For many years, anglers and businesses critical of recreational
fishing regulations have focused their ire on the Marine Recreational Fisheries
Statistics Survey (MRFSS) and on MRFSS’ successor, the Marine Recreational Information
Program(MRIP), claiming that the landings estimates those surveys
produced were very inaccurate and did not truly reflect recreational harvest.
Their criticisms of MRFSS found some support in a 2006 study, Review of Recreational Fisheries Survey Methods, which
was conducted by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). It determined
that “Both the telephone and access components of [MRFSS] have serious flaws in
design or implementation and use inadequate analysis methods that need to be *addressed
immediately.”
The NAS study’s findings caused the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to
develop MRIP, a program designed to provide much more accurate estimates of
recreational harvest.
A NAS review of MRIP,
released early in 2017, declared that NMFS had made “significant improvements
in gathering information through redesigned surveys, strengthening the quality
of data.” Although MRIP represents a big jump forward in recreational data
collection, the NAS report noted that “some challenges remain, such as
incorporating technological advances for data collection and enhancing
communication with anglers and some other stakeholders.”
That wasn’t the news that some anglers’ rights organizations
wanted to hear. They had long opposed NMFS’ regulations by arguing that the harvest data
underlying such rules were bad. Thus, they tried to spin NAS’
generally favorable report, distorting its message in an attempt to
argue that MRIP data, too, was unreliable. The overall thrust of their message
was that MRFFS, and now MRIP, provided estimates that overstated
recreational harvest, and led to unnecessarily restrictive
regulations.
On or about July 2, 2018,
those organizations, and the people who believed their message, will be very
disappointed, as that is when NMFS plans to announce new data that will
demonstrate that MRFSS and MRIP catch estimates actually underestimatedrecreational
harvest to a very significant degree.
To understand why that’s the
case, it’s important to first understand how recreational catch estimates are
made.
MRIP is actually comprises two different surveys.
Data related to what anglers’ catch is gleaned from the Access-Point Angler Intercept
Survey, in which anglers are interviewed at randomly selected
private-boat docks, boat liveries and shore-fishing spots (anglers fishing from
party and charter boats have their catch information recorded in a separate
For-Hire Survey), where their catch can be identified, counted and measured.
Information on how often anglers go fishing is generated by a
separate survey. For many years, that was the so-called Coastal Household Telephone
Survey (CHTS), which employed random-digit dialing to call
households in coastal counties, determine whether anyone in that household
fished and, if they did, determine how many salt water fishing trips they had
made in the previous two months.
The calculated mean catch per interviewed angler was then
multiplied by the estimated number of trips made; the product of those two numbers
was the estimated recreational landings for each two-month
“wave.”
Studies conducted in recent years have revealed that the CHTS was significantly
flawed, and that replacing it with a mail survey would allow
surveyors to reach more anglers, achieve higher response rates and eliminate
much of the error caused when anglers misremembered the number of trips they
actually made. Such studies determined that
effort by private boat anglers is 2.9 times higher, and effort
by shore-based anglers is 5.9 times higher, than the CHTS suggested.
That means that the actual
recreational harvest was much higher than previously estimated, too, although
precisely how much higher will depend upon the particular fishery, the state
where the survey occurred and the time of year when each survey was made.
Many anglers may immediately fear that higher estimates of
recreational harvest will lead to increased restrictions on anglers. While that
may be true in some cases, the actual impact of the updated estimates will vary from
stock to stock. Dr. Ned Cyr, Director of the Office of Science and Technology
for NMFS, has noted that “the
first step is to incorporate the calibrated data into stock assessments,” and
that “recreational effort and catch estimates are just two factors” that go
into such assessments.
Once that’s done, according
to Dr. Cyr, “We anticipate that those stocks with a higher proportion of
recreational fishing could potentially see larger impacts such as changes to
stock status, annual catch limits, and possibly allocations, depending on
council actions.” He acknowledged that the new estimates could impact stock
assessments that are conducted as early as the second half of 2018.
That means that things on the
management front are about to get very interesting, as stock assessments for
some important and often controversial recreational species, including summer
flounder, striped bass and Atlantic cobia are scheduled for late this year.
There are also some pending management actions that could be very significantly
impacted by the new numbers.
From an angler’s standpoint, summer flounder may prove to be the
most interesting case. The stock, once badly overexploited, has since
recovered, although it has never achieved the
biomass target. Overfishing has occurred in
recent years, largely due to consecutive years of below-average
spawning success leading to a sharp decline in abundance. Add in increased
angling effort, and so an increased recreational harvest, and many things might
occur.
