While I questioned the wisdom of that decision, it was made,
and will now govern the recreational black sea bass fishery in the mid-Atlantic
and New England through at least 2027. Last
Wednesday afternoon, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Summer
Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Management Board, acting pursuant to explicit
language in Addendum XXXII to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass
Fishery Management Plan, after substantial debate, adopted a
motion to distribute the 20% increase among the three black sea bass management
regions (Massachusetts-New York, New Jersey, and Delaware-North Carolina north
of Cape Hatteras), which read
“Move to approve to distribute the 20% coastwide
liberalization as follows:
·
Southern region 16.5%
·
Northern region not to exceed 27%
·
NJ region to receive the remaining
liberalization from the Northern and Southern regions.”
The motion passed on a vote of 10 in favor, none opposed,
and NOAA Fisheries abstaining.
Surprisingly, New
Jersey cast a “null vote” after its two delegates, fisheries manager Joseph
Cimino and Legislative Proxy Adam Nowalsky, couldn’t agree on a position, with
the former supporting the motion and the latter vehemently opposed.
In fact, Nowalsky was so opposed that he threw a little hissy
fit after the vote, lamenting that he had promised his constituents that they
would receive at least a 20% black sea bass increase, and was now going to have
to go back and tell them that they were going to get a little bit less.
He apparently wasn’t alone in his discontent, which was
shared by at least some other members of New Jersey’s recreational fishing
community. Jim
Hutchinson, Jr., editor of the New Jersey/Delaware edition of The Fisherman
magazine, described the outcome as
“New York and Massachusetts, these states, these fisheries managers,
were trying to get their grubby little hands into New Jersey’s pockets in order
to grab more black sea bass for their self-serving and arrogant reasons…The
anti-New Jersey sentiment once again bubbling over at the ASMFC, with other
states, the northern states, believe, well, they’d like to redistribute some of
that shared resource because—I don’t know—they think they deserve more, they’re
better than we are, and we don’t count…The states to the north decide that it
was time for a reallocation battle, because New Jersey has too much…ten other
states said ‘Let’s screw New Jersey’…New York and New England, they played
dirty pool.”
It was an entertaining diatribe, and undoubtedly appealed to
at least some members of the New Jersey fishing community. Unfortunately, it ignored both history and some
very explicit language in the relevant fishery management plan.
A provision of Addendum XXXII clearly states,
“In the event that a region is allowed to liberalize harvest,
states will develop their measures in a manner that collectively reduces
interregional disparities (e.g., states with relatively restrictive measures,
as determined by the [Technical Committee] based on performance, should
be allowed a larger liberalization, while states with relatively liberal measures
should take a smaller liberalization or remain at status quo)… [emphasis added]”
Given that language, there was really no reason to expect
that all of the regions would receive an equal percentage increase in
landings. In fact, looking at the differing
management measures across the states and the regions, it was clear that some
states/regions ought to be treated differently than others.
The regulations adopted by the states in the Northern region
vary in their details and their complexity, but all are relatively restrictive.
Massachusetts
has a 16.5-inch minimum size, 4-fish bag limit, and a season that runs from May
17 through September 1. Rhode
Island’s regulations are a bit more complicated, with a 16.5-inch minimum size
for shore-based and private-boat anglers, along with a 2-fish bag limit from
May 22 through August 26 and 3-fish bag for the remainder of the year, while anglers
fishing from party and charter boats enjoy a 16-inch minimum size, a 2-fish bag
from June 18 through August 31, and a 6-fish bag for the remainder of the year. In
Connecticut, there is a 16-inch minimum size for everyone, a 5-five fish bag
limit and a season that runs from May 17 through June 23, and again from July 8
through September 25 for shore-based and private-boat anglers, while those
fishing on for-hire vessels have a 5-fish bag limit from May 17 through August
31, and a 7-fish bag for the remainder of the year. New
York’s anglers are limited to a 16.5-inch minimum size, a 3-fish bag limit from
June 24 through August 31, and a 6-fish bag for the remainder of the year.
In the Southern region, the regulations are much more
consistent and far less restrictive, with Delaware,
Maryland,
Virginia,
and North
Carolina all having a 13-inch minimum size and 15-fish bag limit and
seasons that are nearly, but not completely, identical, running from May 15
through the end of the year, with a 10-day (21 days in Virginia) hiatus
sometime in in the middle.
