SALTWATER FISHERIES: AS A NEW YEAR BEGINS

 

Ever since I began writing this blog, I started each new year with an overview of the fisheries issues that will likely arise in the next twelve months.  As I look at the prospects for 2021, the list may be longer than ever.

Highly Migratory Species

Over the course of the year, I fish for just about everything from blowfish to bluefin.  But from June through October, whenever the wind doesn’t blow, I do my best to get offshore.

There’s something about fighting big fish—the sort that can cause you real pain over the course of an hours-long battle, and force you to pit both your strength and your skill against their wild power—that appeals to me more than any other kind of angling.  While trolling for tuna or billfish is, in my eyes, the ultimate expression of the offshore angler’s craft, recent years have found me spending more and more time pursuing sharks--which is also how I cut my offshore teeth--largely because I’ve been helping some researchers at Stony Brook University gather data on various species, something that allows me to give just a little bit back to an ocean that has provided me with so much joy for so long.

We’ve had some notable firsts on those trips.  Last June, we caught, sampled and tagged the first white shark that has ever been hooked from one of my boats.  About a month later, we placed an acoustic tag in a blacktip; one of the researchers said that, when we released that fish, it represented the northernmost deployment of an acoustic tag in that species.

I’m not sure whether that is true or not, but tagging a blacktip off central Long Island still felt pretty good.

But one thing that hasn’t felt good is the disheartening decline in the number of shortfin mako sharks that we’re seeing. 

We fish in a few different spots.  One, near the wreck of the tanker Coimbra, a little more than 25 miles south of New York’s Shinnecock Inlet, has reliably produced makos for me since 1984.  Yet I haven’t had a mako there in the past two years.  I usually abandon the Coimbra in mid-July, and move inshore to some 20-fathom structure off Fire Island.  It, too, was a historically productive mako spot, producing many multi-mako days—we had 6 in one day just a few years ago—but in recent seasons, that productivity has fallen off sharply, with most trips producing no makos at all.

I’d like to think that was just a product of changing conditions, but that isn't true.  Scientists at the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (which, despite the name, also addresses the harvest of sharks and billfish) have found that the North Atlantic stock of shortfin makos is badly overfished and suffering from overfishing, and that total catch, including dead discards in the longline fishery—the fishery accounting for most of the overall fishing mortality—might have to be reduced to somewhere between 0 and 100 metric tons to provide even a 50 percent probability that the stock can be rebuilt in the next 50 years.

Most of the ICCAT member nations are willing to make the sacrifices needed to begin such rebuilding.  Led by Senegal and Canada, they have proposed banning all shortfin mako harvest in order to best assure that such rebuilding will, in fact, occur.  Unfortunately, in 2019 and again in 2020, their efforts have been undermined by the European Union and, somewhat surprisingly, the United States, which have successfully managed to keep dead shortfin makos flowing into their ports.

Changing minds in the European Union is beyond our power (although it should be noted that, as Brexit neared, the United Kingdom broke away from the EU's position on makos and now supports banning all harvest), but with a new and, hopefully, more conservation-oriented administration entering the White House on January 20, there is at least reason to hope that the United States will belatedly jump onto the mako conservation bandwagon.  

Perhaps, if that happens, it will be enough to convince ICCAT to go along.

Greater protections for western stock bluefin tuna management may also be needed.

A lot of fishermen will argue that bluefin represent a success story, with more fish being seen and caught off the northeastern United States than have been taken in many years.  While there has certainly been an uptick in bluefin numbers, current abundance still doesn't match what we saw in the 1970s--and yes, I was there, and can say that first hand.  Also, most scientists currently believe that many of the bluefin we catch off the East Coast were spawned in the Mediterranean Sea, and not in the Gulf of Mexico, so the observed abundance may not represent the true condition of the so-called “western stock”—the Gulf of Mexico-spawned—fish.

