FISHERIES: MANAGING FOR THE MINORITY

The most recent edition of Fisheries of the United States, the National Marine Fisheries Service’s annual report to Congress, reveals that, in 2018, there were 8.5 million recreational salt water anglers, who fished all along the nation’s coast.  Those anglers made 194 million separate fishing trips, with about 54 million of those trips made in the New England and Mid-Atlantic regions.

In the New England and Mid-Atlantic, the overwhelming share of all recreational fishing trips are made by anglers either fishing from shore (60 percent) or from private boats (38 percent).  The remaining 2 percent of the trips are made on for-hire vessels, with party and charter boats each accounting for about 1 percent of all angling excursions.

Yet in more and more fisheries, we are seeing fisheries managers going out of their way to craft regulations that favor that small for-hire sector.  And since fisheries management is essentially a zero-sum game, in which a finite quantity of fish must be divided up among all user groups, that means that regulations that convey special benefits to the for-hire sector must necessarily take away benefits from everyone else.

I was reminded of that again when I read an op-ed piece on newportri.com, which discussed new recreational striped bass regulations being proposed in Rhode Island.  

As I’ve reported here on multiple occasions over the past few months, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board adopted a coastal slot limit of 28 to 35 inches last October, but is also allowing states to adopt different regulations, provided that such rules achieve at least an 18 percent reduction in such states’ striped bass fishing mortality. 

For a while, it looked like Rhode Island might be the only state in the northeast that would adopt such alternative regulations.  All of the others are seeking regional consistency by adopting the ASMFC’s preferred slot, and at least one state, Massachusetts, has formally and publicly urged Rhode Island to adopt that slot, too.

Fortunately, just today, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management announced that it would, in fact, support regional unity and adopt the ASMFC's preferred slot.

However, there was real concern for a while that the state would strike out on its own, when it appeared that the Rhode Island Marine Fisheries Council, which advises the Department, recommended that the Department go its own way, ignore the weight of comments from the state’s fishermen, and adopt a 32 to 40-inch slot for most anglers, and a more liberal, 30 to 40-inch slot, for its for-hire fleet.  

As described in the newportri.com op-ed,

“The R.I. Party & Charter Boat Association (55 members) advocated for a conservation equivalency proposal for charter boats and then a separate regulation for everyone else…

“Special treatment for charter/party boats is not fair.  They already have beneficial tautog and bluefish regulations with seasons adjusted to fit their business needs.  In addition, their customers can fish without the recreational licenses required of all other anglers in R.I.  As a result no monies are generated to support new boat ramps or fishing piers or fund data gathering for the rest of us.

“Anglers (49,000 licenses in R.I.) including the R.I. Saltwater Anglers Association (7,500 affiliated members) advocated for the 28 to <35” coastwide option for consistency with neighboring states…”

The for-hire fleet isn’t just a distinct minority in Rhode Island when measured in terms of people; it is a minority when measured in terms of striped bass trips, too.  

Over the five years between 2015 and 2019, Rhode Island anglers took about 4 million directed striped bass trips.  Surf fishermen took most of them (69.5 percent) with boat fishermen following well behind (29.5 percent).  For-hire trips, almost all on charter boats, accounted for slightly less than 1 percent of all trips taken.  And that percentage fell sharply through the five-year period, steadily from a high of 1.7 percent in 2016 to just 0.3 percent last year.

Thus, by any measure, Rhode Island’s for-hire fleet is a very small part of the state’s striped bass fishery, yet for a while, it seemed to be driving the regulatory process, to the detriment of not only surf and private-boat anglers, but to that of the striped bass itself.

Again quoting from the newportri.com op-ed,

“Dan McKiernan, acting director of the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, sent a public letter to Jason McNamee, R.I. resources deputy director, asking that Rhode Island not approve striped bass conservation equivalency options.

“McKiernan said, R.I. conservation equivalency ‘alternatives would erode the conservation benefit of slot limit management in our region given how striped bass migrate between states.’

“’Striped bass 35” to 40” in length protected in ME-MA and CT-NY, will be open to harvest in R.I., while fish 28” to 32” (or 28” to 30”) length protected in R.I., will be open to harvest in ME-MA and CT-NY…  the projected reduction in removals associated with Rhode Island’s conservation equivalency options will not be realized,’ said McKiernan.  Law enforcement in R.I. and the region said they oppose different coastwide regulations too.”

