Last Friday, I had the privilege of participating in a “listening session” arranged by Rep.
Jarred Huffman (D-CA), the Chairman of the House Natural Resources Water, Oceans
and Wildlife Subcommittee. Eleven
persons, not including the Congressman, sat at the front table. All were drawn from the academic, fisheries
management, angling, commercial fishing, and conservation communities, and all
were good representatives of their respective communities.
Our session, intended to address Mid-Atlantic concerns, was
held at the National Aquarium’s Animal Care and Rescue Center in Baltimore. Two similar sessions have already been held
in California, and more will be held in other coastal venues. Seattle is next on the agenda; fishermen in
the Gulf of Mexico, and elsewhere along the Atlantic Coast, will also have a
chance to be heard.
The purpose of all of the sessions was to examine issues
related to the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and perhaps other, related
legislation, in order to provide Rep. Huffman with the background information that
he needs to move forward with a Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization bill at some
point during the next year.
Given the diversity of the invitees, with respect to experience,
formal education and their relationship to Mid-Atlantic fisheries, it would
have been reasonable to expect that each of us would have presented a
very different set of comments. Yet, while all of us emphasized a slightly different aspect of fisheries management,
there were a few common themes that united all of the speakers.
Everyone at the table who spoke on the issue generally
endorsed Magnuson-Stevens as a successful fishery management law, even if some
of the speakers questioned whether the law was overly rigid and precautionary,
and so prevented some healthy stocks from being fully--but safely—exploited.
The need for the best possible scientific information,
including but not limited to landings data, was certainly one of the dominant themes. Whether the comments were made
by Dr. John
Wiedenmann, a professor at Rutgers University who focuses on sustainable
fisheries issues, by Michael
Waine, the American Sportfishing Association’s Atlantic Fisheries Policy
Director, or by Robert Beal,
the Executive Director of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, all
agreed that good fisheries management depends on good fisheries data.
Of course, while there was broad consensus that fisheries
managers require good data, there was less agreement on how to improve the data-gathering
process, and how to deal with the uncertainty that will never be completely
eliminated from the final product.
In recent years, largely in connection with the so-called “ModernFish Act” and the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery, members of therecreational fishing industry have been calling for things such as anglers providingcatch data via a smart phone application, or providing data that can be includedin stock assessments and other research efforts. Those suggestions were made at the listening
session as well, but other members of the panel, including Richard
Robins, former Chairman of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, noted
that there is still a long way to go before data provided by anglers can be adequately
scrubbed of bias, and so rendered reliable enough to be suitable for use by
fisheries managers.
As far as the uncertainty issue went, I pointed out that Magnuson-Stevens already includes a
provision which states that
“annual catch limits for each of [a regional fishery
management council’s] managed fisheries…may not exceed the fishing level
recommendations of [that council’s] scientific and statistical committee or the
peer review process established under [another provision of the law],”
“When specifying limits and accountability measures, Councils
must take an approach that considers uncertainty in scientific information and
management control of the fishery.”
While I didn’t quote that language word-for-word, I cited
the general concepts, and suggested that because some level of uncertainty will
always be inherent in fisheries data, it might make sense to amend the language
of Magnuson-Stevens to require that each regional fishery management council’s
scientific and statistical committee, when setting the acceptable biological
catch used to develop annual catch limits, specifically include scientific and
management uncertainty in its calculations, and thus create a buffer that would
probably prevent overfishing despite whatever problems persisted in the data.
I still like the idea, but Rep. Huffman correctly noted that
such a change probably wouldn’t go over too well with those who shared the
views of Greg
DiDomenico, Executive Director of the Garden State Seafood Association, who
had earlier argued that Magnuson-Stevens already caused federal fisheries
managers to be overly precautionary, and thus led to the “underfishing” of healthy
stocks.
And, despite my preference for precautionary management, I can’t say that Mr. DiDomenico’s
comment was wrong, for there is no reason not to fully exploit fish stocks, so
long as that exploitation doesn’t threaten such stocks’ long-term
health.
It’s clear that Rep. Huffman is facing a difficult job, trying to
sort this issue out in a way that addresses all of the public’s concerns.
Adding to the problems with uncertain data is the certainty
of climate change, and its impact on coastal waters. Dr. Wiedenmann has been doing a lot of work
with New England groundfish, and noted that because of warming waters, and the
related effects of that warming, in our northeastern sea, there is a lot of
question as to whether past estimates of stock biomass, and rebuilding plans
that are based on such estimates, are still realistic today.
In a slightly different riff on the “underfishing”
theme, he noted that the measures required to rebuild some groundfish stocks to
the target level (he mentioned yellowtail flounder as an example) within Magnuson-Stevens’
default 10-year timeline could force fishermen to land smaller amounts of other
species that remain at or near healthy levels of abundance, in order to avoid excessive bycatch that leads to overfishing the depleted populations. The
remedy for that problem, he suggested, might be more liberal rebuilding
timelines.
But such extended timelines could lead to their own set of problems.
Robert Beal mentioned two ASMFC-managed stocks, northern
shrimp and the southern New England stock of American lobster, which have been
so badly impacted by warming waters and climate change that they may never
recover, regardless of what managers do.
A solution to that problem remains elusive.
