I’m a little embarrassed to admit it, but I didn’t comment on the last draft of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s Atlantic Bluefish Allocation and Rebuilding Amendment.
It’s not that I don’t care about bluefish. I was pretty involved with the issue back in
2018, when the Council first issued the original scoping document to what was
then being called the Bluefish
Allocation Amendment to the Bluefish Management Plan which, among other
things, raised the possibility of permanently transferring “unused”
recreational quota to the commercial sector, which would be more than willing
to catch and kill fish that anglers chose to release.
Back then, like a number of other anglers, I tried to
make the case that there was a big difference between “using” a resource and piling
dead fish on the dock, and argued that in a primarily recreational fishery, where
most of the fish caught are released, managing for abundance made far more
sense than managing for yield, particularly when the species involved commands
a relatively low market price.
Council staff got the message, and recognized the importance
of catch and release to the recreational fishery, although the idea of managing
for abundance rather than yield didn’t seem to resonate quite so well. At the same time, they also received a far
louder and more urgent message, in the form of an
operational stock assessment that, using revised recreational catch, landings,
and effort data, determined that the bluefish stock had become overfished, and
had been experiencing overfishing in most of the years since 1985, although
overfishing appeared to have ended in 2018; in November 2019, the National
Marine Fisheries Service formally notified the Council of the stock’s
condition.
That notification changed the bluefish management picture.
The
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires that, if a
stock becomes overfished, the relevant fishery management council must prepare
a rebuilding plan, and that such plan be put into effect in no more than two
years. Thus, what had been the Bluefish
Allocation Amendment to the Bluefish Management Plan quickly became the Bluefish
Allocation and Rebuilding Amendment to the Bluefish Management Plan, and
additional scoping hearings were conducted.
I was involved in those, too.
“Economic and intrinsic value of recreationally caught fish,”
and the
“Value of unharvested quota.”
Thus, the comments that I made in the second
round were intended to reinforce those notions, and to ask that the Council remove a
provision from the management plan which allowed, but did not require, the
uncaught portion of the recreational quota to be transferred to the commercial
sector on an annual basis, rather than just leaving it in the ocean to increase
bluefish abundance and enhance the spawning stock.
That might seem a strange focus when addressing
an overfished stock; in such a case, one might reasonably expect that
rebuilding the stock would constitute the paramount, and perhaps the
sole, priority.
But that’s where Magnuson-Stevens comes in again; there was
never any doubt that the Amendment would include provisions likely to rebuild
the bluefish stock, for the law contains a provision stating that
“For a fishery that is overfished, any fishery
management plan, amendment, or proposed regulations…for such fishery shall—(A)
specify a time period for rebuilding the fishery that shall—(i) be
as short as possible, taking into account the status and biology of any
overfished stocks of fish, the needs of fishing communities, recommendations by
international organizations in which the United States participates, and the
interaction of the overfished stock of fish within the marine ecosystem; and
(ii) not exceed 10 years, except in cases where the biology of
the stock of fish, other environmental conditions, or management measures under
an international agreement in which the United States participates dictates otherwise… [emphasis added; internal formatting omitted]”
If the National Marine Fisheries Service failed to adopt
such a rebuilding plan by the end of this year, it could, and probably would,
be dragged into court and forced to comply.
Unlike
the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, which can and has ignored
rebuilding requirements in its management plans with complete impunity,
NMFS has no discretion to do so.
Thus, there was never any question that a bluefish
rebuilding plan would be put in place; the only considerations were whether
such plan would rebuild the stock in ten years, or in some lesser period, and
precisely what form such rebuilding would take.
Given that, I felt free to concentrate on the abundance and quota
transfer issues, knowing that Magnuson-Stevens had rebuilding well in hand.
Unfortunately, while Council staff (and ASMFC staff, which also
have a role in the process) were willing to listen to anglers’ concerns, and to at least consider the value of unharvested
bluefish quota, the Council itself was not.
Individual anglers are very poorly represented on the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council which, apart from the seats held by state fisheries
managers, is dominated by the commercial sector, the for-hire fleet (many of whom also fish commercially when not carrying passengers), and other
representatives of the recreational fishing industry, who tend to be far more
harvest-oriented, and much more focused on short-term economic concerns, than are typical
recreational fishermen.