Given all that, it’s difficult to understand why the Rhode Island Marine Fisheries Council would recommend regulations that benefit only a tiny portion of its striped bass fishery, at the expense of the vast majority and of the fish itself.  Many anglers will be pleased that the Department of Environmental Management didn't listen.

However, such thinking isn’t limited to Rhode Island.

Maryland’s 2020 striped bass regulations, including both those that have been finalized and those that are expected to be adopted, but are still in the rulemaking process, are even more biased against the shore-based and private boat angler than what was, for a while, being contemplated in Rhode Island.  As described in an article in Delmarva Now,

“Anglers in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries will be limited to just one striped bass a day under new rules approved…by East Coast fishery managers.

“The only exception is in Maryland, where state officials plan to let those who can afford to pay for charter fishing trips to bring home two of the highly prized rockfish, as they are known in the bay…

“The state has shortened but [unlike Virginia] not closed its spring ‘trophy season,’ when anglers can go after the biggest of the species, even though those happen to be the most productive spawners.

“And the state is planning to crack down on anglers who ‘target’ rockfish for catch-and-release during times when it is illegal to keep them…

“Maryland’s proposed catch restrictions came in for particular scrutiny from critics who questioned the science behind the proposal and whether it would actually meet the [ASMFC’s] requirements…

“Michael Luisi, the [Maryland Department of Natural Resources’] director of fishery monitoring and assessment, defended the state’s plan…

“He said that charter boat customers would be allowed to keep twice as many fish as private anglers because charter captains fear that a one-fish-a-day limit would kill their businesses…”

It should be noted that, at meetings of the Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board, Mr. Luisi was well known for giving a lot of lip service to the supposed problem of bass dying after being released, and how a smaller size limit would help to alleviate that problem.  However, after the ASMFC gave him a golden opportunity to put his words into action, with a one-fish bag limit and 18-inch minimum size in Chesapeake Bay, reducing dead discards no longer seemed to be one of his top priorities.  

Instead, Maryland appears intent on a 19-inch minimum size, with all of the additional discard mortality that will entail, and will allow charter boat anglers to keep two fish, which will increase discard mortality even more, particularly during the summer, when high water temperatures and low dissolved oxygen causes more released fish to die (Maryland will close the season for 16 days during the summer, but the poor water conditions last far longer than that).

Thus, even though for-hire vessels accounted for only about 4.2 percent of all Maryland directed striped bass trips during the period 2015-2019, Maryland designed its striped bass regulations to favor the for-hire fleet.  In doing so, the state abolished popular early and late season catch-and-release fisheries which, due to the cold water, likely had low levels of release mortality, depriving the shore and private-boat sectors of popular fisheries just to increase the for-hire kill.

Such pro-for-hire bias doesn’t just influence state regulations; it has infiltrated federal fisheries, too.  In December, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council responded to new data, which revealed higher than expected landings in the recreational bluefish fishery, by reducing the recreational bag limit from 15 to just 3 fish—except for the for-hire fishery, where anglers were awarded a 5-bluefish bag.  In announcing the change, the Council said that

“Although the Council’s Bluefish Monitoring Committee recommended a coastwide 3-fish bag limit, the majority of comments from the public and Bluefish Advisory Panel (AP) members [in both cases, mostly members of the for-hire fleet] expressed opposition to this option, noting that it would have severe economic consequences for the for-hire sector, which was only responsible for 3.6% of coastwide landings from 2016 to 2018.  Additionally, AP members and the public emphasized that these proposed reductions come at a challenging time for for-hire stakeholders as they are also facing new restrictions on striped bass, black sea bass, summer flounder and scup.  [AUTHOR’S NOTE:  Despite the Council’s comment, there will be no new restrictions on black sea bass, summer flounder nor scup, as 2019 regulations for all three species will be carried forward into 2020.]”

“Severe economic consequences” of one sort or another are always the justification for managing fish in a way that benefits the for-hire fleet, at the expense of the majority of anglers.  