Even the seemingly obvious issues turn out to be harder than
they seem.
Pam Lyons
Gromen, Executive Director for Wild Oceans, was the second panelist to
speak, and the first to mention the forage fish issue. She spoke of the need to manage forage fish
not just for human harvest, but for their role in marine ecosystems, where they
serve as prey for fish, a plethora of seabirds and marine
mammals. Comments along the same theme
were made by Michael Waine and by Capt. Paul
Eidmann who, besides being the owner/operator of Reel Therapy Fly & Light
Tackle Fishing Charters, heads the organization Menhaden Defenders which, as its
name suggests, is dedicated to forage fish conservation.
Protecting key elements of the marine food web might, at
first glance, seem to be a no-brainer, but as is often the case with fisheries
matters, the reality is much more nuanced.
Dr.
Michelle Duval, an experienced fisheries scientist who operates Mellivora
Consulting, noted that the definition of “forage fish” is not as clean-cut
as people might believe, and pointed out that marine ecosystems hold a number
of key species, and that all need to be adequately conserved. Dr. Wiedenmann also recommended giving some
real thought to the forage fish issue, because different predators require different
forage species, and many forage species are subject to wide swings in abundance
due to natural circumstances, which are completely unrelated to fishing effort.
Mr. DiDomenico objected to placing forage fish-specific provisions
in Magnuson-Stevens, arguing that the current law is already protecting marine
resources, including forage species, well as it is currently worded, and that
there is no need to add an additional layer of legislation and regulation that
might unnecessarily burden fishermen.
Thus, it became obvious that in the fisheries arena, even an
idea that is a “no-brainer” will require considerable thought.
As the last three panel members had their turn to
speak, a final topic was brought to the floor.
All three speakers were recreational fishermen, and all three had
decided to speak not just about how well Magnuson-Stevens was working to manage
federal fisheries, but how inshore fisheries, which not managed pursuant to
Magnuson-Stevens, but instead by the states, acting cooperatively through the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, were not doing nearly as well.
We hadn’t discussed what we would say among ourselves. None of us had seen the other persons’
comments before they were made. But all
of us, on our own, had decided that it was time to ask Congress, in the form of Rep.
Huffman, for its help in transforming the ASMFC into a truly effective
management body that, in its own sphere, might finally claim the same sort of successes
that federal fisheries managers have long achieved.
Capt. Eidmann was the first to raise the issue, focusing on
the ASMFC’s failure to properly manage striped bass, and pointing out the need for it to do more to protect Atlantic menhaden. Tony
Friedrich, Vice President and Policy
Director for the American Saltwater Guides Association, then picked up on
the theme, noting that we must find a way to compel the ASMFC to do better and to concentrate on
what fishermen really need—rebuilding and maintaining healthy fish stocks. I was the last panel member to speak.
Magnuson-Stevens works. Other speakers more than adequately covered the other topics I had thought to address--forage fish and ocean warming.So my comments focused solely on the need for changes to the law that
governs ASMFC.
They weren’t easy
comments to write, because I wanted to make it clear that I wasn’t attacking
the ASMFC’s staff, who in their competence and dedication are at least the equal of
federal fisheries managers. What I
decried, and asked Rep. Huffman to help change, was an ASMFC structure and
management system that seems built to guarantee failure.
The final words of my comments read
“The failure to rebuild and maintain healthy inshore fish
stocks is not the fault of Commission staff, who are good people, and do a good
job, but of its species-specific management boards, which are dominated by
individuals who have close ties to fishermen and the fishing industry, and tend
to elevate fishermen’s short-term wants above the long-term needs of the fish
stocks that they manage.
“After the regional fishery management councils proved
themselves unwilling and unable to end overfishing and rebuild overfished
stocks, for much the same reasons, Congress passed the Sustainable Fisheries
Act of 1996 which, for the first time, required that federal fishery managers
end overfishing, promptly rebuild overfished stocks, and base their management
actions on the best available science.
Actions which failed to meet those basic standards could be challenged
in court.
“Now, for the Commission to live up to its potential, we need
what might be called the ‘Sustainable Atlantic Coast Fisheries Act,’ which
amends the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, that governs
the Commission, in a similar way.
“I have often pointed out that, if you want to have a fishingindustry, it helps to have fish. That’s
particularly true in recreational fisheries, where abundance clearly drives
effort, and effort drives revenues. A
strong Magnuson-Stevens helps to create and maintain such abundance; requiring
the Commission to end overfishing and promptly rebuild overfished stocks would provide
the same benefits for our inshore fish stocks.
“Thank you.”
I know that Rep. Huffman was listening to the comments that
all of us made.
His listening sessions are just the opening rounds in a
discussion, and then a debate, that will take a year, and probably years, to
resolve. How many of our suggestions make
it into the eventual draft of whatever bill results, and then survive the
political process in both houses of Congress, is impossible to predict at this
point.
Right now, all we can do is thank Rep. Huffman for reaching
out to stakeholders on every coast, stay involved with the political process as
it evolves, and keep striving to convince legislators in both the House and
Senate that a strong Magnuson-Stevens—and, on the East Coast, ASMFC reform—is in
the best long term interests of both fish and fisherman.
No comments:
Post a Comment