Nevertheless, we do not feel that this international issue justifies compromising the conservation benefits gained from implementing the [closed area]…”

“Authorizing longline gear to fish within the Closed Zone could cause the conservation successes gained to be reversed.  No reasonable explanation can be given to consider the [exempted fishing permit] application, other than once an application is received the NMFS must give it review and public notice.
“Why not continue to build upon the realized conservation successes that were generated by the agency’s closures of the waters in the zone?  Any doubt as to the results of a change in policy should err to benefit the marine resources…  [emphasis added]” 

“RFA finds it next to impossible for NMFS to deny the conservation value of the…closed area or claim that a reintroduction of pelagic longlines into the closed area is necessary to evaluate its effectiveness.  This closed area was instrumental in spurring the recovery of north Atlantic swordfish and creating a recreational swordfish fishery that now holds significant socioeconomic value to the coastal communities of Florida.  Furthermore, the closed area has also allowed the near-shore, recreational sailfish fishery to become one of the most valuable non-consumptive fisheries in the world…”
It’s hard to disagree with any of the above statements, particularly when other gear is available to commercial swordfishermen which produces far less bycatch and discard mortality than do longlines.  I completely agree with those who believe that there was no need to introduce longlines into the long-closed area east of the Florida coast, and who would have preferred that NMFS not issue the exempted fishing permit.


“The additional swordfish landings would be counted against the ICCAT-recommended U.S. swordfish quota, which has been consistently underharvested in recent years and catch would remain well within the available quotas…
“Catches of all tunas, except skipjack, are projected to decrease relative to otherwise authorized routine fishing operations in the open area under either alternative if fished the level of effort requested by the applicant…
“Bycatch of all billfish, except sailfish, are projected to decrease relative to otherwise authorized routine fishing operations in the open area under either [alternative] at the level of effort requested by the applicant…”
Thus, no overfishing of the swordfish resource would be taking place, while bycatch of tuna and most billfish would be reduced, although there would be a substantial increase in the number of sharks killed.

It’s also important to note that issuance of the exempted fishing permit only benefits the commercial fishing sector, and has arguably negative consequences for the recreational fishery, which will face greater commercial competition for the available swordfish.

Thus, it’s perhaps not surprising that recreational fishing organizations find it so easy to criticize NMFS’ decision to issue the exempted fishing permit, which will have no negative long-term impact on the swordfish resource, while praising other NMFS actions that allow the recreational community to overfish both red snapper and summer flounder, and could have negative impacts on the resource and the commercial sector.


“The stock is still overfished…if employed for a short period of time, this approach will ultimately delay the rebuilding of the stock by as many as 6 years.  This approach likely could not be continued through time without significantly delaying the rebuilding timeline.  Similarly, the approach will necessarily mean that the private recreational sector will substantially exceed its annual catch limit, which was designed to prevent overfishing the stock.”
Yet, even though NMFS admits that the reopening will lead to anglers “substantially” overfishing an already overfished stock, and delay the recovery of the stock for as much as six years, the angling organizations that were so concerned about the negative conservation impacts of the exempted fishing permit on a relatively healthy swordfish stock had no concerns at all.  

In fact, they welcomed the overfishing despite its consequences, with the Center for Sportfishing Policy issuing a statement saying, in part,

“Today’s announcement is a fix—albeit a short-term fix—that will allow millions to enjoy one of America’s greatest pastimes and boost economies far beyond the Gulf of Mexico—including in the manufacturing and retail sectors in non-coastal states.

“The federal fisheries management system is failing recreational anglers on many levels, and the red snapper is the ‘poster fish’ of the quagmire.  The temporary rule directly addresses this problem, giving millions of recreational anglers in the Gulf of Mexico an opportunity to enjoy America’s natural resources and giving the Gulf economy a much-needed shot in the arm…

“Anglers commend the Trump Administration and Members of Congress for hearing our calls for more access to federal waters—and for taking action…”


“a welcome boon to anglers who have been painted into a corner by a federal fisheries management system that does not understand us and would often just rather ignore us,”
although it’s difficult to argue that NMFS ignores anglers as much as anglers are trying to ignore how badly they’re overfishing the Gulf red snapper stock.   Such overfishing makes it tough to understand how CCA, so concerned about non-overfished swordfish, can say that because of the reopening and despite the inevitable overfishing

“The recreational community should feel vindicated, and we should take heart that after years of being systematically sidelined by NOAA Fisheries, our efforts to encourage our elected officials in Congress to engage in this man-made management disaster are yielding results…As a result of our passion and our refusal to be cast aside, anglers will be allowed to venture into the Gulf of Mexico with their family and friends on weekends throughout the summer in pursuit of the most popular offshore fish in our waters…”
In the Mid-Atlantic, something similar occurred.
Due to poor recruitment, summer flounder abundance has steadily declined, until it reached the point that the stock might soon become overfished.  As a result, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission adopted a management plan that required Connecticut, New York and New Jersey to reduce their bag limit from 5 fish to 3, increase their size limit from 18 to 19 inches and keep the same 12-day season that they had in 2016.

Connecticut and New York went along, but New Jersey refused, insisting on keeping its size limit at 18 inches and shortening its season to 104 days, arguing that, between the two changes, New Jersey’s regulations would have the same conservation impact as those that ASMFC would impose.  ASMFC disagreed, found the state to be out of compliance with the summer flounder management plan, and referred the matter to the Secretary of Commerce who, if he agreed, would impose a moratorium on summer flounder fishing in New Jersey waters until the state adopted regulations acceptable to ASMFC.

The Secretary of Commerce failed to support the findings of ASMFC and its scientists.  Instead, he found that New Jersey was right, and that its regulations did have conservation equivalency with those adopted by ASMFC.  It was the first time that the Commerce Department failed to support ASMFC’s findings, and throws the future of ASMFC’s cooperative interstate management program into doubt.  It also won’t do the summer flounder any good; the best available science indicates that, because Commerce overturned ASMFC’s finding, New Jersey will catch about 94,000 more fish than is scientifically prudent.

Yet, once again, angling organizations seem to believe that such overfishing is a good thing. 

The same Recreational Fishing Alliance that opposed the notion of longliners receiving the exempted fishing permit—even though swordfish would not be overharvested as a result—celebrated the Secretary of Commerce’s decision, with Jim Donofrio, RFA’s Executive Director, reportedly saying

“[Commerce Secretary] Ross was brilliant in his decision.  The Trump administration has challenged a broken fishery management system in this country, and I applaud them for doing it.”
Which makes it seem that the recreational fishing community has no coherent policy when it comes to matters of conservation, stock rebuilding and overfishing. 

Do they really believe, as The Billfish Foundation stated, that “Any doubt as to the results of a change in policy should err to benefit the marine resources,”?

Or is the Coastal Conservation Association’ support for anglers being “allowed to venture into the Gulf of Mexico with their family and friends on weekends throughout the summer in pursuit of” red snapper, even if that means that the red snapper resource will be badly overfished, and its recovery delayed for years, more representative of the recreational organization’s position?

Because those two stances seem to be diametrically opposed, and without a coherent underlying management philosophy.

Unless, of course, the underlying philosophy is that commercial harvest should be subject to precautionary management, with all doubts resolved in favor of the resource, while recreational harvest should be free of biologically-based constraints, with overfishing accepted as a matter of course if it lets more people kill fish and lets angling-related businesses make more money.

Kind folks might call that sort of philosophy schizophrenic.

Critical folks might call it self-serving.

And some folks might call it hypocrisy.


None of those folks would be wrong.

No comments:

Post a Comment