Maybe such consequences are even real, but that doesn’t address the real management question:  Should regulations be drafted to grant special privileges to a very small and, in many fisheries, shrinking minority of the recreational sector, at the expense of the great majority of anglers?

I would argue that the correct answer is no.

Certainly, fisheries managers should try to find ways to accommodate a wide array of stakeholders; at the same time, whether they manage at the state or the federal level, managers do well to take the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act’s guidance to heart, and manage stocks in a way that

“will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation,”

rather than choose management measures that will provide the greatest benefit to the smallest sector of the recreational community.

Of course, the two approaches are not mutually exclusive.  It is completely feasible to set aside a portion of the recreational catch for the use of the for-hire sector, and to allow that sector to fish under regulations that are designed with that sector in mind.  

To make that work fairly—that is, to allow the for-hire sector to have their own rules, separate and apart from the rules that govern the vast majority of anglers—that sector must also have a separate allocation of fish that reflects their recent share of the fishery.  Under such an arrangement, both the for-hire sector and the shore/private boat sector should be held strictly accountable for their own performance, so that an overage by one sector does not adversely impact the other.

But “accountable” is not a popular word in the New England/Mid-Atlantic for-hire fleet.

That quickly became clear a few weeks ago, here in New York, when the Mid-Atlantic Council and the ASMFC held a joint scoping hearing on the pending Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Commercial/Recreational Allocation Amendment.  

A number of the for-hire representatives present supported the concept of “sector separation,” but others were concerned that their slice of the pie, based on the for-hires’ current share of the landings, might be too constraining.  To avoid that issue, one person suggested that the for-hires should be granted special regulations that favored their sector, but still take their fish out of the general recreational quota, and not a sector-specific allocation.

Because who wouldn’t want to have special privileges, without any special accountability or countervailing responsibility?  Life is good when you can have what you want, and someone else pays the bill.

The argument they make, of course, is that a for-hire boat can only make money if its customers are allowed to kill and bring home relatively large quantities of fish.  Given today’s demands on often-depleted fish stocks, and the resultant regulations intended to maintain such stocks at sustainable levels, the upshot of that argument is that the for-hire customers should be allowed to kill and bring home more fish than the great majority of anglers, who fish from their own boats, or from shore.

But is it good public policy to allow that to happen? 

If a business can only survive if it is allowed to co-opt a disproportionately large share of a public resource, has that business outlived its time?

It’s a hard truth that economic and social conditions change.  Many companies that were economic powerhouses a half-century ago, retailers such as the F. W. Woolworth Company and the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company (A&P grocery), manufacturers such as the Bethlehem Steel Corporation and, in the maritime sphere, the Outboard Marine Corporation, and financial institutions such as Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. and Security Pacific Bank all failed to adopt their businesses to changing times, and went broke.

If various for-hire operators choose to cling to a 1970 business model that relies on killing more fish than today’s science, and today’s sensibilities, deem wise, they shouldn’t expect the government to subsidize their businesses with public resources that belong to us all.  Failure is in their futures, too.

Fortunately, there are quite a few for-hire captains that understand that times change, and in turn are willing to change with the times.  

Down in the Gulf of Mexico, for-hire vessels asked the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council to adopt a sector separation plan that hinged on greater accountability for the for-hire sector, and would help managers avoid overfishing.

In the New England/Mid-Atlantic region, a new and growing alliance of charter boat owners, created just over a year ago, has organized around the premise of

“Promoting sustainable business through marine conservation.”

They’ve adopted the slogan

“If you take care of the fish, the fish take care of you,”

and introduce themselves as

“a coalition of forward-thinking guides, small business owners and like-minded anglers who understand the value of keeping fish in the water.  We realize that abundance equals opportunity, and that such opportunity is quite a bit more important to the future of fishing than low size limits and full coolers.”

Like the for-hire operators in the Gulf of Mexico, they understand the need for accountability, and understand that sector separation is worthless without it.

They understand that when it comes to fish stocks, we’re all in it together.  They understand that the future of fishing, and of their businesses, depends not on clinging to an outdated paradigm, but on embracing the future and advocating for the long-term health of fish stocks.

They understand that their future lies not in special privileges, and not in managing stocks for a tiny minority.  

They understand that their future lies in a management system that provides an abundance for all.