In that regard, consider the
comments of Anthony DiLernia, a Council member from New York who, in addressing
the transfer of recreational quota, stated
“I want to give historical context to the amendment 1
decision and why I supported (at that time) the ability to transfer from the
recreational sector to the commercial sector.
From 1981-1989 I was active on headboats. When fish were caught by headboats they were
caught recreationally but often sold commercially. That is why I support the transfer. While some of those fish are counted as
recreational fish, they were sold as commercial fish.”
DiLernia made it clear that he was talking about a past vote, not the current amendment; selling bluefish caught on a party boat trip, while once a common
practice, is now illegal in the State of New York. However, people would be naïve to believe
that some of the fish caught on for-hire vessels don’t still find their way
into the marketplace, or to believe that there aren’t industry representatives, sitting
on the Council today, who might still approve of the practice. And, of course, commercial representatives aren’t
likely to oppose anything that might increase their sector’s catch.
That being the case, it’s not surprising that proposals which emphasized abundance over landings, or would have ended inter-sector transfers, no matter
how popular they might have been with rank-and-file anglers, died a premature death at the Council
table, where such anglers have little real voice.
If it wasn’t for Magnuson-Stevens, such lack of recreational representation could have boded ill for the bluefish, when one considers some of the more bizarre statements that were made during the public comment period.
Consider the comments of Timothy Froelich, a New York
gillnetter, who said
“How and why are we now under strict management
measures? The fishery was overmanaged to
the point where we were not able to harvest enough fish. The larger fish ate the smaller fish and then
the larger fish died of old age…”
Somehow, I’m not sure that conclusion would pass peer review…
I’d also have to wonder whether scientists would concur with North Carolina commercial fisherman James Fletcher’s conclusion that spiny dogfish are the root of all evil:
“What we miss by not including data prior to 1984 is the
understanding that Russian’s [sic] were fishing for dogfish, which allowed
bluefish to reach a high population level.
We are not managing any fishery right because of one predator. Is NMFS supporting the dogfish population to
throw off the management for all other species?”
Or with his thought that
“Maybe we need to look at our science differently. Can we pull regulations from bluefish
entirely? See if the fishery manages ok
on its own. I don’t know of any fishery
that has been fished to extinction.”
Clearly, those were exceptions, with most of the comments
being far better rooted in the facts, data, and common sense. But
my point is that off-the-wall comments are made, and can seem compelling to those who sit on
the Council and/or the ASMFC Bluefish Management Board, who take similarly bizarre and unsubstantiated positions.
Tom Fote, New Jersey’s Governor’s Appointee
to the ASMFC, and a member of the Bluefish Management Board, said
“In 1989 we put a 10 fish bag limit in it was not due to
stock status. A few years later the
stock declined, but it was due to the sand eel population declining. In the 1960s through the 1980s bluefish were
feeding heavily on sand eels. In the
1990s bluefish were no longer looking healthy and well fed because of warming
waters and less bait. The fish go
further offshore to be in colder waters.
We know these issues are environmental and bluefish have gone through
these cycles. We are at about the
75-year average population. Now, we changed
the limits again and its due to stock status.
I see that we are going to put a lot of commercial and recreational
fishermen through unnecessary suffering, because we know that the stock depends
on forage species, and forage species are moving because the water is warm.”
I’m not sure exactly what that all means, and I’m not sure
that the speaker does, either. I can
pick out two facts: bluefish were
feeding on sand eels during the ’60s ‘70s, and ‘80s, and the most recent
changes to bluefish bag limits did come about because the stock was overfished; the
rest appears to be pure speculation, uncomplicated by verifiable facts (do we even have reliable
bluefish stock assessments dating back 75 years?)
But the guy making the comments is actually allowed to vote on fisheries issues, and regardless of how rambling or scientifically
questionable his comments may be, his opinions can affect how fish are
managed. And with ASMFC-managed species,
out-there opinions, whether held by the public or by management board members,
can end up hurting fish stocks and the fishermen who pursue them.
Thanks to Magnuson-Stevens, and the constraints that it
places on Council actions, bluefish will be largely immune from such ravings. And thanks
to Council and ASMFC staff, who prepared the draft of the final reallocation
and rebuilding amendment, when the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
meets next Tuesday, they’ll be voting on a very workable amendment to the current
fishery management plan.