There is reason to believe that the western stock quota has been set too high.  Sylvie Lapointe, Canada’s deputy minister of fisheries and harbour management has said that

“The science advice this year was pretty clear, that if we were to simply roll over the existing total allowable catch, which is 2,350 metric tons in 2021, we would have a 94 per cent chance of overfishing next year.”

Thus, western stock bluefin may well experience overfishing in 2021.  The good news is that a new stock assessment, that should be released next year, will either demonstrate that the 2021 quota was not reasonable, or provide a solid scientific foundation for reducing the western stock quota for 2022 and beyond.

Assuming, of course, that ICCAT follows the science.  That's does not always happen, as the mako's plight shows.

Federally-managed fisheries

The biggest news in federally managed fisheries is that the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation andManagement Act, which governs all fishing in federal waters, is up for reauthorization in the 117^th Congress.  While there is no guarantee that such reauthorization will ultimately occur, Congressman Jared Huffman (D-CA), who chairs the House Natural Resources Water, Oceans, and Wildlife Subcommittee, along with Rep. Ed Case (D-HI), have released a so-called “discussion draft” of a proposed Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization bill.

On balance, the discussion draft represents a very solid first step in the reauthorization process.  It not only maintains, but strengthens, Magnuson-Stevens’ strong commitment to prevent overfishing and rebuilding overfished stocks, and generally enhances the bill by adding a number of sections, including sections that would require fishery managers to give greater protection to forage fish stocks and to consider the impacts of climate change on the stocks that they manage.  

Like any major piece of legislation, it has a few warts, but they’re relatively minor ones, which will hopefully be pared down as the process moves forward. 

If the final Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization bill doesn’t contain a forage fish section—although I think that it will—the issue of forage fish conservation will almost certainly be addressed in stand-alone legislation.  Both fishery managers and the public at large are coming to the realization that, if we are to have healthy populations of predator species, we need equally healthy populations of prey.  So expect to see forage fish legislation, in some form, introduced fairly early in the 117^th Congress.

Regulatory issues will also emerge in the regional fishery management councils.  Of three that will probably generate substantial attention—and there will undoubtedly be others—during 2021, two will emerge from the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.

The first of those will be bluefish rebuilding.  An amendment to do that is already well underway, and must be finalized ahead of the 2022 season.  The Mid-Atlantic Council, working in partnership with the ASMFC, is expected to complete a draft amendment in February, and release it for public comment shortly thereafter.  Given the importance of bluefish to anglers on the East Coast—and we ought to remember that bluefish is primarily a recreational, and primarily a release-oriented fishery, and ought to be kept that way—anglers should be ready to comment on the amendment when the time comes.

The other Mid-Atlantic issue that we expect to see is the so-called “recreational reform initiative,” which has been in progress for the last two years.  The reform initiative includes some very worthwhile efforts, particularly with respect to the way it proposes to deal with uncertain, inadequate, or anomalous data.  However, anglers need to be cautious, because the recreational fishing industry, both on the tackle and on the for-hire side, is pushing to add some provisions that would, if adopted, both undercut the current annual catch limits and accountability measures applicable to the recreational sector (and so probably would be illegal), and perhaps introduce “sector separation” into some fisheries, which would reserve a portion of the recreational landings for the for-hire sector.  This is an issue that anglers should be watching closely.

The final contentious issue likely to emerge at the council level will, once again, be recreational red snapper harvest in the Gulf of Mexico.  As I mentioned a few months ago, the so-called “Great Red Snapper Count” has revealed that the red snapper biomass in the Gulf is larger than scientists could previously demonstrate.  In response, the usual suspects in the anglers’ rights, tackle and boating industries are pushing the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council to adopt a knee-jerk liberalization of recreational red snapper regulations, instead of taking the time to integrate the Red Snapper Count data into the stock assessment and arrive at a reasoned decision as to how that data should influence the management regime.

Closely connected to that issue is the issue of “calibrating” the state estimates of recreational red snapper landings into data that can be integrated into and used as a part of the Marine Recreational Information Program.  Fisheries managers have been working on such calibration since 2018, but the same organizations that are trying to rush the Gulf Council into increasing recreational red snapper limits are also pushing for increases based on the uncalibrated state data.  The two issues, combined, are likely to ignite a new round of controversy down there.

