Last Wednesday, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Menhaden Management Board agreed to adopt “environmental reference points” to govern menhaden management. Wednesday’s actions are arguably the conclusion of a twenty-five year long battle to wrest menhaden management away from the industrial menhaden fishery and hand it over to professional fishery managers who will now manage menhaden primarily as a forage fish, emphasizing its role in coastal ecosystems, rather than as feed stock for a reduction industry that converts menhaden into fish meal, oils and other products.
Congratulations go out to the many conservation groups,
angling organizations, and private citizens who gritted it out and saw this
fight through to what will hopefully be its desired end. I got involved with menhaden in the late
1990s and know that there were people already engaged in the debate for years
before that.
Thanks go out to the professional fishery managers and
others who sit on the Management Board and made this happen, to the scientists
on the ASMFC’s staff and elsewhere who prepared the stock assessments and other
analysis, and to everyone else who contributed their time and their knowledge
to the effort. That includes Secretary
of Commerce Wilbur Ross and his staff, who refused to let the Virginia Legislature
look the other way while Omega Protein exceeded the ASMFC’s cap on menhaden in
the Chesapeake Bay, and to Virginia Governor Ralph Northam and his natural
resources staff, who looked beyond Virginia’s parochial interests in the
reduction fishery to menhaden’s importance to all of the states on the coast.
Having said that, what does last week’s menhaden decision
really mean, and what does if portend for the management of other forage
species?
That is an interesting question.
In some ways, the Atlantic Menhaden Management Board’s
actions were notable, because Atlantic menhaden support one of the largest
commercial fisheries in the nation; ecological reference points have the
potential of limiting that fishery’s landings.
But at the same time, the current estimated fishing
mortality rate for Atlantic menhaden is slightly below the environmental
reference points’ fishing mortality target, so no cuts in menhaden landings
would currently be required (that could change in October, when managers will
set the 2021 annual catch limit, although there is no reason to believe that a
harvest reduction is currently on the table).
Another factor that probably militated in favor of the environmental
reference points was that most
of the commercial Atlantic menhaden fishery is concentrated in Virginia. There are menhaden fisheries in other states,
but Virginia gets nearly 80 percent of the quota; New Jersey, which receives slightly
less than 11 percent of the quota, sits in a very distant second place. The other 9 percent or so is shared by
fourteen different jurisdictions, making it very easy for the representatives
of those jurisdictions to listen to the science and their constituents’
comments, and vote for ecological reference points. They could do so with the confidence that
their local fishermen probably wouldn’t be hurt by such vote and, if a few more
menhaden were needed, they could probably shave them off Virginia’s quota.
That’s not necessarily true of other forage species, and in
that regard, the debate leading up to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council’s Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment is instructive. In preparing that amendment, the Mid-Atlantic
Council recognized that
“Forage fish are small fish and invertebrates that feed on
smaller marine organisms such as plankton and are in turn eaten by many species
of fish, sea birds, and marine mammals.
Forage species play an important role in sustaining the productivity and
structure of marine ecosystems by facilitating the transfer of energy from the
lowest level of the food chain to higher levels.”
That all sounds good, but it should be noted that the
Unmanaged Forage amendment, both as it was adopted and as it exists today,
largely protects only unfished, as well as unmanaged, forage
species. There was considerable debate
over including chub
mackerel, a species that only began to see significant Mid-Atlantic landings in
2013.
Even though the mackerel weren’t a traditional commercial
target in the region, the fact that a fishery was beginning to develop was
enough to make their inclusion in the Unmanaged Forage amendment a temporary
one; a
recent amendment has included chub mackerel as a species covered by the Atlantic
Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan.
So chub mackerel are forage fish, and Atlantic mackerel,
squid, and butterfish are forage fish too, but all of them support lucrative
commercial fisheries that operate out of a number of different states, so you
probably won’t see any of them being managed for their value as forage at any
time soon.
Instead, what you’ll probably see, in the case of forage
fish that support significant fisheries, are occasional measures to avoid
localized depletion of particular forage species, when fishermen become
convinced that a lack of forage is contributing to a lack of larger, more
valuable fish. The
New England Fishery Management Council’s proposed Amendment 8 to the Atlantic
Herring Fishery Management Plan is an example of that approach, where
“NOAA Fisheries proposes regulations to implement Amendment 8
to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan. The New England Fishery Management Council
developed Amendment 8 to specify a long-term acceptable biological catch
control rule for Atlantic herring and address localized depletion and user
group conflict. This amendment would
establish an acceptable biological catch control rule for Atlantic herring that
accounts for herring’s role in the ecosystem and prohibit midwater trawling in
inshore federal waters from the U.S./Canada border to the Rhode
Island/Connecticut border. Amendment 8
is intended to support sustainable management of the herring resource and help ensure
that herring is available to minimize possible detrimental impacts on predators
of herring and associated socioeconomic impacts on other user groups.”
That’s not as bold a step toward ecosystem management as the
ASMFC took with Atlantic menhaden, but it’s still a reasonable step in the
right direction.
So, right now, it looks like the ASMFC’s adoption of
ecological reference points was a big win for the conservation community, although
we won’t know for certain just how big a win it was until the ASMFC’s October
meeting, when the Atlantic Menhaden Management Board sets the annual catch
limit for 2021.
If it sets that catch limit at or below the fishing
mortality target, the celebrations can really begin. On the other hand, if
it decides to be “flexible,” as the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition, an
association that includes the largest menhaden harvesters, urges, and
allows fishing mortality to exceed the target level, we’ll know that there is still
more work to be done.
Thus, newspaper articles which declare that
“Menhaden
decision marks a new era in Atlantic fisheries management”
are exaggerating the impact of the ASMFC’s actions. While it certainly marked a new era in
Atlantic menhaden management, its impact on Atlantic fisheries
management will probably be somewhat less.
But that shouldn’t detract from our enthusiasm over the
ASMFC’s actions. The ASMFC clearly took
the right action based on the science and based
on its own five-year plan, which supports a move toward ecosystem-based
management.
Mackerel, herring and butterfish might not benefit from the
ASMFC’s actions.
But menhaden, and its predators, most certainly will.
No comments:
Post a Comment