It's true tnat the Council and Management Board took no significant
steps toward managing for abundance, and the inter-sector transfer provision is
still in place. On the plus side, transfers
will no longer be permitted if the stock is overfished and overfishing is
occurring.
But far more important than that, we’re now looking at a
plan to rebuild the bluefish stock within just five years, half
of the 10-year maximum timeline included in Magnuson-Stevens.
John DePersenaire of the Recreational Fishing
Alliance complained that
“I previously asked about the absence of a 10-year rebuilding
plan option. It was explained that the [Magnuson-Stevens Act] requires that the stock be rebuilt as soon as possible,
and it was determined that the 10-year option was not appropriate. I do think that this is a significant concern
from out standpoint. This stock is responding
more to environmental and ecological cues as opposed to directed fishing
mortality. [NOTE: This is a questionable statement, given that
the 2019 operational assessment states “The bluefish stock has experienced a
decline in [spawning stock biomass] over the past decade, coinciding with
an increasing trend in [fishing mortality] [emphasis added]”, although DePersenaire's claim is one often repeated by those opposed to conservation-oriented bluefish management.]…We are
putting the burden of unnecessary pain on the fishermen…I really think the
10-year option should be included. I
also think the SSB rebuilding target is actually unattainable knowing that we
have never been at that level before.”
But, thanks to Magnuson-Stevens’ requirement that the stock
be rebuilt over a time that is “as short as possible,” such comments, which
might otherwise have found some receptive ears, could not delay or derail the
rebuilding process.
Similarly, the staff draft of the final amendment included a
provision that would, finally, impose management uncertainty at the sector
level. That only makes sense, given the uncertainty inherent in recreational
catch, landings, and effort data. Yet that provision, too, is opposed by the
industry and anglers’ rights crowd; the Center for Sportfishing
Policy, which frequently criticizes the Marine Recreational Information Program
for its alleged inaccuracy, doesn’t want MRIP’s uncertainty considered in
recreational bluefish management measures because
“The recreational sector has no ability to address the
uncertainty associated with MRIP catch estimates…Additionally, the public hearing
document does not provide any information on the level of uncertainty that may
be applied…or how such application would impact recreational regulations for
this fishery. Therefore, we believe
management uncertainty, which is controlled by the managers not the
stakeholders, should not be specific to each sector.”
When you think of it, even for an instant, that statement is truly bizarre, for the Center recognizes that uncertainty exists, and particularly that it
exists in relation to recreational data, but because anglers supposedly can’t control such uncertainty, it should be applied to the commercial sector, who not only also lack the ability to control recreational fishing data, but also have nothing to do with the recreational fishery.
Hard to get past the smell test on that one, but the recreational
industry and its fellow travelers were, with few exceptions, all in support of tarring the commercial sector with the recreational fishermen's brush.
Finally, Council and ASMFC staff preferred a couple of options that show that they really were listening to the angling community.
The draft final amendment’s preferred
allocation option would, for the first time, be based on catch,
not on landings, to reflect the importance of catch-and-release in the
fishery. While that change doesn’t
actually do what it sounds like—fish that are caught, but
successfully survive release are still not included—it does base the allocation
on the landings, plus dead discards, from each sector, and not merely on
landings, and thus represents the first small but significant step away from
purely yield-based management.
While that change is largely symbolic, given that the
inter-sector transfer provision is still in place, it is nonetheless an
important symbol that conservationists can build on in the future.
Equally symbolic, but still nice to see, is the staff
recommendation changing language that previously read
“Promote practices that reduce discard
mortality within the recreational and commercial fishery, [emphasis added]”
to
“Promote practices that reduce release
mortality within the recreational and commercial fishery, [emphasis added]”
While the draft final amendment isn’t a perfect document, it’s far better than what it might have been when the process began
three years ago.
There is still a fair chance that when the Council and Management
Board meet next Tuesday, they will yield to industry pressure and make changes
that will render the final amendment sent up to NMFS a less attractive document
than the staff-prepared draft. I worry
that the 5-year rebuilding time may be particularly vulnerable.
Even so, I know that there will be a
rebuilding plan put in place for next season, and I know that the
rebuilding period will be something less than ten years, even if individual Council members might prefer to drag things out for as long as they can.
Magnuson-Stevens assures us of that.
No comments:
Post a Comment