At the ASMFC

For many East Coast anglers, not only the most important fisheries issue, but the only fisheries issue, that the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission will look at this year is the proposed Amendment 7 to the striped bass management plan. 

My own view is that such an amendment isn’t needed.  The currentAmendment 6 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass sets out a reasonable and balanced approach to striped bass management, that recognizes the need for larger, older females and a diversity of ages and sizes of fish in the spawning stock, while also providing for viable recreational and commercial fisheries.

However, the ASMFC’s Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board feels otherwise, apparently believing that the nearly two decade old amendment doesn’t adequately account for new information about the striped bass stock.  

A number of Management Board members have pointed to the stock’s currently overfished status, and it’s decade-long decline, as evidence that Amendment 6 isn’t working, although a closer look at the facts clearly demonstrates that what really isn’t working is the Management Board itself, which twice, in 2014 and again last year, ignored Amendment 6’s clear injunction to begin a 10-year striped bass rebuilding plan, and has often delayed needed management actions, that might have averted more serious problems, until the bass stock falls into real peril.

Currently, the Management Board seems to fall into two camps, one of which, centered in the northeast, appears to be seeking a more conservative management regime, and another, centered in the Mid-Atlantic, seeking to relax regulations, increase harvest, and permanently reduce striped bass abundance, while increasing the long-term risk to the stock.

At the moment, the latter group seems to be in the ascendance, as a Work Group report, cobbled together to guide the amendment drafting process, has gone so far as to deem striped bass management a “success” despite the fact that the stock is now overfished, and is seeking management measures that emphasize “regulatory consistency” and “flexibility” rather than a fully-rebuilt stock managed for long-term sustainability. 

If they get their way, the Management Board, already known for its delayed and ineffective action, will be officially granted permission to respond to problems even more slowly, and to be even less effective when it finally acts.

The good news is that the amendment process is still in its early stages, and that when the initial Public Information Document—similar to the scoping documents used by the regional fishery management councils—is released for public comment, something that will probably happen in February, striped bass anglers will have an opportunity to provide their views on how the stock ought to be managed, and will thus have a good chance to change the course of the amendment, and give the more conservation-oriented managers in the northeast a chance to prevail. 

But that won’t happen unless everyone concerned with the long-term health of the striped bass resource is willing to stand up and be counted. 

And yes, I recognize that anglers’ views were largely discounted when the Management Board drafted Addendum VI to Amendment 6 to the Interstate Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass, but that was largely a provisional document.  Addendums typically have only a short-term impact, while amendments can last for decades.  

A bad addendum can usually be corrected in a few years, and its damage limited.  A bad amendment could, at worst, result in a crash of the stock, and a recovery that won’t be completed within the lifetimes of many anglers who are fishing today—if such recovery happens at all.

So those who see striped bass as the most important issue of 2021 have good reason for their opinions.

There are other, important but perhaps not as immediately critical issues fulminating at every level of management, including a possible reallocation of summer flounder, scup and black sea bass at the Mid-Atlantic Council, offshore aquaculture legislation in Congress, a new effort to create marine protected areas which may or may not permit recreational fishing, offshore wind farms, and the perennial fights over red snapper and other reef fish in the South Atlantic. 

Up in Alaska, the threat posed to Bristol Bay’s salmon by the Pebble Mine has receded somewhat, but has not gone away.  A number of internationally managed tuna stocks, on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, are not doing too well.  Many salt water “pan fish,” which don’t generate headlines but are nonetheless pursued, and valued, by anglers, are given no protection at all.  Everywhere, the science and data used to manage recreational fisheries is under attack by industry efforts to increase landings and short-term profits, at the expense of long-term sustainability.

Thus, if you’re interested in fisheries issues, and want to get involved in the management debate, I can promise you one thing for certain.

In 2021, you won’t be bored.