Thus, based on the language of Addendum XXXII, the
Management Board acted properly when it distributed the 20% overall increase as
it did.
The history of black sea bass management, and the current
physical distribution of the black sea bass resource, further confirms the Management
Board’s decision as the right one.
To understand why, it’s necessary to go back to
the February 2018 meeting of the Management Board, when Addendum
XXX to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan, which created the three black sea bass management
regions, was adopted.
By 2018, it was very clear that black sea bass were
benefitting from a warming ocean, and pushing farther and farther north in
response to more favorable conditions. Prior
to 2003, about 80% of recreational black sea bass landings came from states
between New Jersey and Virginia, but that soon began to shift. In 2009, for the first time, the states
between Massachusetts and New York landed more black sea bass than the states
farther south, and by 2016, the landings pattern had completely reversed, with
the four northern states accounting for 83% of recreational black sea bass
landings.
It was simply a matter of anglers in the northeast catching
more sea bass because that’s where most of the black sea bass were.
But black sea bass management didn’t reflect the changes in
black sea bass abundance, inflicting disproportionately high restrictions on
the Northern region states (which up until 2018, included New Jersey). As noted in Addendum XXX,
“The northern region states have been subject to harvest
reductions in all years [between 2012 and 2017] except 2012 (liberalization)
and 2017 (status quo), while the southern region states have been largely
status quo. Approximately 96% of the
coastwide harvest comes from the northern region states…”
Addendum XXX was, in part, intended to provide more parity
between the two regions, so that the northern region wasn’t continually subject
to ever more restrictive regulations. At
the February 2018 Management Board meeting, Caitlin Starks, the ASMFC’s Fishery
Management Plan Coordinator for black sea bass, noted that
“the Addendum was initiated in response to several challenges
in recreational black sea bass management over the past several years; related
to inequities in harvest reductions and accountability for the effectiveness of
regulations…”
When the debate over the final shape of Addendum XXX began,
Dr. David Pierce, a Massachusetts fisheries manager, opined,
“I think the regional approach is the way to go. Along with our having a regional approach,
there is a need for us to follow through with what the organization, what the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has decided to do; not just for
black sea bass, but for the whole suite of species along the Atlantic coast,
and that is to address changes in distribution, distribution and abundance of
these different stocks…
“…I’m influenced by the fact that we have the latest
assessment on black sea bass; indicating that about 87 percent of the black sea
bass resource is found from New York to Massachusetts, and that’s a change from
the way it used to be…”
Dr. Pierce then made a motion to adopt regional management
and to base regional allocations on both exploitable biomass—that is, where the
fish are today—and historical harvest.
That motion passed.
Then Eric Reid of Rhode Island moved to base the historical
harvest on landings between 2011 and 2015, which more-or-less reflected the
current spatial distribution of the stock (recall that northern landings
exceeded southern landings for the first time in 2009, and that the states
between New York and Massachusetts landed 83% of the fish in 2016).
Of course, basing the regional allocation on where the fish were
in 2018 (and still are today), rather than on were they were a decade or more
before, would have resulted in a substantial cut for New Jersey, so before Mr.
Reid could even rise to speak in support of his motion, New Jersey’s Nowalsky raised
an objection, making the argument that
“what has really driven this fishery in recent years is a
2011 year class; and to go ahead and essentially use this 5-year timeframe to
make an allocation decision, based primarily on a single year class…
“To say this is a year class, and we’re going to use that for
allocation. I can’t even fathom that…
“To that end I believe that the 2006 to 2015 10-year option
is something that is fair and reasonable; in terms of incorporating what an
allocation decision should be based on, a combination of history and current
conditions.”
He then moved to substitute the 10-year time period for the
5-year period suggested by Mr, Reid.
Of course, Nowalsky’s argument was completely fatuous. Mr. Reid suggested that the allocation be
based, in part, on historical landings from 2011 to 2015; the 2011 year class,
which at best might have been 4 inches long in 2011, wouldn’t have impacted that
year’s landings at all. By 2015, Massachusetts,
Rhode
Island, Connecticut,
and New
York all had all adopted a 14-inch minimum size for black sea bass, and since
at least one length-at-age chart developed by the State of Connecticut
indicated that a 4-year old fish—the age a fish spawned in 2011 would be in 2015—would
only be about 13.5 inches long (with some variation, as fish grow at different
rates), it wouldn’t appear that the 2011 year class would have much influence
on 2015 landings, either.
