Thursday, June 13, 2019

REBUILDING FISH STOCKS: IF NOT NOW, WHEN?


Everyone seems to want healthy fisheries—at least in theory.  The problems arise when managers propose concrete ways to rebuild depleted stocks, proposals that inevitably must involve reduced landings, and so reduced incomes for people who work on the water.

At that point, the need for healthy stocks, and the rebuilding required to get there, becomes subject to intense debate, as folks wishing to maintain healthy cash flows begin to begin to publicly question whether healthy fish populations should be managers' top priority.

I was reminded of that once again when I read a few pieces on proposed restrictions on fishing for southern flounder down in North Carolina.


“estimated overall declining trends in recruitment and female spawning stock biomass (SSB).  Recruitment has decreased throughout the time-series from approximately 13 million recruits in 1989 to approximately 4 million recruits in 2017.  The model also predicted a decline in SSB beginning in 1989, which corresponds to an increase in [fishing mortality] beginning in 2007 with a time-series high in 2013.
“The model estimated F35% (fishing mortality target) as 0.35 and F25% (fishing mortality threshold) as 0.53.  Estimated fishing mortality in 2017 was 0.91, which is higher than the F threshold of 0.53 and indicates overfishing is occurring…
“[S]ustainability benchmarks were calculated using projected SSB values modeled using estimates of fishing mortality associated with a [spawning potential ratio of] 25% (threshold) and [a spawning potential ratio of] 35% (target)…The ASAP model estimated a value of 5,452 metric tons (approximately 12.0 million pounds) for SSB35% (SSB target) and a value of 3,900 metric tons (approximately 8.6 million pounds) for SSB25% (SSB threshold).  The estimate of SSB in 2017 is 1,031 metric tons (approximately 2.3 million pounds), which is lower than the SSB threshold of 3,900 metric tons and indicates that the stock is overfished…”
So there’s no question at all that the southern flounder is having real problems, and can use some help from fishery managers.  And given that the southern flounder supports both

“one of the largest and most valuable commercial fisheries in North Carolina, accounting for landings of 1.39 million pounds with a dockside value of $5.66 million in 207,”
and a recreational fishery in which

“flounder species have been the most often reported target species in 20 of the last 37 years,”
one would think that fishermen would be very eager to see the stock restored to health.

Certainly, North Carolina fishery managers seem intent on rebuilding the stock.  The proposed amendment to the management plan would end overfishing within two years and, assuming that other states with a southern flounder fishery also do their part, should rebuild the stock by 2028.  

The necessary reductions in fishing mortality will have to be substantial if there is to be a good chance of success.  Thus, according to a June 10 press release,

“The [North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries] proposes a 62% reduction in southern flounder harvest (compared to 2017) in North Carolina this year and a 72% reduction in harvest beginning in 2020 to be achieved through commercial and recreational season closures.  The division also proposes yardage and time restrictions for gill nets and prohibiting the use of puncturing devices, such as gaffs, in the pound net fishery.”
Given the state of the southern flounder stock, such measures seem appropriate, and should be adopted quickly, as the proposed amendment to the management plan warns that

“delayed implementation will further increase the magnitude of necessary reductions.”
Unfortunately, the reaction to the proposed, and badly needed, management measures have been entirely predictable.  The JDNews of Jacksonville, North Carolina reported that one commercial representative on North Carolina’s Marine Fisheries Commission argued that

“in addition to managing the fishery and natural resources, there is also a ‘human resource’ impact if fishermen see a reduction in their livelihood.  He said he understands the need to preserve the stock but questioned the emergency action of the proposed recommendations, which are following after impacts already felt after Hurricane Florence.”

“These proposed restrictions will have devastating impacts to the fishing economies of Carteret County.  The Division of Marine Fisheries…[has] decided to pursue an accelerated timeline…to adopt substantial reductions in commercial and recreational harvest and have chosen fishing reduction goals that are not practicable or reasonable when considering the economic impacts, biology of southern flounder, management history and possibly environmental considerations…
“The proposed measures are problematic in that the estimated reductions in fishing mortality must be obtained from all the southeastern Atlantic states where southern flounder occur.  North Carolina is planning on implementing substantial reductions this fall, while it will be some time before (other) states can implement similar measures or if they even choose to do so.”
Those are the sorts of arguments one hears at just about any fishery meeting when additional restrictions are being discussed: sure, conservation is needed, but not at the expense of anyone’s income.  There is always a hurricane, or a nor’easter, or some other natural event that can be used to justify delay, and there are always the voices that urge taking no action until someone else—another state, or perhaps the federal government—takes action first, because no one ever wants to be the first to act to protect a fish stock, and perhaps thus miss out on the last, big, profitable kill.


“has been a monumental failure to replenish our fish stocks, and the reason for that is politics.”
He added that instead of taking the actions needed to restore fish stocks, managers merely

“nibble around the edges,”
adopting half-measures because of political pressure to do so.  To illustrate the problem, he noted that southern flounder that were 5, 6 and 7 years old were once a part of the catch in North Carolina, but that today, because of ineffective fishery management, it’s rare to see a flounder that’s more than 2 years old.

Unfortunately, such problems aren’t restricted to southern flounder, and they’re also not restricted to North Carolina.  They seem to be endemic in fisheries outside of federal jurisdiction, which aren’t governed by the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, that prohibit overfishing and require the prompt rebuilding of overfished stocks.


Most recently, and most importantly, it has cropped up at ASMFC’s Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board, which has a long and unenviable history of avoiding the most difficult management decisions, particularly with regard to rebuilding the stock.




There is little reason to believe that such failures and delay accomplishes anything of lasting good.

As Mr. Daniels noted in North Carolina, with respect to such actions,

“Does anybody think that they’re seeing more fish than they did 22 years ago [when North Carolina’s fishery management law was adopted]?”
“Anybody even close to seeing the same amount of fish that you saw 22 years ago?”
“…We haven’t rebuilt—restored—one fish.  Not one.”
“We’ve got a problem, and it’s just going downhill.  We’re not seeing any improvement in these resources.”
Because that’s what delay does, it just makes things worse.

While some folks may make a little more money for a short while, in the end, delay hurts us all.

That’s an important thing to remember, not only in the case of North Carolina’s southern flounder, but in the case of other species, too.

Right now, it’s something to remember as ASMFC looks at striped bass.





No comments:

Post a Comment