The first thing that may well happen is that the higher
estimates of recreational harvest will force fishery managers to revise the
size of the fluke population upward.
That might seem
counterintuitive to many fishermen, who would think that any data showing that
more fish had been landed would also show that there were fewer fish left in
the sea. But that’s not exactly how population models work.
Biologists often estimate the size of fish populations by
employing a technique known as “virtual population analysis” (VPA).
It works much like a bank account, using estimates of income (fish recruited
into the population) and expenses (fish removed from the population by fishing
or natural mortality) to determine population size. But there’s a twist to
VPAs, in that the size of a fish population is calculated backwards. That is,
biologists use the number of fish caught, combined with estimates of
recruitment and natural mortality, to determine how large a population must
have been in the past to support the known volume of landings.
Thus, if the revised harvest
estimates show that anglers caught more summer flounder than biologists had
originally believed, such higher landings would imply that the population must
also have been larger than previously thought. Otherwise, the population
wouldn’t have been able to support such a high level of landings for as many
years as it had.
That reassessment of the
population size could, in turn, also lead to a corresponding increase in the
annual catch limit. At the same time, daily bag limits, or other regulations,
could become more restrictive, to account for the higher estimates of
recreational effort.
Both allocation and any new regulations could also be affected
by a change in the way fish are allocated. The current allocation, which grants
40% of the overall catch limit to the recreational sector and 60% to commercial
fishermen, was based on harvest estimates for
the years 1980-1989. Should revised effort data lead to
significantly higher recreational harvest estimates for those years, it is likely
that representatives of the recreational fishing sector will push the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council(MAFMC) to revise the allocation
accordingly. However, there is no guarantee that any such revision would be
adopted; allocation debates are
notoriously bitter and divisive, and rarely result in
significant change, even when the objective evidence for such change seems
strong.
Updated effort and landings
estimates might be more successfully used to prevent the reallocation of
bluefish from the recreational to the commercial sector.
The MAFMC, acting in conjunction with the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), have recently
initiated an amendment to the bluefish
management plan, which contemplates just such an action, based on
the belief that anglers have not been harvesting their full bluefish quota
while, at the same time, commercial fishermen are seeking ways to increase
their landings. Should the updated data demonstrate that anglers are landing
more bluefish than fishery managers had believed, as appears almost certain,
the rationale for any such reallocation would be undermined.
Increased estimates of
recreational harvest, arising out of the revised effort data, may also have a
significant impact on the striped bass debate now unfolding at the ASMFC.
The objectives of ASMFC’s current striped bass management plan include,
among others, to “Manage fishing mortality to maintain an age structure that
provides adequate spawning potential to sustain long-term abundance of striped
bass populations,” and “Establish a fishing mortality target that will result
in a net increase in the abundance (pounds) of age 15 and older striped bass in
the population, relative to the 2000 estimate.”
Such objectives require a relatively conservative management
approach, but at a recent meeting of ASMFC’s Striped Bass
Management Board (Management Board), some Management Board
members argued that current management measures were too conservative.
At the following meeting,
the Management Board instructed the biologists performing the upcoming stock
assessment to consider a range of management options, including those that
would allow a higher level of striped bass harvest, and a relaxation of current
regulations.
If updated estimates reveal that recreational striped bass
harvest, which already accounts for more
than two-thirds of all striped bass landings, is much higher
than the Management Board had thought, current management may be far less
conservative than previously believed, making it more difficult to justify
further relaxing existing regulations.
Thus, there are many possible
implications of the upcoming release of revised recreational effort and
landings data. While the new and more accurate data will permit more effective
regulation and management of salt water fish stocks, and allow fishery managers
to better ensure such stocks’ long-term health, it is impossible to predict
precisely what impact they will have on any particular fishery.
But it is easy to predict
that some things will change.
-----
This essay first appeared in “From the Waterfront,” the blog
of the Marine Fish Conservation Network, which can be found at http://conservefish.org/blog/
Thank you Mr. Witek, This is a very good explanation of what will happen when the new estimates are released and how assessments may be impacted. Like you say, things are about to get interesting
ReplyDeleteThank you Mr. Witek, This is a very good explanation of what will happen when the new estimates are released and how assessments may be impacted. Like you say, things are about to get interesting
ReplyDelete