But Nowalsky’s claim, however inaccurate, was still enough
to divert the discussion from Mr. Reid’s motion to his own.
Mr. Reid was eventually given a chance to speak, at which
point he noted that the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Advisory
Panel had supported basing allocation on the 2011-2015 time period by a margin
of 8 to 1; he also noted that
“Generally speaking, the biomass is trending north and east;
and this timeframe will take that into account.
To me, ignoring those points would cause a bigger disconnect between management
and reality, higher angler frustration and higher discards.”
New York fishery manager John Manascalco supported Mr. Reid,
and opposed Nowalsky’s substitute motion.
“The 10-year timeframe doesn’t reflect the state of the
fishery. The state of Connecticut in the
last two years is the second largest black sea bass harvester in the four-state
northern region. Going back to 2006 up to
sometime in the early 2010s, they had no fishery.
“To adopt a time series that completely ignores the fact that
the fishery has changed so drastically, that some states that used to harvest
fish in the tens of thousands is now harvesting them in the many hundreds of
thousands. It is ignoring the vast
impact that would have, and the equity issue that would have to the north,
which has over the same time series, while the southern states remained at 12.5
inches, 200 days, a bag limit of 15 to 25 fish, has cut their seasons to no
spring season and no fall season, 3-5 fish when the majority of anglers have
access to the fishery, and continue to harvest the vast majority of fish on the
coast, even at 15 inches.”
Dr. Pierce also opposed Nowalsky’s motion, while rebutting
his claim that the 2011 year class was driving the seeming shift to the north.
“As noted already, the Advisory Panel was nearly unanimous in
supporting the shorter timeframe. They
said the fishery is changing very fast.
They have said that it’s very different from beyond five years ago.
“Our focus should be on change and distribution of this
resource; and the first motion that was adopted got to that particular point. I’ll emphasize as well that biomass started
shifting to the north before the 2011 year class. We’re not talking just about the 2011 year class;
it’s more than that.”
Mark Alexander, a Connecticut fisheries manager, added
“I won’t reiterate what John Manascalco said, but it’s
true. Our harvest has increased
dramatically. The abundance index in our
trawl survey has increased dramatically.
But that increase has only been over the past four or five years. Like John said, we had almost no harvest in
Connecticut prior to that.
“The second thing is that in choosing [the five year base
period], the Board has wanted to take this in a new direction; so that current
abundance is reflected in how we approach management. I think the shorter time period is more
consistent with that approach; and for that reason I will oppose the motion to
substitute.”
The southern states, which would end up with higher landings
under Nowalsky’s motion, gave it their support, even after Mr. Manascalco put
some more facts on the table.
“After bias correction for 2015, the regional [fishing
mortality rate] for the north was well below [the fishing mortality rate that would
produce maximum sustainable yield]. After
bias correction for the south, the regional [fishing mortality rate] was above
[the fishing morality rate that would produce maximum sustainable yield]. The north under constant catch was forced to
constrain, constrain, constrain, or try to constrain harvest, 15-inch size
limits, and things I’ve already spoken to; while the south was allowed to
remain at 12.5 inches, 200 plus days, and large bag limits.
“Here we are again; and if I look at these tables, the
outcomes of this regional allocation we’re about to make is going to what, if
we accept or adopt 2006 to 2015, yet another cut for the northern states, the
region that is well below the [fishing mortality rate that would produce
maximum sustainable yield]; where at the same time, Delaware through North Carolina
will be allowed to liberalize by as much as 36.75 percent. That doesn’t sound like that is sound
management.”
But Nowalsky’s motion wasn’t about the facts, or about fish
distribution, or about changing patterns of catch. It was not about anything resembling
objective truth. It was about landing as
many fish as possible in New Jersey and the states to its south, regardless of
changing conditions. So when he saw the
arguments arrayed against him, Nowalsky called for a brief recess, and when
that recess was over, began blowing smoke.
“…We’ve talked a lot this week. We’ve heard this word compromise, working together. We’ve dealt with some recent appeals, and the
challenges of those. I just can’t help
but think that if we get out of here with something that is more than a 6-4
decision or something, is better for all of us to take home. To take something home because I convince one
more person to vote for me rather than you did, I just don’t think it reflects
well on this body. I think that this
approach of splitting something here down the middle is a reasonable
compromise, is within the spirit that the Commission is trying to convey, and I
can support this approach moving forward.”
Shortly thereafter, he withdrew his original motion, and put
a new motion forward, that more or less averaged out the allocations resulting
from the 5-year and 10-year base periods, and would give a 61.35% allocation to
the north, and a 38.65% allocation to the south, and give New Jersey more than
three-quarters of the southern allocation.
The new motion had the support of New Jersey and the
southern states, leading to Mr. Manascalco resignedly admitting that the
northern states were backed into a corner.
“…I do have an issue with the fact that we’re in a situation
here where there are four northern states.
Essentially, given the current management structure, the way we have
chosen to split up regions because of the way fisheries occur.
“Northern states will never have the votes to get fair access
to the resource. I don’t want that to be
lost on anyone here. Four states, for
votes. It’s never going to do it when
there are ten people sitting around the table.
We will be talking about [annual catch limits] in a little while. Northern states are going to take a look at
the number of fish that they have to work with; and they’re going to be forced
to make decisions about it. Oh, do I
need to consider going up in size again, going to 16 inches? We’re talking about increasing discards just
to maintain the fishery we currently have.
“I’ll remind you New York has no spring, Massachusetts has no
fall, 3 fish, 5 fish, and we’re going to be further restricting these
fisheries. In order to maintain just
what we have, consider we’ll have to be entertaining an increase in size limit
and more discards.”
That was the unvarnished truth, but neither biological nor
management truths had much to do with how the issue would be decided. As Rhode Island’s Mr. Reid observed,
“I don’t need to go to two decimal points to count 6 to
4. That is my problem. I do appreciate the fact that we just spent a
lot of time trying to cooperate. When you’re
bargaining from a losing position to start with, it really doesn’t make you all
that comfortable. What is going to
happen in the north is going to be the discard rate is going to be so high that
the payback for us is going to make it more foolish than it is now.
“This is where we’re going; and that’s where we’re going to
say we’re going to do. We all know. We all know what happens. Those fish are going to go over the side, we’re
going to have to pay them back, and we’re going to go down again…
“…this is going to create waste that is going to be
insurmountable for the northern states; until we redo all this again…In our
first action today the northern region already lost 100,000 fish. That’s what we lost already. We started out the day we’re down 100,000
fish.
“…That doesn’t work for me.
That’s not what it’s about.
Cooperation is great; and I really do appreciate that. But we’re not going to get anything that’s
close to being acceptable to us.
“I understand that it is allocation; and my partners to the
south, God bless you, you’re going to get fish that you probably don’t need…
“Just be aware that if we go down even this road here, I mean
okay we lose, but we don’t lose that much at 6 to 4, because that’s where we’re
at…Today all we’re going to do is create waste.
I’m glad we all had a nice kumbaya moment yesterday, but we’re not
having it today.”
And he was right.
Nowalsky’s motion passed 6 to 4, with 2 abstentions, as New Jersey and
the southern states clung on to all the fish that they could, despite the fact
that the center of black sea bass abundance had moved to the north. And the northern states remained subject to unduly
restrictive management measures for another decade, even though they had a plethora
of black sea bass residing right off their shores.
Last Wednesday, the Management Board recognized the inequities
that resulted from their previous action, and not only all of the southern
states, but even New Jersey’s primary marine fisheries manager, voted to
provide some relief for the northern states.
So no, the northern states didn’t “grab more black sea bass
for their self-serving and arrogant reasons,” as The Fisherman’s
Hutchinson has claimed. They didn’t “think…they’re
better than” New Jersey. They didn’t say
“Let’s screw New Jersey” or plan “dirty pool.”
They just sought a little justice in resource allocation,
and finally collected on a debt that the Management Board incurred a full
decade ago, although what they received won’t undo the hardships suffered by
black sea bass anglers in the northeast over the past decade.
But it is still more than they had ever gotten before.
No comments:
Post a Comment